The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has now reached 400 parts per million (by volume), as measured at the Mauna Loa monitoring site. http://researchmatte...ches400ppm.aspx
See also the Scripps/UCSD Keeling curve website http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
5
400 ppm atmospheric carbon doxide per NOAA
Started by still learning, May 10 2013 03:00 PM
28 replies to this topic
#3
Posted 12 May 2013 - 05:54 PM
I disagree completely the 400 ppm CO2 level is a truly ominous figure that shows not only lack of progress at reducing climate change but also foreshadows the hidden additional risks of green house gasses. I am thinking specifically of things like ocean acidification, greatly increased release of methane which is 23 times more destructive than CO2 as a green house gas, and even greater acceleration of ice melt in Greenland and the Arctic and Antarctica.
Personally being a supporter of 350.org my hope had been for a comprehensive plan for emissions which never occurred, we never ratified Kyoto, did not follow the United Nations recommendations, or pass a carbon tax. I know these are all controversial but being as we are now seeing greatly accelerated extinction rates, changes in migration, increase in insect spread disease, accelerated desertification of the United States southwest and so on, and so on, and so on, I honestly feel humanity is playing Russian Roulette with six bullets in the gun, meaning our own destruction while sacrificing our planet.
NASA loves to talk about Terra Forming Mars, my feeling is that we need to Terra Form earth first through habitat restoration, water recovery and recycling (Cistern Systems) worldwide, much much greater Alternative energy integration to a post Carbon economic model and comprehensive regulation of greenhouse gasses. Recent polls have shown upwards of 60% of conservatives, 70% of moderates and 85% of liberals believe climate change is real, so it's time to put up or shut up.
Both Still Learning, and Ed's have brought this terrible milestone up this week and they along with several others here who I greatly respect and admire (ShortPoet, Yonder, Tigerlilly, Phil) have all discussed in the past how critical this issue is. They represent very well the wide range of differing political and religious views in our country today that are all coming together to agree on this one issue.
i mean come on in geological time to in a 300 year or less period change the atmospheric levels to those not seen in 3 to 5 million years is a huge commentary on the effect humans have had on this planet. Greater emissions along with habitat destruction is literally causing a mass extinction world wide, that huge. I think we should all be directing our energies in each of our own ways to reversing this trend.
what I mean by this is being more efficient, reducing reusing and recycling, installing alternative energy or any other simple practice we can to make a small positive difference that when added together make a much large cumulative difference for our planet. You can't argue China and India are not doing enough because both are increasing alternative energy at a faster and greater percentage then the United States. So instead of pointing figures we need to get off our proverbial backsides and get something done.
personally i am adding this to my Facebook, Neo, and professional contacts because I truly feel this is the greatest crisis of our time and may be a precursor to much worse to come if we do not accelerate alternative energy more quickly and in ever increasing areas of our economy.
Personally being a supporter of 350.org my hope had been for a comprehensive plan for emissions which never occurred, we never ratified Kyoto, did not follow the United Nations recommendations, or pass a carbon tax. I know these are all controversial but being as we are now seeing greatly accelerated extinction rates, changes in migration, increase in insect spread disease, accelerated desertification of the United States southwest and so on, and so on, and so on, I honestly feel humanity is playing Russian Roulette with six bullets in the gun, meaning our own destruction while sacrificing our planet.
NASA loves to talk about Terra Forming Mars, my feeling is that we need to Terra Form earth first through habitat restoration, water recovery and recycling (Cistern Systems) worldwide, much much greater Alternative energy integration to a post Carbon economic model and comprehensive regulation of greenhouse gasses. Recent polls have shown upwards of 60% of conservatives, 70% of moderates and 85% of liberals believe climate change is real, so it's time to put up or shut up.
