We're doomed: Humans living far beyond the planets means according to that objective environmental organization the WWF (World Wildlife Federation, not to be confused with the World Wrestling Federation):
Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday. Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report. "For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
Probably many of the same people are still in the WWF that made the prediction that because of overpopulation the battle to feed humanity would be over and there would only 500 million people left after the famine hit....in the 1970s. Speaking of living beyond their means, I wonder if they included this guy in their report:
Former Vice President Al Gore appeared in Berkeley on Monday to lend his celebrity and reputation as a crusader against global warming to a measure on California's Nov. 7 ballot that would tax oil companies to raise $4 billion for green energy projects. ``I'm here to change peoples' minds on the climate crisis and to support Prop 87,'' Gore called to a group of reporters after he emerged from the ``100 miles per gallon'' Toyota Prius that brought him to a noontime rally in a sun-drenched park behind Berkeley's City Hall. His motorcade also included three motorcycles, two limousines and a Dodge Ram 1500 light duty truck.
Sort of cancels out the Prius doesn't it?As I've said before I could drive three Hummers at once and wear radioactive pants and still pollute less than that fucktard....Newsweek's apocolyptic predictions of the coming Ice Age in the '70s were wrong, but by god they've got Global Warming nailed down now:
In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.
A Picture is Worth a Bazillion Words:
...and should scare the piss out of anyone with half a brain...
Now that we have the much ballyhooed "timetable" will our friends on the Flowering Left (who have been so stridently demanding it) criticize it as "cut and run?"
The US military commander in Iraq, General George Casey, has said the country's own armed forces should be able to take over security responsibility within the next 12 to 18 months.
How to tell when you're doing something right:
Lieberman Blasted on All Sides at Debate
Brilliant insight:
Media pundits have just about given this year's election to the Democrats -- at least in the House of Representatives and perhaps in the Senate as well. They might even be right, for a change. Some are saying that this could be like the 1994 midterm election shocker when the Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. If so, the Democrats will win by following the exact opposite strategy from that which brought the Congressional Republicans to power in 1994. The Republican strategy, crafted by Newt Gingrich, was to spell out their stands on key issues and to promise to bring those issues to a vote in Congress. They called their agenda "The Contract with America." It is now clear to all that this year's Democrats are deliberately avoiding spelling out any coherent policy program of their own. Their strategy is to second-guess, denigrate and undermine Republicans instead of offering an agenda of their own. Rather than having a contract with America, they are seeking a blank check from America. Moreover, they may get it. One of the ironies of this election is that it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives who seem most likely to pay the biggest price for the disaffection of Republican voters -- when in fact it was the House Republicans who stopped both the Senate Republicans and the White House from making mass amnesty the law of the land.
I love this:
Senate Republican leaders deserve whatever happens to them. If this election were about the fate of one political party rather than another, it would hardly be worth thinking about.
sadly, the only thing worse than a Senate Republican is a Senate Democrat, I'm sick of the Senate Republicans and their constant quest for collegiality you know the riff, the -- my good friend on the other side of the aisle -- Arlen Specter bullshit, while the Senate Democrat happily stabs them in the back and gets his or her way or runs to the podium screaming to the press about the whiff of fascism if a Senate Republican dares stand up to them.
|
