Stephen Cohen on the Thom Hartmann Show

VIDEO: Stephen Cohen Takes to Task Western Media Hushing up New Cold War

The general western public is being kept oblivious to the dangers their current crop of leaders are leading them to.

Russia Insider,
14 June, 2016

Originally appeared at East West Accord

Thom Hartmann speaks with Professor Stephen Cohen of The Nation about Russia, NATO, and our mainstream media’s refusal to report on the New Cold War.

Former US Ambassador to USSR, Jack F. Matlock Jr., Slams Current US Efforts to Restart Cold War

'I am deeply concerned with the direction U.S.-Russian relations has taken of late'

Russia Insider,

15 June, 2016

Originally appeared at East West Accord

On Tuesday, Ambassador Jack Matlock testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Amb. Matlock told the Committee that he is “deeply concerned with the direction U.S.-Russian relations has taken of late. The mutual accusations and public acrimony has at times been reminiscent of that at the height (or depth!) of the Cold War.” The entire written testimony can be found here:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

Thank you for your invitation to join these distinguished scholars to discuss the important issue of U.S. relations with Russia. Ambassador McFaul co-authored a fine book which is required reading for my students of U.S.-Russian relations at Duke University. He is also, of course, one of my successors as American Ambassador in Moscow and I am envious that he had a much larger staff to deal with Russia than I `had for the entire Soviet Union. I have long been impressed by Dr. Cohen’s research. He and I once were mutually supportive when we were the only Americans participating in a security conference in Moscow in the 1990s. It is an honor to join them in this discussion.

I am deeply concerned with the direction U.S.-Russian relations has taken of late. The mutual accusations and public acrimony has at times been reminiscent of that at the height (or depth!) of the Cold War. Yet the issues are quite different. The Cold War was fundamentally about ideology: the attempt of the Communist-ruled Soviet Union to spread its control of other countries by encouraging what Karl Marx called “proletarian revolutions” against existing governments. The Soviet leaders called their system “socialist,” but it was actually state- monopoly capitalism that tried by replace market forces with government fiat. It was a catastrophic failure in meeting people’s needs, but managed to build a formidable—and in some respect, unmatched—military power.

Today’s tensions are not about ideology. Russia is now a capitalist country and is not trying to spread communism in the world. Today’s tensions are more like those that, through incredible misjudgment, brought on World War I. That is, competition for control of territory in and outside Europe. We know how it ended; every European country involved suffered more than they could possibly have gained.

Competition over territory was bad enough a century ago. Since World War II, however, the danger has risen exponentially if countries with nuclear weapons stumble into military conflict. The number of nuclear weapons that remain in U.S. and Russian arsenals represent a potential existential threat to every nation on earth, including specifically both Russia and the United States.

So how did we end the Cold War and reduce this threat? One key element was an agreement that President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev made in their very first meeting. They agreed on a statement that Reagan had made in two previous speeches: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” And then they added, since both countries were nuclear powers, “That means, there can be no war between us.” With that statement agreed, Secretary of State George Shultz was able to argue convincingly that an arms race between us was absurd. We could not fight each other without committing suicide, and what rational leader was going to do that? In just a couple of years we had abolished a whole class of nuclear weapons in our arsenals, and shortly thereafter cut strategic nuclear weapons in half.

In concluding the New Start agreement, the Obama administration made an important contribution to our national security, but since then nuclear cooperation with Russia has deteriorated and seems practically non-existent. It is urgent to restore that cooperation if we are to inhibit further proliferation. We are unlikely to do so if we proceed with plans to increase our military presence in Eastern Europe.

I am aware that one of our presumptive candidates for president has indicated that he might find some form of nuclear proliferation desirable. I believe that is profoundly mistaken, as is the idea that allies should pay us for their protection. I do not believe we should use our fine military as hired gendarmes to police the world, even if those protected were willing to pay the costs. These comments, however, do reflect one important truth, and that is that military alliances can create liabilities rather than augmented power. The larger an alliance becomes, the more varied will be the security ambitions of its members. When our interests are not closely aligned, an American security guarantee can create a moral hazard. What is to keep an “ally” from picking a fight unnecessarily and then expecting the United States to win it for him? To some degree, this may be happening already. To take just one contemporary example, I have trouble finding much concurrence between American security interests and Turkish behavior.