Both Still Learning, and Ed's have brought this terrible milestone up this week and they along with several others here who I greatly respect and admire (ShortPoet, Yonder, Tigerlilly, Phil) have all discussed in the past how critical this issue is. They represent very well the wide range of differing political and religious views in our country today that are all coming together to agree on this one issue.
i mean come on in geological time to in a 300 year or less period change the atmospheric levels to those not seen in 3 to 5 million years is a huge commentary on the effect humans have had on this planet. Greater emissions along with habitat destruction is literally causing a mass extinction world wide, that huge. I think we should all be directing our energies in each of our own ways to reversing this trend.
what I mean by this is being more efficient, reducing reusing and recycling, installing alternative energy or any other simple practice we can to make a small positive difference that when added together make a much large cumulative difference for our planet. You can't argue China and India are not doing enough because both are increasing alternative energy at a faster and greater percentage then the United States. So instead of pointing figures we need to get off our proverbial backsides and get something done.
personally i am adding this to my Facebook, Neo, and professional contacts because I truly feel this is the greatest crisis of our time and may be a precursor to much worse to come if we do not accelerate alternative energy more quickly and in ever increasing areas of our economy.
#4
Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:26 AM
Containing the level of atmospheric CO2 is truly the issue of greatest importance in our time. The problem is that nobody has come up with a comprehensive plan to accomplish this....until now. There is in fact such a plan. My partner, author Dave World, has done it. Click here.
#5
Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:24 PM
Sorry but I'm not a fan of his plan at all. We do not need to seed wind with a national park, it's already being done privately across the entire nation. Texas alone is getting over 9% of it's energy from wind. It would be easier to count the states without wind energy than those with, turbines are popping up everywhere. The recent renewal of wind subsidies will assure this continues.
We also do not need to seed solar and I am fanatically opposed to a solar park. There are millions of roofs sitting idle, paving over hundreds of acres of desert with silicon is not only an environmental negative, owning your panels pays you, the utility owning the panels pays them at your expense. As solar gets cheaper and cheaper, more and more will be able to take advantage and thus reap the savings instead of the utility companies.
As Rifkin is proposing and most of the EU is embracing, energy will become more and more decentralized. The DOE is working on making solar as plug and play as possible so individuals can take advantage. They are also offering a million dollar x prize for home hydrogen refueling. This is the future of solar, wind, and hydrogen.
Texas is building out an 1800 mile hydrogen infrastructure, California is also betting big on hydrogen. What we individuals can do is buy the home filling stations and FCV's as they become available. People will not stop gambling, buying lottery tickets., or celebrating Christmas, that money will not be redirected to hydrogen. Buying gas at the local station can be redirected to home refueling stations. ICE car purchases can be redirected towards, FCV car purchases. While ICE cars can burn hydrogen, that will not be the future, fuel cell vehicles are only a few years from commercialization.
The whole plan sounds like it was written by the oil industry, "you pay for the entire build out then give it to us so we can reap the profits!" Not on my watch!
We also do not need to seed solar and I am fanatically opposed to a solar park. There are millions of roofs sitting idle, paving over hundreds of acres of desert with silicon is not only an environmental negative, owning your panels pays you, the utility owning the panels pays them at your expense. As solar gets cheaper and cheaper, more and more will be able to take advantage and thus reap the savings instead of the utility companies.
As Rifkin is proposing and most of the EU is embracing, energy will become more and more decentralized. The DOE is working on making solar as plug and play as possible so individuals can take advantage. They are also offering a million dollar x prize for home hydrogen refueling. This is the future of solar, wind, and hydrogen.
Texas is building out an 1800 mile hydrogen infrastructure, California is also betting big on hydrogen. What we individuals can do is buy the home filling stations and FCV's as they become available. People will not stop gambling, buying lottery tickets., or celebrating Christmas, that money will not be redirected to hydrogen. Buying gas at the local station can be redirected to home refueling stations. ICE car purchases can be redirected towards, FCV car purchases. While ICE cars can burn hydrogen, that will not be the future, fuel cell vehicles are only a few years from commercialization.
The whole plan sounds like it was written by the oil industry, "you pay for the entire build out then give it to us so we can reap the profits!" Not on my watch!
#6
Posted 16 May 2013 - 05:03 AM
“It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself,
but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”
So ends Field Notes from a Catastrophe, the terrific 2006 book by Elizabeth Kolbert, one of the country’s most thoughtful climate journalists."
http://thinkprogress...-the-7-billion/
but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”
So ends Field Notes from a Catastrophe, the terrific 2006 book by Elizabeth Kolbert, one of the country’s most thoughtful climate journalists."
http://thinkprogress...-the-7-billion/
#7
Posted 16 May 2013 - 05:51 PM
We are facing climate insanity for the same reason we are facing economic insanity. No one wants to sacrifice today for a stable economy tomorrow, no one wants to sacrifice today for a stable climate tomorrow. Basically everyone wants someone else to suffer, not themselves.
