Care for Earth

• Earth Poisoned by Us
• Save Ganga Network
• News update on saving Earth
• Steps you can take to help save the environment

All that is human is disappearing, and all that is inhuman is becoming more and more dominating and powerful.

Man is being reduced to a machine, and mechanical values are becoming dominant. The artist is not respected, but the technician is. Poetry is not loved, but plumbing is. The dancer is no more in the center of life, but the businessman, the bureaucrat, the politician are. All that is beautiful is becoming irrelevant to man, because that which is beautiful cannot be used as a means to anything. That which is beautiful is an end unto itself. You cannot use poetry in war; you will need the scientist, not the poet. And you cannot use musicians in the marketplace; there you will need economists.

This whole life is geared around wrong things. Money is more important than meditation. This is a very topsy-turvy situation: man is standing on his head. Man is dying, and the death is very slow. And remember, when death is very fast you can avoid it, because you become intensely aware of it. When it comes very very slow, a slow poisoning....

For example, a person goes on smoking every day. All the experts go on saying that this is dangerous to you, that this will kill you, but he smokes every day and it doesn't kill him! So you may write it on every packet of cigarettes -- nobody bothers about your warnings that "This is harmful to health," that "This is harmful to life." Who cares? -- because experience says something else! You smoke every day, dozens of cigarettes, and you don't die and you have not died yet.

You believe in your experience. The poison is very very slow: if a person goes on smoking one dozen cigarettes every day, then it will take twenty years to poison the whole system. Now, twenty years is a long time, and man has a very very short vision, he is shortsighted.

The world is being poisoned very slowly. The rivers are being polluted, the oceans are being polluted, the lakes are dying. Nature is being destroyed. We are exploiting the earth so much that sooner or later we will not be able to live on it. We are not behaving well with nature.

Our whole approach is wrong, it is destructive. We only take from the earth, and we never give anything back. We only exploit nature. The ecology is broken, the circulation is broken; we are not living in a perfect circle, and nature is a perfect circle: if you take from one hand and you give from another, you don't destroy it. But we are doing it: we only go on taking, and all the resources are being spent. But this poisoning is happening slowly, slowly. You don't see it happening because it takes a long time. And then there are politicians who go on gathering more and more atomic weapons -- more atom bombs, more hydrogen bombs, super-hydrogen bombs -- as if man has decided to commit suicide.

This is what is being felt by you, Sarjano. You have the heart of a poet or the heart of a painter, the heart of a lover. You have immense potential for creativity. You are sensitive, hence you are feeling it. But the feeling is as if "I am dying." No, not you -- something far more important is happening, something far more dangerous too.

Individuals have always died, it is not a problem. It is, in fact, part of recycling. Your body goes back to the sources to be renewed, your being moves back into the eternal to be rested, and then you come back again, fresh, young. Life tires, life exhausts, death is a rest. For the individual, death is a blessing -- but not for humanity itself; then it is a curse. Individuals go on dying and they go on coming back. But humanity is needed for them to come back. This earth is a beautiful planet and it is in the wrong hands. Hence you are feeling that something is to be done very urgently. Yes, it is urgent, because death is coming closer.

This century's end is going to see either the total destruction of humanity, and with it the total destruction of life on this earth, or a new man being born -- a new man who will not hate life, as in the past it has been done; a new man who will love life; a new man who will not be negative in any way, but will be affirmative; a new man who will not desire life after death, but will live moment to moment in sheer joy -- who will think of this life as a gift and not as a punishment; who will not be antagonistic to the body, who will respect the body as the temple of the soul; who will love, and who will not be afraid of love; who will move in all kinds of relationships and yet be able to remain himself.

To be in relationship and become dependent is the sign of weakness. And to escape to the Himalayas or to some Catholic monastery because of the fear of becoming dependent is again the sign of weakness; it is cowardly.

To live in relationship and yet remain independent, that is what courage is. The new man will be courageous. In the past, only two kinds of cowards have existed on the earth, the worldly kind and the otherworldly kind -- but both are cowards. The really brave man will live in the world and yet not be of it. Either this is going to happen, or a total destruction. Now there is no third alternative. Man cannot survive as he is. Either he has to change himself, transmute himself, or he has to die and vacate the earth.

