Download Yeomans Letter 11

STRAIGHT TALKING
On Ending Global Warming
March - April Letter 11
Allan Yeomans
Australia
Author of PRIORITY ONE Together We Can Beat Global Warming
THE CLIMATE WARS?
If a foreign country was doing this much damage to us as is global warming and climate change
we would go to war to protect ourselves. And it would be justified.
Like all wars we pretend or hope it might just go away. But it hasn’t and it won’t. This time the
stakes are higher than they have ever been in any war, ever. Loosing means centuries of hardship
for dozens of generations. And that includes us.
It’s the Global Warming War, the Climate Change War, the Atmosphere War or a war against
fossil fuels or whatever you wish to call, but it’s a deadly serious war. Even James Lovelock,
author of the Gaia Hypothesis finally relented, and in 2003 conceded that global warming has to
be considered as being potentially as damaging as a world nuclear war.
Reality is that winning the war to save the world’s weather stability means putting the oil and
fossil fuel industries out of business. And that’s not an option they happily support.
In this war the battlefield is the world media. Which way public perceptions of climate change
issues go, determines the winner. Politicians tend to follow public opinion, not create it.
To an outsider from another planet it would seem that humans are willing to play a game of
Russian Roulette with their entire planet – and apparently all for no sane nor logical reason.
In this Climate War a small, but rich and powerful group of people, consisting of the
shareholders and sheiks that own the oil and gas and fossil fuel industries are on side of the battle
lines. On the other side is us, and the health, and wealth, and well being of the majority of the
population of this very Earth of ours.
Why are our causalities already so high? What’s happening? Why is it happening?
Trapping heat near the Earth’s surface simultaneously reduces heat input to the upper
atmosphere and cold temperatures are generated at much higher altitudes than previous. Hot air
at the bottom, colder air up top, the warm air rises to greater altitudes and accelerates as it does.
Sharply increased velocities in vertical air current are the automatic result. The velocity and
violence of storm type activity is in consequence, dramatically increased.
Along with this, the changing relative ground temperatures around the world creates different,
unpredictable and unreliable weather patterns. Farming can’t plan its crops. Their risks get out of
hand. Droughts and floods occur where they have never been seen before.
Sea levels rise firstly from the simple volumetric expansion of ocean water as sea temperatures
slowly and inexorable rise. The now obvious melting of the world ice fields adds more water to
generate yet higher sea levels. Coastlines and low level adjacent land areas will continue to
experience escalating ocean related catastrophes with ever increasing violence and severity as
sea levels continue climbing. Also frightening is that major world ocean currents seem to be
destabilizing. What will that mean and who will be affected and how much will that cost us?
The frequency, the death rates, the material cost and the hardships of freakish world weather will
continue to escalate as we continue to lose the Climate War.
It’s time to fight back.
Technically ending global warming and halting climate change is actually easy, it’s also
practical, it’s cost effective and it’s safe. No esoteric, hypothetical Star wars inventions are
required. We can do it. In a nut shell we switch our civilization over to nuclear energy for power
and we switch to biofuels for transport. And concurrently, to remove the excess carbon dioxide
that has already accumulated in the air over the last half century, the carbon dioxide that is now
causing our immediate problems, we switch, large scale, to a chemical free soil fertility
enhancing type of agriculture ; world wide. Enhancing soil fertility automatically sucks carbon
dioxide out of the air. Fundamentally that’s what rich soil humus is made of. Fixing soil is totally
feasible and so terribly necessary
For the oil and other fossil fuel producers and for the agrochemical companies, these are not
options they happily support. Logically they would never graciously permit such scenarios to
come into being. Tactics for the creation of a compliant public perception that suited and suits
their agenda have been operating for over 40 years. With nuclear energy the public perception
now sees nuclear power stations as more dangerous than coal or oil or gas, and more dangerious
it seems than even global warming with its catastrophic climate change.
Their public relations gurus have been clever. Nuclear waste is now seen as an horrific,
dangerious and deadly commodity, and its disposal as a totally unsolvable problem. It is
endlessly promoted and now blithely believed that nuclear waste has subtle and unknowable
dangers. Horrors that will last for countless millennia. Yet when compared to almost all other
power generation systems these portrayed dangers are minute and meaningless, and are based on
doctored and massaged facts and fictions. They have been clever for these images are trusted and
believed by almost all who are unfamiliar with the actual science and engineering technology
involved in nuclear power generation.