I don't think there's an answer for this.
I do think one will collapse the other, it's just a matter of which goes first. Still, there's always hope we'll come to our senses or luck out on both fronts. The optimist in me says we'll squeak through somehow. 
I don't think there's an answer for this.
I do think one will collapse the other, it's just a matter of which goes first. Still, there's always hope we'll come to our senses or luck out on both fronts. The optimist in me says we'll squeak through somehow.
#8
Posted 17 May 2013 - 03:20 AM
Phil, on 16 May 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:
We are facing climate insanity for the same reason we are facing economic insanity. No one wants to sacrifice today for a stable economy tomorrow, no one wants to sacrifice today for a stable climate tomorrow.
I agree. However, the main source of the problem for both is that both are unsustainable. The economy is built on the idea that we can have infinite growth in a finite space, which is impossible. It also has a foundation of debt and without further debt the economy cannot grow. Global warming is built on the idea that we can produce whatever we want and use whatever we want without consequence. The core belief fueling both is the concept of infinity and we don't live on an infinite planet. Both are unsustainable on a long term line. Sacrifice is required to manage them, but sacrifice and management are contrary to their foundational principles.
#9
Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:02 AM
The economy cannot grow WITH further debt. As debt increases, so does the interest on that debt. Bernake can only control interest for so long. Also sooner or later the world will lose faith in the dollar, at which point it's game over. In case you don't follow the financials, China is making it's move on currency domination. There was an article a day or so ago on MSNBC I believe, that outlined the path they are taking.
The core belief thinking we can borrow our way to prosperity is the concept of infinity and we don't live on an infinite planet. Bernake isn't printing a trillion a year because its the fun thing to do.
The core belief thinking we can borrow our way to prosperity is the concept of infinity and we don't live on an infinite planet. Bernake isn't printing a trillion a year because its the fun thing to do.
#10
Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:51 AM
Phil, on 17 May 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:
The economy cannot grow WITH further debt. As debt increases, so does the interest on that debt. Bernake can only control interest for so long. Also sooner or later the world will lose faith in the dollar, at which point it's game over. In case you don't follow the financials, China is making it's move on currency domination. There was an article a day or so ago on MSNBC I believe, that outlined the path they are taking.
The core belief thinking we can borrow our way to prosperity is the concept of infinity and we don't live on an infinite planet. Bernake isn't printing a trillion a year because its the fun thing to do.
The core belief thinking we can borrow our way to prosperity is the concept of infinity and we don't live on an infinite planet. Bernake isn't printing a trillion a year because its the fun thing to do.
In general, I wasn't talking about government debt. I am talking about the personal debt which drives the modern economy.
Quote
Current as of May 2013
U.S. household consumer debt profile:
Average credit card debt: $15 162
Average mortgage debt: $147 967
Average student loan debt: $33 445
In total, American consumers owe:
$11.25 trillion in debt
A decrease of 1.2% from last year
$846.2 billion in credit card debt
$7.88 trillion in mortgages
$1 028.3 billion in student loans
An increase of 12.5% from last year
U.S. household consumer debt profile:
Average credit card debt: $15 162
Average mortgage debt: $147 967
Average student loan debt: $33 445
In total, American consumers owe:
$11.25 trillion in debt
A decrease of 1.2% from last year
$846.2 billion in credit card debt
$7.88 trillion in mortgages
$1 028.3 billion in student loans
An increase of 12.5% from last year
Quote
Despite successful debt abolition campaigns, World Bank figures show external debts owed by developing countries have increased by $430bn over 12 months to $4tn
50 658 220 671 112 Current Public Global Debt.
As I said, debt runs the worlds economy. Without debt, and being in debt, the economy collapses. Billions of people borrowing from their future to poison their future. Insanity.
#11
Posted 17 May 2013 - 11:50 AM
Mars is at about 95% concentration; Venus is at 96%. A minute trace of life but nothing we could live on.