The Book of Wisdom # 24

Top

Save Ganga Network consisting of eminent scientists and environmentalists; Non-Government Organizations (NGOS), the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and government bodies, religious and spiritual organizations and concerned individuals to clean India's holiest river was launched at a workshop hosted by Osho World Foundation in New Delhi on Sunday, 19 May, 2002.

More than 70 participants including the famous environmentalist and Magsaysay Award winner Sundar Lal Bahuguna stressed that a massive afforestation programme be taken up in the Himalayas, the source of most rivers in India and appealed for a concerted action to preserve the waters and ecology of this great river. An excerpt from Shri Bahuguna’s lecture is published below:

“The basic element of Indian culture is simplicity and balance. Pollution of Ganges is an attack on our culture by civilization. We have adapted the western outlook of materialism which created a crisis in our culture. By constructing the Tehri Dam for the greed of little power and irrigation, we have murdered the Ganges.

There are many ways of saving the Ganges. Massive afforestation of the whole Himalayas. We have to spread this awareness to each and every individual. To prevent water crisis in the country, we have to plant trees in all wet lands. We have to take this responsibility ourselves. Tehri Dam is a temporary solution. According to government sources, the life of this dam is just one hundred years whereas Prof Kharak Singh has estimated its life as forty years. But I feel that within fifteen years, the hills neighbouring the dam will become weak and start to fall.

We have to be inspired by our ancient devotion and initiate in the cleaning and reviving the piousness of the Ganges. My prediction is that we have already entered into the water crisis era. The next world war will be due to water crisis. That’s why we have to make and preserve the entire Himalayas into a massive water storage compartment. We will have to sow trees. Sowing of trees is the sowing of our future. India should come out and be the first to lead.”

Top

New York must again lead in stemming climate crisis

By Robert Moore, June 23, 2008

It's on the radio, in the paper and on the television. It's a feature in advertising campaigns pitching everything from the greener side of big oil companies to jeans and T-shirts. It's climate change, and it's coming soon to a world near you.

Now that the pundits and the scientists have agreed that global warming is indeed a problem to be reckoned with, what are we doing to help stop it?

While celebrities are putting a famous face on what's being called the "climate crisis," and the United States Senate spent much of the first part of this month debating the merits of a bill designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from multiple sources - America's Climate Security Act - it's the states that have taken the lead when it comes to cutting global warming pollution. And New York can count itself among those that have led the charge.

In early 2009, New York will be one of 10 states participating in the inauguration of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as "RGGI." The RGGI is the first cap-and-trade program in the U.S. that will cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and it was developed right here in Albany.

New York is also making investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. These efforts will not only lessen our dependence on fossil fuel-fired power sources, they will save New Yorkers money while reducing the pollution that causes climate change.

In addition, the state has proposed cutting tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks. And if the administration in Washington, D.C., permits, this proposal could go into effect as early as next year.

But New York state can, and should, do more. And that's where the Global Warming Pollution Cap comes in. The Global Warming Pollution Cap was passed by the Assembly back on Earth Day in April. Now it's the state Senate's turn to pass nearly identical legislation to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing our climate.

Right now, 23 senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, have signed on to co-sponsor bills that would cut our state's global warming pollution 80 percent by 2050. The Senate majority measure was introduced by Sen. Thomas Morahan, R-New City, just weeks ago. These measures would cut pollution from all sources - cars, trucks, factories, homes and schools. These are the deep cuts in climate-altering pollution that scientists say we need to make in order to prevent the worst effects of global warming.

New York state's senators need to pass legislation to help stop global warming. And Gov. David Paterson needs to sign it into law when it reaches his desk.

California, New Jersey, Connecticut and many other states have all adopted their own state-level measures to cut climate pollution. New York state should not miss this opportunity to join their ranks and once again lead the charge to address the challenge of what is arguably the most critical issue of our generation.

The writer is executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York.

Courtesy: http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/OPINION/806230307/1076/OPINION01

Top

Resetting Earth's thermostat

By Samuel Thernstrom, June 23, 2008

Two facts about climate change have become increasingly clear: New efforts to constrain global greenhouse gas emissions are likely within the next few years -- and their effect on the climate will be modest at best. Rapidly rising emissions in the developing world will swamp whatever reductions the United States, Europe and Japan may make. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise for decades to come, and warming will continue well into the next century.