It would be actually much safer for us to have terrorists take over a nuclear power station than
for terrorist to take over a major city oil and gas terminals.
“The great mass of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one”
Adolf Hitler Mein Kamph 1925.
The oil industries program to eliminate the biofuel threat is currently in full swing. Initially there
was a public relations campaign, saying automobiles would be somehow damaged fueling up on
biofuel blends. Signs were posted “guaranteed not to contain ethanol” to reinforce doubts. That
campaign has been moderately successful and a lot of motorist now harbor a lingering and
nagging suspicion that biofuels have some inherent but unspecified “problem”. But continued
promotions on that theme is itself risky as back up evidence is too hard to fabricate, disputing the
danger claims is too easy, and automobile manufactures themselves claim otherwise. So
prolonged insistence on vague inherent dangers has ceased; probably to avoid sacrificing oil
industry credibility.
Influencing governments to legally limit ethanol content in motor fuels to less than 10% to
“protect motorists” has had notable success. Laws specifically limiting ethanol content in fuels
now exist in many countries.
It is strangely logical for the oil industry to refrain from objecting, or even to give active support
to grain ethanol production. Grain is a nutritious food crop. Grain ethanol production takes food
out of the mouths of the poor. Or at the very least it increases the price of food products. A
public relations issue on food shortages and pricing can follow and public opinion can blithely
accept the anti-ethanol public relations campaign. Cane sugar, because we harvest sap not
nutritious editable seeds, is a huge threat to the oil fuel industry. In the wet tropics it’s also
cheap and easy to produce. Two thousand gallons to the hectare is common. The oil industry’s
best answer is to have tropical rainforest land quarantined off from such use. So we are
encouraged, and legislation is regularly enacted to “protect tropical rainforests”. To assist in this
quarantine process tropical rainforest are promoted as active carbon dioxide sinks and also
producers of free oxygen. Biology says otherwise. Biology says tropical rainforests are nett
producers of greenhouse gasses – notably methane. They are not absorbers.
It is also wise for the oil industry to fund and support any academic researcher who suggests
rainforest ecosystems are necessary for human survival.
It would also be logical to manufacture and image that biofuel production is somehow dependent
on fossil fuel and petrochemical inputs. Have tame scientists promote these views in respected
and supposedly factual and unbiased scientific journals. And that seems to be the case. Science,
(the journal of the American Society for the Advancement of Science), Scientific American and
the UK publication New Scientist appear to be compliant publications in their criticism of
biofuels production.
It is also logical to back the major world environmental movements to ensure they keep global
warming and climate change out of their agenda and absent even from their mission statements.
Read them for this is what they have done.
It would be marketing madness for the oil and other fossil fuel industries to not do whatever they
can to win their war to survive and prosper. It has worked for the tobacco companies but tobacco
companies are very small by comparison.
We have to decide now, for we can stop it. We may lose some biodiversity in the Amazon.
And then, as with any industrial enterprise, nuclear energy will have its accidents. But we have
already seen the worst possible. Which we now know was caused by incredibly lax management,
under apparently idiotic circumstances, coupled with incredibly irresponsible design. But even
then, compared to fossil fuel accidents, the death from Chernobyl was minuscule. But the payoff
is that global warming will end quickly; and all it entails can no longer hurt us.
Or we can stay with oil, and the other fossil fuels, and save the wealth and power of the oil
companies and oil producing countries. And pretend we are staving off the disasters of climate
change by playing with a better light bulb and chasing three extra miles per gallon of gasoline.
Do so and we let them win. Do so and you let them win.
[
If this makes sense to you, then forward it to who ever you think should read it.
Or maybe to everybody in your address book.
Or if you prefer send me the email addresses of everybody you feel should
receive copies and I’ll send them direct.
If you want more information go to our URL www.yeomansconcepts.com.au.
And look things up in my book “PRIORITY ONE Together We Can Beat Global
Warming”.
It’s free to read online.
It’s also available at www.Amazom.com and www.Amazon.com.uk
If you want, email me, Allan Yeomans at [email protected] or phone me at 61
(Australia) then area code 7 then 55923017. Time wise I’m about seven hours behind your US
time.
For general comments by Allan Yeomans, See allexperts.com a/q/Global-warming-Climate-3851/ - 23k
( “AllExperts” is part of The New York Times)].