Yes, when we have made commitments, we must honor them. But we must be more careful and selective about taking on liabilities. And some of our alliances, formed under the different conditions of the Cold War, should be reviewed. Perhaps it is time to have a European commander of NATO and a supportive role for the United States.

I have views on how we might deal with Russia on current issues such as Ukraine and Syria, democratization and human rights, and will share them if you wish. I believe there are dignified ways we can reduce tension with Russia on those issues and others. However, the main thing we should bear in mind is that in confronting the greatest dangers to civilized life in this century such as terrorism, failed states, organized crime, and environmental degradation, U.S. and Russian basic interests do not conflict. As we deal them, as we must, Russia will either be part of the problem or part of the solution. It is obviously in our interest to do what we can to encourage Russia to join us in confronting them. They are unlikely to do so if they regard us as an enemy, or a competitor for influence in their neighborhood.

Above all, however, we must return to the position Reagan and Gorbachev set out: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and that means there can be no war between us.” To act on any other principle can create a risk to our nation—and the world—of unimaginable gravity.

Towards mass extinction

Another chilling report by Thom Hartmann who quotes Sam Carana's blog "The Arctic-news blog" about our unfolding extinction event obviously prompted by Dr. James E. Hansen's latest paper.

Thom posits that;

" If we to don't get started we too might go the way of the dinosaurs". Thom fails to grasp the 10 to 20 year lag in cause and effect.

Whilst Thom discusses the methane threat he gives no reason why we won't go extinct. We are emitting carbon at the rate of 10 times more than the PETM extinction. Games up folks, now the only debate is around how much time we have. Notice how many of these kinds of articles are being published just recently?

When not if the Arctic methane lets go it will be game over for this ecosystem in a very short time frame.

---Kevin Hester

Mass Extinction Is Closer Than You Know

Climate change is real, of course, but two new scientific papers out this past week say that it's happening a hell of a lot faster, and in a more dangerous direction, than scientists were even considering as a worst-case scenario just a few years ago. 

We need a rapid worldwide shift away from fossil fuels now - not even a decade from now, but today - and if we don't get started, we, too, may go the way of the dinosaurs

Tom Hartmann - the Crash of 2016

WARNING! Scary Economic Times Ahead...

Thom Hartmann shares some concerning economic news from The Aden Forecast and the Financial Times.

Thom Hartmann, "The Crash of 2016"

Dec 5, 2013

Looking at American history, Hartmann, host of The Big Picture, sees that roughly every four generations, catastrophe strikes. To avert the next economic and social disaster, he urges us to reject the destabilizing profit motives of corporations, and embrace the ideals of democratic civil values that once defined the nation.

Thom Hartmann interviews Michael Mann

Full Show 11/10/15: Understanding Climate Change: A Conversation with Michael Mann

Thom goes over the basics of what global warming is, what's causing it, and how we can stop it with climate scientist Michael Mann, author of the book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change.”

Tom Hartmann on sanctions

Katrina Vanden Heuvel is the editor of the Nation and wife of Prof. Stephen Cohen

Conversations w/Great Minds - Katrina Vanden Heuvel - Sanctions Don’t Work

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation Magazine joins Thom Hartmann.

For tonight’s Conversations with Great Minds - we’re going to take a closer look at the momentous decision by the Obama administration to normalize relations with Cuba. First announced on Wednesday - the move - which came after months of secret negotiations - is the most significant shift in American foreign policy towards Latin America in decades. 

Not surprisingly - it’s also causing a lot of controversy back here in the U.S. - with many Republicans slamming the president for what they say is another example of his “weakness” 

But what's the real deal with America's new policy towards Cuba? 

And who stands to benefit most from the end of one of the last remaining Cold War standoffs?

Stephen Cohen on Russia

A very important backgrounder from Prof. Stephen Cohen

Politics, Energy and the Fragile World Economy...

Thom Hartmann talks with Stephen Cohen, Contributing Editor-The Nation / Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies & Politics at NYU and Princeton (FYI..Stephen's book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, which examines the “New Cold War,” is available in paperback)

Moscow shifts to tougher economic relationship with Ukraine: PM Dmitry Medvedev

The Economic Times,

15 December, 2014

MOSCOW: Moving closer to the European Union offers no panacea for Ukraine's financial problems and will mean big losses in economic ties with Moscow, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said in an article published on Monday.