What will happen? We may hope that the effects will be modest, but there is real risk that they will be very serious, at least for the most vulnerable nations. Some scientists warn of the possibility of abrupt climate change, with unpredictable but conceivably catastrophic consequences. Most troubling, by the time there are unmistakable signs of disaster, even a crash course of emissions reductions will be too late.

Policymakers have only considered two responses to climate change: cutting emissions, and adaptation -- that is, learning to live with a warmer planet. There is, however, a third possible strategy, one that could be fast, effective and affordable -- but that is being ignored. This idea is commonly known as geo-engineering.

The Earth is warmed by two forces: solar radiation, which enters the atmosphere, and the greenhouse gases that trap it there. There are two ways to cool the planet: reduce greenhouse gases or reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. Or both. If we cannot do enough of the first, we must consider whether the second option -- geo-engineering -- is feasible.

In fact, geo-engineering could be surprisingly simple. Scientists noted that the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the planet for two to three years by roughly half a degree Celsius. There are various ways of artificially reproducing this effect. A small amount of ultra-fine sulfur particles injected into the upper atmosphere could deflect 1% or 2% of incoming sunlight -- almost unnoticeable, but enough to cancel out the warming expected to occur this century. Or a fleet of ships spraying seawater into the air might achieve the same general effect by increasing the density of (and thereby the reflectivity of) low-altitude marine clouds. Even painting the roofs of buildings white would be a low-tech way of reflecting a little sunlight.

A growing number of leading scientists and environmental economists take the idea of geo-engineering very seriously. The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the Department of Energy have concluded that geo-engineering could be, in the words of the National Academy, "feasible, economical and capable."

The question for policymakers is not whether to deploy a geo-engineering system immediately or to make it the primary focus of climate policy. Rather, it is whether to make a serious investment in the research and development needed to accurately evaluate its risks and rewards. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has declined to pursue such research, although it would cost only a small fraction of the $3 billion the federal government spends annually on developing new technologies to reduce emissions.

Why the reluctance to study this idea? Fear. Fear that geo-engineering would not work, and fear that it would.

There are two concerns about geo-engineering. One is the risk of unintended consequences. Scientists note that sulfur particles could cause stratospheric ozone depletion, although the evidence from Pinatubo suggests that this effect would be modest. Others fear possible disruption of regional climates, such as the Asian monsoon. Most scientists studying geo-engineering believe that these side effects are not likely to be nearly as dangerous as uncontrolled warming, but much more research is needed.

Fear that geo-engineering might work, however, is the reason some people reject, or are reluctant to even openly discuss, this idea. Critics worry that geo-engineering could be used as an excuse to continue unchecked emissions forever. Within the last two years, three high-level conferences have explored geo-engineering; each was held behind closed doors. One premier university was too frightened to even do that. There have been calls for boycotts of the research or, failing that, strict international regulations.

This concern is badly misplaced. Geo-engineering is a remarkable idea with tremendous potential, but it is neither a permanent nor a perfect solution to warming. There are risks to and, more important, limitations on what it can do. Even among its most enthusiastic advocates, no one calls for a policy of "geo-engineering forever, emissions reductions never." Geo-engineering would be a complement to, rather than a substitute for, a long-term program to transition to a zero-emissions economy.

What geo-engineering could do is buy us time to make that transition while protecting us from the worst potential effects of warming. It may be possible to find ways to phase out fossil fuels or capture their greenhouse gases -- but it will take a very long time. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research believes that geo-engineering, coupled with a long-term effort to reduce emissions, could stabilize the climate, while doing so through emissions reductions alone would be "virtually impossible." When warming begins to have severe effects on, say, India, it is likely that attention will turn to geo-engineering. The sooner we begin to study this idea seriously, the more we will know when decisions about deployment have to be made.

The idea of "engineering" the climate may strike people as horrifying or absurd; in fact, we are changing the global climate now -- in a massive, unintentional and uncontrolled experiment. There is no other public policy problem of comparable importance for which the potential harm is so large and the proposed solutions are so clearly inadequate -- while a potentially effective, affordable and practical approach to the issue is being ignored.

Samuel Thernstrom is co-director of an American Enterprise Institute project to study the policy implications of geo-engineering.

Courtesy: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-thernstrom23-2008jun23,0,5199358.story

Top