It's in our hands to let Earth maintain life and not become Mars or Venus.
http://t3.gstatic.co...o8nhRm52tmPRyUq
It's in our hands to let Earth maintain life and not become Mars or Venus.
http://t3.gstatic.co...o8nhRm52tmPRyUq
#12
Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:28 PM
Yes I agree, we are borrowing from our future, or more correctly we are borrowing from Gen x, y, z, etc. 
Not only will they have to pay off the governments debt, they'll have to pay back their own as well. 
The economy does not require debt though. Big items like houses make debt more convenient but still not necessary. I've never carried a credit card balance and have been debt free for a decade. Doing that actually allows me to have more discretionary spending, instead of paying banks thousands a year I can spend it on myself instead. It's the pervasive "I want it now!" attitude that will sell future generations down the river, both private and public contributing.
There is no difference whether you or a bank official has your money. Either they spend the $5,000 in interest payments or you spend it because you waited and paid cash. Either way it's the same $5000, the economy doesn't care who spends it. That's the problem with higher taxes, it gives more to the government to spend but does so by leaving less for the tax payer to spend. If you are taxed $1000, the government can spend it, if you don't have that tax you can spend it. Again, the economy doesn't know the difference.
The tax payer does however!
Not only will they have to pay off the governments debt, they'll have to pay back their own as well. The economy does not require debt though. Big items like houses make debt more convenient but still not necessary. I've never carried a credit card balance and have been debt free for a decade. Doing that actually allows me to have more discretionary spending, instead of paying banks thousands a year I can spend it on myself instead. It's the pervasive "I want it now!" attitude that will sell future generations down the river, both private and public contributing.
There is no difference whether you or a bank official has your money. Either they spend the $5,000 in interest payments or you spend it because you waited and paid cash. Either way it's the same $5000, the economy doesn't care who spends it. That's the problem with higher taxes, it gives more to the government to spend but does so by leaving less for the tax payer to spend. If you are taxed $1000, the government can spend it, if you don't have that tax you can spend it. Again, the economy doesn't know the difference.
The tax payer does however!
#13
Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:47 PM
Phil, on 18 May 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:
Yes I agree, we are borrowing from our future, or more correctly we are borrowing from Gen x, y, z, etc. Not only will they have to pay off the governments debt, they'll have to pay back their own as well.
The economy does not require debt though. Big items like houses make debt more convenient but still not necessary. I've never carried a credit card balance and have been debt free for a decade. Doing that actually allows me to have more discretionary spending, instead of paying banks thousands a year I can spend it on myself instead. It's the pervasive "I want it now!" attitude that will sell future generations down the river, both private and public contributing.
There is no difference whether you or a bank official has your money. Either they spend the $5,000 in interest payments or you spend it because you waited and paid cash. Either way it's the same $5000, the economy doesn't care who spends it. That's the problem with higher taxes, it gives more to the government to spend but does so by leaving less for the tax payer to spend. If you are taxed $1000, the government can spend it, if you don't have that tax you can spend it. Again, the economy doesn't know the difference.
Not only will they have to pay off the governments debt, they'll have to pay back their own as well. The economy does not require debt though. Big items like houses make debt more convenient but still not necessary. I've never carried a credit card balance and have been debt free for a decade. Doing that actually allows me to have more discretionary spending, instead of paying banks thousands a year I can spend it on myself instead. It's the pervasive "I want it now!" attitude that will sell future generations down the river, both private and public contributing.
There is no difference whether you or a bank official has your money. Either they spend the $5,000 in interest payments or you spend it because you waited and paid cash. Either way it's the same $5000, the economy doesn't care who spends it. That's the problem with higher taxes, it gives more to the government to spend but does so by leaving less for the tax payer to spend. If you are taxed $1000, the government can spend it, if you don't have that tax you can spend it. Again, the economy doesn't know the difference.
There is actually a difference between you having the money and the bank having the money. You have the money and you spend it then you gain nothing. If the bank spends it (loans it) then the bank (usually) gets the money and makes money off of it. Principle + interest = using debt to fuel the economy. Without this system the economy would falter which is what happens when people save instead of spend. If you save it, instead of spending it, then that money does not go into the economy. Especially if you decide to keep it out of a bank where the bank can use your money to loan to other people.