He said Moscow had for many years provided generous terms in deals with Kiev which had helped build up Ukraine's economy but the relationship would from now on be based on purely "rational and pragmatic" terms that put Russian interests first.

"We will no longer support the Ukrainian economy. It is a burden for us and to be honest, we are tired of it," he wrote in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a privately owned daily newspaper.

The article's publication coincided with a visit to Brussels by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk.

Relations between Kiev and Moscow have deteriorated since the overthrow in February of a Moscow-backed president who had spurned a trade pact with the EU. Russia then annexed the Crimea peninsula and sided with separatists in eastern Ukraine, and Kiev changed course back towards mainstream Europe.

Medvedev, long an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said Ukraine faced the possibility of economic and social collapse and the EU, which he accused of having a "neo-colonial" attitude to Kiev, was wary of granting it more financial assistance.

He said Kiev would struggle to meet EU industry standards and domestic products would be replaced by superior European goods once an Association Agreement deepening trade ties with the EU goes into force at the end of 2015.

EU membership may never come, he hinted, suggesting Kiev could be left waiting at the altar.

Reiterating earlier threats, he said a customs union grouping Russia and some other former Soviet republics would have to restrict the flow of goods from Ukraine to prevent cheap goods flooding their markets - costing Kiev about $15 billion.

Medvedev, who was president for four years until 2012, made clear Moscow would be tough in enforcing visa rules for Ukrainians working in Russia, causing this group a potential $11 billion-$13 billion loss of earnings.

Fukushima Radiation

Fukushima Radiation Still Hitting U.S. West Coast

Thom discusses how Gulf Coast fishermen are still feeling the effect of the BP oil spill with Attorney Scott Carruthers and how Fukushima radiation is still being discovered on the U.S. West Coast with Beyond Nuclear’s Kevin Kamps.

Tonight’s “Politics Panel” discusses Governor Kasich’s candid words on Obamacare, why the U.S. is not working with Cuba to control Ebola in Africa and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s scathing dissent of her colleague's decision to let Texas go ahead with it’s voter ID law. In tonight's “Daily Take”

Thom details how Libertarian policies are to blame for the lost generation.

The clathrate gun

The clathrate gun has fired and he is calling for a carbon tax!

The Giant Methane Monster Is Lurking

Thom Hartmann

Eco Watch,

7 July, 2014

There’s something lurking deep under the frozen Arctic Ocean, and if it gets released, it could spell disaster for our planet.

That something is methane.

Methane is one of the strongest of the natural greenhouse gases, about 80 times more potent than CO2, and while it may not get as much attention as its cousin CO2, it certainly can do as much, if not more, damage to our planet.

That’s because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and there are trillions of tons of it embedded in a kind of ice slurry called methane hydrate or methane clathrate crystals in the Arctic and in the seas around the continental shelves all around the world.

If enough of this methane is released quickly enough, it won’t just produce the same old global warming.

It could produce an extinction of species on a wide scale, an extinction that could even include the human race.

If there is a “ticking time bomb” on our planet that could lead to a global warming so rapid and sudden that we would have no way of dealing with it, it’s methane.

Right now, estimates suggest that there’s more than 1,000 gigatons—that’s a thousand billion tons—of carbon in methane form trapped just under the Arctic ice. And if stays trapped under the ice, we might have a chance.

But, thanks to the global warming that’s already occurring, Arctic sea ice is melting at unprecedented rates.

In fact, as Gaius Publius points out over at America Blog, just about every reputable projection on the loss of Arctic sea ice has been wrong in a very, very bad way.

The lack of sea ice cover in the Arctic that we’re seeing today wasn’t supposed to happen for 20+ more years according to 13 of the most accurate models.

As all that sea ice melts, the Arctic ice which once reflected sunlight and prevented global warming, becomes a very blue ocean that absorbs heat and causes even more melting.

And this all means that more and more methane is being released into the atmosphere much faster than expected, speeding up the process of global warming and climate change.

It’s all one big and vicious cycle, called a “positive feedback loop,” something that can spiral out of balance and control very quickly.

But here’s where it gets really scary.

Researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center have found that Arctic methane is leaking out from the ocean floor nearly twice as fast as was previously thought.

The researchers found that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is releasing at least 17 million tons of methane into the atmosphere each year.

