Neil Young: 'It's Time to Get Real on Carbon'
Photo credit: Danny Clinch
(Click photo to enlarge)
On the eve of Neil Young's Hurricane Sandy Benefit Concert in Atlantic City, he has written an editorial on MPG regulations, saying they are insufficient for the challenges ahead.
From Why MPG Goals Are Flawed | huffingtonpost.com:
We must move away from high carbon fossil fuels now and we need laws that encourage and reward American ingenuity to do that.
The government must step away from the cozy relationships with oil producing companies and start to see the future of America is low carbon fuels and machines to use them. Our government is not addressing the needs of our planet by simply mandating that we use less gasoline.
It is clear that we are not going to be able to survive a constant barrage of "Sandy"-like global warming super storms. By the time we finish rebuilding from one there will be another and another. We need to address the cause with reasonable laws that encourage change and responsibility.
by thrasher@PermaLink: 12/07/2012 05:01:00 PM
5 comments
>> Pre-Order on Amazon.com << 
Human Highway
Concert Review of the Moment
This Land is My Land
FREEDOM In A New Year
*Thanks Neil!*
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.thrasherswheat.org/gifs/free-speech.gif)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Neil Young
Pardon My Heart
"We're The Ones 
Thanks for Supporting Thrasher's Wheat!
This blog 
(... he didn't kill himself either...)
#AaronDidntKillHimself
Neil Young's Moon Songs
Civic Duty Is Not Terrorism
Orwell (and Grandpa) Was Right
What's So Funny About 
5 Comments:
Thanks for the statement, Neil. I agree with your assessment. I've been driving hybrids since 2000. I'm continually thoughtful of how my choices affect greenhouse emissions and resource consumption. We must remember that the people can steer the product field with our demand. We can help our family and friends understand that they have choices to make in their use of energy and resources. For the most part, the power is in our hands. We can choose energy efficient products. We can choose to conserve energy and resources by using resusables instead of consumables, and by waiting to make trips til we have multiple stops. Every action we take counts twice: A good choice registers as a benefit in the carbon tally, whereas a bad choice registers a detriment (you lose the gain and tally a detriment, for a double wammy!) It just makes sense to make these smart choices. I mean, why not? So you can be more stylish lumbering down the road in your Hummer? So you can walk around your house in the winter in shorts and T-shirt by setting your thermostat higher? (wear some extra clothes) The US and China as well as many other heavy carbon countries are in a pissing match staredown, unwilling to commit to real plans for real reductions. This is foolish and unnecessary. I am very proud of the European countries that are willing to do the right thing regardless of the economic disadvantage it provides them. Yes Neil, we need to get very real about reducing our greenhouse emissions.
I agree with everything Neil says about the positive benefits that would result were we to go the route he suggests, and his conclusions about the realities involved. I also agree with most of what you say, Kimball. However, I do not agree with the implied assumption that fossil fuels and carbon emissions are at the center of the global warming issue. At most, and even this is a tenuous notion, it could be argued that carbon emissions only aggravate the underlying cause(s) of global warming. Without going into all the various alternative explanations, and I have drawn my own conclusions, I'll say just this: when someone can come up with a logical explanation as to how every planet in the solar system is experiencing warming, as well as magnetic field disruptions, in the absence of fossil fuel emissions, then I will be all ears.
But let’s pretend for a moment that global warming didn't exist. I would still make the argument that we should do a 180 degree turn away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear (and yes, much of wind and electric- they both have inherent problems), because all of these are unnecessary in the face of the potential that solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, and even industrial hemp represent, and all are clean and inexhaustible sources of energy. As against these alternatives, things like fracking and nuclear are obscene. Add to these the real possibility of recreating Nikola Tesla's free energy technologies, as well as a huge reinvestment in mass transit systems, and we would really be off to the races.
Yes, there would be huge costs in the transition, and huge infrastructure difficulties, but I would pay for all of it with government investment incentives and grant money to industry and academia, funded by the trillions of dollars that would otherwise go toward the "war on drugs" (as if there were any real intent to eliminate drugs), the vast majority of military expenditure wasted on a manufactured and bogus terrorist threat (or any other geopolitical wars of fortune, by any other name), or any number of other instances of government malfeasance. It would take some time, and in the meantime every effort towards conservation should be stepped up, but in the end new industries and new jobs would be created that would be a viable and morally defensible alternative to the war economy, and give us a real chance to be good stewards of the earth and human health. On top of all this, every country on earth would have near equal access to all of the above, and therefore would be impervious to the global elites that have been sucking the planet dry dating back at least as early as the industrial revolution.
Like most other things, all of this is not impossible, were there to be a good faith effort involved. But now we're talking about the elephants in the room- vested interests, globalism, and the enemy within the gates that makes it all possible- usurious and unconstitutional central banking, e.g. the Federal Reserve.
This is a huge discussion that can be viewed across every line and on every level, and obviously I am generalizing, but fossil fuels are bad for human health, and bad for the environment. No time like the present to make the change, and create jobs and a viable economy in the bargain, even in the face of bogus theories ...
A Friend Of Yours
Kimball & Greg - Many thanks for your sincere thoughts.
We can all agree to disagree here. For us, having a thoughtful discussion on the topics of our times is what we appreciate most.
peace
" Oil Rich Indians in space "
A Human Highway that points the finger , but still wants to drive with fuel to burn at a dollar ninety nine ...... Eh !
Our planet citizenship has long been dealing with issues surrounding our historical addiction to petroleum. Like other issues in our human history, it is one step at a time. I appreciate the efforts any human bean is making to help their fellow human beans and the planet we share...but I don't agree that the mileage is flawed. It is a step in the right direction to encourage clean and energy efficient lifestyles.
Not one more drop of blood, Neil, unless you're willing to lead the revolution this time and overthrow a government that for the first time in history is atoning for the sins of self righteousness and greed...
Post a Comment
<< Home