BTW. I consider people who are still paying on their mortgage calling themselves homeowners to be one of the greatest myths of our time. Until you pay off the debt you are just a renter with an extremely long lease.
#14
Posted 17 June 2013 - 11:54 AM
James Richard Bailey, on 13 May 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:
Containing the level of atmospheric CO2 is truly the issue of greatest importance in our time. The problem is that nobody has come up with a comprehensive plan to accomplish this....until now. There is in fact such a plan. My partner, author Dave World, has done it. Click here.
Now this is looming;
http://thinkprogress...-in-the-arctic/
I have another post with links to show that we are producing carbon 6.3 times faster than PETM and warming 40 times faster, and that is before the methane turnover of this impending thermal maximum episode. We may or may not be able to stop it if we reduce emissions 90% in 3 to 10 years.
I have been living at 1/20th the eco-footprint of the Average American for 16 years. It can be done with enough will power, education, and strong effort. Lolly gagging around debating is a waste of time, action and hard work are needed.
#16
Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:07 PM
Should we make this a lolly gagging free zone? :<O
I think this was covered before, Ekson Exhilaration sounds like it was written by the power companies. You spend all the money then give it to the utilities so they can reap the profits.
Hydrogen transition is already happening, FCV's are already available in some markets, hydrogen fueling stations are already being deployed. It will be in earnest in the EU in a year or two and here soon after. The best thing to do to support the transition is to buy a FCV as soon as you can afford one, the same with a home hydrogen filling station.
If people could fund the hydrogen revolution directly, they could also afford solar panels on their roof. Very few can. Oil companies are actually very supportive of hydrogen, a lot of it will be done by reforming natural gas. Texas is building a huge hydrogen infrastructure.
Yes, all the pieces are in place to build a hydrogen future. All the pieces were in place to build a cell phone half a century ago, that doesn't mean it would be affordable. Only recently has it become viable.
People seem to have a real issue with time, technology takes time to mature. Hydrogen generation has been rather expensive, fuel cells have been wildly expensive. It takes time and a lot of research to bring down costs. It took solar panels over half a century to become even remotely affordable.
The EV-1 was supposed to be viable according to critics. That is, of course, absurd since the Volt isn't even viable with today's technology. Just yesterday on MSNBC, it was estimated Chevy was losing $40,000 on each Volt sale. Who knows what they'd be losing on each EV-1 sale. The EV-1 cost about $85K, or about $200,000 in today's dollars, for the equivalent of a $35K Focus electric. Are Focus electrics flying off the shelves? Technology takes time, cost reduction takes time. You can't deploy hydrogen before it's viable, you will only go bankrupt trying.
I think this was covered before, Ekson Exhilaration sounds like it was written by the power companies. You spend all the money then give it to the utilities so they can reap the profits.
Hydrogen transition is already happening, FCV's are already available in some markets, hydrogen fueling stations are already being deployed. It will be in earnest in the EU in a year or two and here soon after. The best thing to do to support the transition is to buy a FCV as soon as you can afford one, the same with a home hydrogen filling station.
If people could fund the hydrogen revolution directly, they could also afford solar panels on their roof. Very few can. Oil companies are actually very supportive of hydrogen, a lot of it will be done by reforming natural gas. Texas is building a huge hydrogen infrastructure.
Yes, all the pieces are in place to build a hydrogen future. All the pieces were in place to build a cell phone half a century ago, that doesn't mean it would be affordable. Only recently has it become viable.
People seem to have a real issue with time, technology takes time to mature. Hydrogen generation has been rather expensive, fuel cells have been wildly expensive. It takes time and a lot of research to bring down costs. It took solar panels over half a century to become even remotely affordable.
The EV-1 was supposed to be viable according to critics. That is, of course, absurd since the Volt isn't even viable with today's technology. Just yesterday on MSNBC, it was estimated Chevy was losing $40,000 on each Volt sale. Who knows what they'd be losing on each EV-1 sale. The EV-1 cost about $85K, or about $200,000 in today's dollars, for the equivalent of a $35K Focus electric. Are Focus electrics flying off the shelves? Technology takes time, cost reduction takes time. You can't deploy hydrogen before it's viable, you will only go bankrupt trying.