Natalia Shakhova, one of the lead researchers on the study, said methane releases from the Arctic seafloor are, “now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra, which is considered to be one of the major sources of methane in the Northern Hemisphere.”

To put this in perspective, just seven years ago, estimates suggested that only 500,000 tons of methane were being released into Earth’s atmosphere each year. Now we’re measuring 17 million tons of it. Just in the Arctic.

Now, we can’t directly stop Arctic sea ice from melting and releasing methane into the atmosphere, but we can help stop what’s contributing to that melting in the first place: fossil fuel extraction.

Every day, the fossil fuel industry extracts more and more fossil fuels from the ground, releasing tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

That carbon dioxide warms our atmosphere, which hastens the melting of Arctic sea ice, and the release of even more dangerous methane into our atmosphere.

We need to be keeping the remaining methane right where it is, buried deep under a thick sheet of ice.

And a great way to accomplish that goal is by introducing a carbon tax.

Putting a price on the amount of carbon that the fossil fuel industry takes out of the ground would encourage less fossil fuel extraction, and more reliance on clean and green energy.

With a carbon tax, fossil fuels would become more expensive than renewables.

For every day that America’s fossil fuel industry pumps carbon pollution into our skies, our environment is deteriorating quicker, more and more Arctic sea ice is melting, and climate change and global warming are speeding up.

We have a chance right now to keep the giant methane monster that’s lurking under the Arctic Ocean right where it is, and save our planet in the process.

The time for a carbon tax in America is now!

Thom Hartmann on Iraq

Listen to Thom Hartmann interview a panel of 'experts'. The Iraqi commentator has a dfferent slant to the Americans

Full Show 6/16/14: Will U.S. and Iran Team Up on Iraq Crisis?

Thom Hartmann with Prof. Stephen Cohen

MUST-WATCH video – a full-hour discussion between Thom Hartmann of the Big Picture on RT and Prof emeritus Stephen Cohen on the current situation in Iraq and the crisis in Ukraine and the prospects for a new Cold War.

Stephen Cohen is the foremost authority on the political aspects of the West's war against Russia even if he does not have an understanding of the deeper context.

The New Cold War?

Thom Hartmann

The IPCC report is not only conservative but also makes no mention of methane or positive feedbacks. Safe to say time HAS run out for climate change

Time is running out for Climate Change

While the study hasn't been released yet - a draft of it has - and it's pretty stunning. 

The draft report from the International Panel on Climate Change - or IPCC - says that time is quickly running out for world powers to slash their use of fossil fuels and stay below the 2 degree Celsius limit on global warming that 200 nations agreed upon in 2010. More importantly - the draft suggests that we only have 15 years to take the proper actions needed to safely reach that global warming limit. 

We've waited long enough to address the climate change crisis - and in the process - we're already creating havoc. From superstorms - droughts - and killer cold- and heat-waves to the crop failures in the Middle East that touched off the Arab Spring - climate change is here - now. 

The Affordable Care Act was a big deal - but having a doctor does you no good when the entire human race is faced with extinction. We need to mobilize our nation the way we did for World War II and jump headlong into the 21st century - thus solving the problem of the world's largest polluter and providing an example for the rest of the world. 

And we need to start today.

The USS Ronald Reagan

Military poisoned by Fukushima radiation

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, joins Thom Hartmann. 

U.S Navy sailors onboard the USS Ronald Reagan were some of the first Americans to respond to the tsunami and nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan in 2011. 

Now - they're suing TEPCO - the company in charge of the stricken Fukushima Daichii nuclear power plant. At least 71 sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan have reported radiation sickness - and are suing TEPCO - alleging that the company knowingly downplayed the dangers of nuclear radiation at the Fukushima site. Of those 71 sailors - at least half have some form of cancer - according to the lawyer representing them. And other sailors are dealing with thyroid and reproductive health problems. 

So - did TEPCO knowingly mislead the world about the radioactive dangers at Fukushima immediately following the devestating tsunami - and could this lawsuit be the first of many to come?

Important material on climate change

‪Last Hours‬

Lasthours.org

The film “Last Hours” describes a science-based climate scenario where a tipping point to runaway climate change is triggered by massive releases of frozen methane. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has already started to percolate into the open seas and atmosphere from methane hydrate deposits beneath melting arctic ice, from the warming northern-hemisphere tundra, and from worldwide continental-shelf undersea methane pools.

Burning fossil fuels release carbon that, principally through greenhouse effect, heat the atmosphere and the seas. This is happening most rapidly at the polar extremes, and this heating has already begun the process of releasing methane. If we do not begin to significantly curtail the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, this freed methane threatens to radically accelerate the speed of global warming, potentially producing a disaster beyond the ability of the human species to adapt.

With this film, we hope to awaken people to the fact that the earth has experienced five major extinctions in the deep geologic past – times when more than half of all life on earth vanished – and that we are now entering a sixth extinction. Industrial civilization with its production of greenhouse gases has the potential to trigger a mass extinction on the order of those seen in the deep geological past. In the extreme, it could threaten not just human civilization, but the very existence of human life on this planet.

An asset for the climate change movement, “Last Hours” will be disseminated globally to help inform society about the dangers associated with climate change and to encourage the world community to chart a path forward that greatly reduces green house gas emissions. We encourage you to explore this website and the highlighted actions you can take to address climate change. We look forward to bringing you additional films about the challenges we face and the solutions that exist over the next few years, in the lead up to COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.

“Last Hours” is narrated by Thom Hartmann and directed by Leila Conners. Executive Producers are George DiCaprio and Earl Katz. Last Hours is produced by Mathew Schmid of Tree Media Foundation, and was written by Thom Hartmann, Sam Sacks, and Leila Conners. Music is composed and performed by Francesco Lupica.

Watch Thom Hartmann’s in depth interviews with scientists working on the front lines of climate change

1. GLOBAL WARMING: AN UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENT

Dr. Michael Mann, Climate Scientist

2. THE PERMIAN EXTINCTION

Dr. Paul Wignall, School of Earth and Environments-University of Leeds

3. THE SIBERIAN EXPEDITION – METHANE

Professor Benjamin Black, PhD-MIT Geology and Planetary Science

4. THE SLEEPING GIANT – ARCTIC ICE MELT

Dr. Charles Miller, CARVE Project-NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

5.CLIMATE CHANGE – THE STORY OF CARBON CYCLING & METHANE

Professor Gerald R. “Jerry” Dickens, Department of Earth & Science-Rice University. Global climate change means big changes for the climate – but could it also mean something worse?

6. CARBON IN THE ARCTIC

Dr. Charles Miller, Research Scientist & principal investigator of the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) – a five-year NASA-led field campaign studying how climate change is affecting the Arctic’s carbon cycle.

7. TIPPING POINTS & EXTINCTION EVENTS

Dr. Peter Ward, University of Washington joins Thom Hartmann. What can the mass extinctions of the past tell us about our future?

8. HOW MOST LIFE ON EARTH CAN DIE

Dr. Michael Benton, University of Bristol, UK. Dr. Benton focuses on the end-Permian mass extinction, the most severe of our planet’s five major extinction events. His most well-known papers on the subject was titled “How to kill almost all life: the end-Permian extinction event.”

 Download The Free PDF e-book

Opinion Piece

Opinion Piece

Discussing 

Thom Hartmann

by Seemorerocks

Thom Hartmann, in his introduction to his movie "Last Hours", comes as close as anyone in the mainstream with access to a wide audience, to telling us how things are. 

And he puts a date on irreversible climate change - 2047

On watching it I could immediately find reasons to fault it.

It is, for example, still couched in terms of “COULD',.

It still ignores the 20 + positive feedbacks that are ALREADY unleashed.

Yes, folk that means what it says – IRREVERSIBLE feedbacks. 

I could say he is off with his date - 2030 is the real date.

Actually the date is not his. He is referring to the findings of the authors of a publication published recently in Nature, Climate change gets clocked

He quotes the authors of the Nature article as saying that we can push this 2047 date back by immediately adopting alternative energy. However, he then qualifies this by posing the question "can we avoid passing the climate threshold?"

But he then becomes perhaps the first television presenter to mention the 'E' word - extinction. He proceeds to go into more detail about the Permian extinction and how the release of methane caused most of life on earth to disappear.

He has also carried out more detailed interviews with climate scientists and other experts such as Michael Mann, Dr Paul Wignall, Prof. Benjaman Black, Dr. Charles Miller, Prof Gerrald Dickens and Dr. Charles Miller.