#18
Posted 19 June 2013 - 08:18 AM
Hydrogen is nice in concept, with that and GenIV, solar, wind, wave, and tidal hydro, we are still at that limit in time. It is a race, and a hope. There are some that think we will pass the tipping points with just the momentum in the system.
Well, we went one child only in 1988, and totally solar 1997 with composting and gardening heavily since then and our hybrid, all together 1/20th the American average. Just the people here doing it is nice, and spreading the word on how nice it is to be electric bill free and mortgage free. There are many eco-enviro sites where hopefully a high percentage are also doing the same.
Well, we went one child only in 1988, and totally solar 1997 with composting and gardening heavily since then and our hybrid, all together 1/20th the American average. Just the people here doing it is nice, and spreading the word on how nice it is to be electric bill free and mortgage free. There are many eco-enviro sites where hopefully a high percentage are also doing the same.
#19
Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:03 AM
Definitely great to be debt free, there is a whole movement to do this. We're about 85% solar here but no kids so that should balance out. :<) We're just getting started on our gardening and composting, next year should be the big push. Don't have a hybrid but don't drive much, next car will be BEV or hopefully FCV with home refueling.
#20
Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:18 AM
Hydrogen is not the sole answer by any means. It is part of the equation: energy storage with negligible loss; the same for transmission, no resistance to the flow, unlike electricity. The loss comes in the conversion of electricity to hydrogen, comparable to the storage of electricity by charging batteries and then back to usable alternating current with an inverter. Part of the beauty of hydrogen is that it is a ready answer to the naysayers when they proclaim that "The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow." I know, putting the electricity into the grid is another approach, but there is roughly a 25% loss to electrical resistance going through the grid. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
And, do I think that the oil companies would go for a free hydrogen infrastructure, even if this admittedly far fetched idea became reality? Would they de-monetize the trillions of dollars of risky, hard to refine hydrocarbons contained in shale, tar sands and deep sea, increasingly arctic, reserves? Fat chance of that happening.
The heart and soul of Ekson Exhilaration is the creation of local, small scale private and cooperative sustainable systems. Grass roots individual homemade, on up to the likes of my home turf's Bayfield Electric Cooperative. There are LOTS of electric cooperatives in America. Around 12% of our power is already sold by electric cooperatives. http://www.nreca.coo...es/default.aspx
Also, there are advances being made wherein hydrogen can be generated biologically. http://www.scienceda...30415182430.htm
As for the creation of grand scale national solar and wind parks, only part of the benefit would come from the power they generate. There is much to be said for the "moon shot" approach. A very large, common effort supported by our whole nation would send a message to all, oil barons included, that the time has come for a new paradigm.
What I'd like the reader to take away from Ekson Exhilaration is that there are the means available to get the job of powering our society done without ruining the planet's environment or succumbing to corporate dictatorship. Just reading the numbers of all the money we fritter away while more important matters go unattended to is a good takeaway from this discussion. Thank you to all who have been part in this thread thus far.
And, do I think that the oil companies would go for a free hydrogen infrastructure, even if this admittedly far fetched idea became reality? Would they de-monetize the trillions of dollars of risky, hard to refine hydrocarbons contained in shale, tar sands and deep sea, increasingly arctic, reserves? Fat chance of that happening.
The heart and soul of Ekson Exhilaration is the creation of local, small scale private and cooperative sustainable systems. Grass roots individual homemade, on up to the likes of my home turf's Bayfield Electric Cooperative. There are LOTS of electric cooperatives in America. Around 12% of our power is already sold by electric cooperatives. http://www.nreca.coo...es/default.aspx
Also, there are advances being made wherein hydrogen can be generated biologically. http://www.scienceda...30415182430.htm
As for the creation of grand scale national solar and wind parks, only part of the benefit would come from the power they generate. There is much to be said for the "moon shot" approach. A very large, common effort supported by our whole nation would send a message to all, oil barons included, that the time has come for a new paradigm.
What I'd like the reader to take away from Ekson Exhilaration is that there are the means available to get the job of powering our society done without ruining the planet's environment or succumbing to corporate dictatorship. Just reading the numbers of all the money we fritter away while more important matters go unattended to is a good takeaway from this discussion. Thank you to all who have been part in this thread thus far.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users