You would think that this should bring some degree of recognition.

Yet, on his Facebook page this video comes with this assessment by Mike Ruppert:

“BRILLIANT AND DEVASTATING CLIP from Thom Hartmann. But hugely, hugely flawed.

“What Thom suggests here does not solve the problem in any way, shape or form. And, presented as a false/incomplete solution, it is extremely dangerous and ill-considered.”

"Solve the problem"?!

"Hugely, hugely flawed"

Here are Mike Ruppert's Facebook comments (repeated on today's Lifeboat Hour):

"BRILLIANT AND DEVASTATING CLIP from Thom Hartmann. But hugely, hugely flawed.

"What Thom suggests here does not solve the problem in any way, shape or form. And, presented as a false/incomplete solution, it is extremely dangerous and ill-considered.

"-- One day an alcoholic walks into a doctor's office. (Alcoholics are not known for rational behavior.) His head is bandaged. He's bleeding. He's carrying a bloody hammer.

"He says to the doctor, "Doctor, it hurts when I hit myself in the head with this hammer. Can you help me?"

"The doctor looks at him and says, "Stop hitting yourself in the head with a hammer."

"The alcoholic walks out of the office shaking his head and takes another whack saying, "There's got to be another way..."

"The cause of runaway global warming is the EMISSION and RELEASE of carbon into the atmosphere. The largest cause of that release is first and foremost the Human Industrial Paradigm of Infinite Growth. Therefore, if we want to survive, the FIRST imperative is to halt all industrial activity right now. Stop hitting ourselves in the head with the hammer. Shut down the factories. Shut down the coal mines. Shut down the agribiz corporations that feed us using ten calories of hydrocarbon energy for every calorie of (junk) food produced on our planet. Shut down everything (or almost everything) that emits or releases carbon on an industrial scale. Your Priuses mean NOTHING. Your bumper stickers mean nothing. Your solar panels mean just a little. Your wind means just a little. They do not confront the CAUSE of climate change which is emitting MORE AND MORE CARBON EVERY YEAR into the atmosphere than ever in history because HUMAN POPULATION IS STILL GROWING EXPONENTIALLY...

"Because that's what the INFINITE GROWTH MONETARY PARADIGM demands.

"Focusing all attention on conversion to alternative energies is FUTILE unless we first stop hitting ourselves in the head with the hammer, unless we stop exponential growth. All that would do -- according to laws like Jevon's Paradox -- is permit us to hit ourselves on the head with the hammer just a little while longer.

"There are one billion-plus internal combustion powered vehicles on the planet. Their use needs to be immediately and rapidly curtailed. Air traffic needs to be reduced by 90% or so. Rail traffic must be cut to absolute essentials. All mining and fracking operations must be stopped immediately. Industrial cattle ranching must be stopped since cow farts are the second-highest producer of methane known after rice paddies. (I think methane release from frozen tundra and seabeds may have blown these two out of the water now.) Coal-fired plants must be shut down. Uranium enrichment (a prolific emitter of carbon) must be stopped immediately... It's a very long list.

"To take any other approach is to condemn us all to extinction because we will NEVER have addressed the cause of the problem. As great people like Robert Hirsch have shown, humans have passed every opportunity to make a painless (or less painful) switch. You seem to be implying that we have the 30-40 years needed to make a conversion without dislocation.

"BULLSHIT! And if you cannot see that you are more dangerous that Barack Obama, Jaime Daimon or the Koch brothers. You pose as our friend. You are an alcoholic looking for a way to keep drinking and you are telling us it's OK to do that.

"So Thom, as much respect as I had for you, you just gave us a death sentence until you acknowledge that the first priority is the immediate cessation of industrial civilization.

"And what about the 25 positive feedback loops that have already been triggered and documented by Guy McPherson? You didn't mention those, or the really more scientifically precise and valid date for human Near Term Extinction of 2030?

"Until you change the way money works, you change nothing. The way money works is to place infinite growth and profit as the supreme commandment, the Prime Directive, overriding all other issues. If we keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep getting what we're getting.

"So, Thom you get a solid "B" for reaching people who might be waking up. Yet you are just as dangerous as Alex Jones. You get an "F--" for offering us any real solution that might save our lives by itself. You are a deceiver. If human industrial activity is the hammer we are killing ourselves with, you will not serve your fellow man until you find the courage and honor and integrity to tell us that we have to put down the hammer FIRST, at the same time as we convert to alternatives as quickly as possible. Because by offering just the second half we are going to not become 50% dead and 50% alive.

"Half measures avail us NOTHING" -- They do not avail us 50% benefits. You can do so much better Thom Hartmann."

Find your balls. Or does your paycheck depend on you not telling the truth and telling us it's OK to continue the binge of Infinite Growth?


Here is a transcription of the offending comments: 

"Of course this doesn't have to happen. The scientists who worked on the Nature study estimated that we cut our CO2 emissions by just a little bit we can put off that 2047 bit by 22 years, to 2069.


"We may be able to prevent permanent damage to the planet if we press for renewable energy, right now.  

"In that case can we avoid passing the climate threshold?   Can we? "(emphasis)


He then goes on to discuss mass extinction.


That doesn't sound (if taken in context) like a very wholehearted advocacy of alternative energy as a way to 'save' the planet, especially in the context of what follows.

In fact he doesn't sound as if he is advocating  at all.

Quite clearly Mike Ruppert in his rush to get a comment out hasn't listened properly to what Thom Hartman actually says.

What he puts forward is a straw man argument.and as such, the comments, as well as being inaccurate, are unjustifiably hostile and abusive.


Comment

I first became aware of climate change after reading an article in the Bangkok Post while overseas in 1988 and from pioneers like Teddy Goldsmith.

Mike is, I have to point out,  a relatively recent convert to anthropogenic global warming: I can remember when he largely dismissed it and said that the jury was 'still out' as to whether it was caused by humans or not.

To his credit, he has listened to Guy McPherson and now sees it as center-staged, along with Fukushima and nuclear power.

However (unlike with questions of industrial growth and Peak Oil), he is no expert, and I do not believe he has the god- given right to condemn well-meaning people based on a quick (and inaccurate) listening to the video.

I agree with him that Guy's assessment of the current state of scientific knowledge is probably pretty accurate and healthy devoid of the usual habit of somehow finding hope that we are going to solve that and other myriad problems that can be, at root, taken back to the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet.

I am convinced by the evidence that hope for reversing climate change lies in the past. 

Perhaps COP15 at Copenhagen in 2009 was the last opportunity to do anything to cut back emissions and reverse the process. 

We'll never know, and still don't know for sure yet – but the actual observed processes indicate that it is too late, we're done, we're f...ked - (whichever way you want to put it).

The point-of-view that I heard from Guy McPherson when he visited NZ about 2 years ago - that the only way to save humanity ("for a generation or two") was the immediate collapse of the economy along with the whole paradigm of infinite growth appealed to me,

Subsequently, Guy has reassessed the situation and concluded that things have gone too far, irreversible positive feedbacks have been unleashed - in short, that we are looking down the barrel of  near-term extinction within a human lifetime.

Listen to Guy's latest assessment from the beginning of October - 

 
.

He is not saying that we will be saved if we bring infinite growth to an immediate end (and that raises the thorny issue that he himself has mentioned on innumerable occasions of what you do with 400 nuclear power station) - let alone if we turn to renewable energy -  or if we find the 100th monkey.


He is saying 'we are in hospice'.  No amount of denial or bargaining can get around it.

Near-term extinction within a generation.

In the context of 20+ positive feedbacks and runaway climate change - in addition to Fukushima - talk of an end to industrial growth begins to me to sound like false hope.

.....

A change in consciousness is not going to change the physical reality on the ground.

It is simply too late.

The question becomes how we find the strength within ourselves the spiritual strength to find acceptance and make the time that we have on the planet worthwhile.

Every minute of it.

The Dalai Lama begins every day of his life with a contemplation on death - and he's hardly the most morose person on the planet!

Now we are presented with the same opportunity.
....

Thom Hartmann's video is the closest thing we'll find to an admission that this pessimistic assessment by Guy McPherson - one that has been subject to constant attack -  is accurate.

For that, in my opinion, we should be grateful.

AFTERWORD


I have written this as my own reflections, and beyond the facts of rapid climate change (which I regard as beyond debate) my own views are worth as much, or as little, as anybody else's.


I would therefore welcome your comments or any contribution to the conversation that you would like to make.

No one is going to be 'defriended' or boycotted for venturing their own opinion or feelings.