Thinking About Polar Cities — Or Trying To

An interesting journalist named Dan Bloom, now based in Taiwan, has been agitating for consideration of one of James Lovelock’s more alarming ideas — polar cities. (Here’s his site on the subject.)

I don’t have answers for Mr. Bloom’s difficult questions, but while I’m thinking on the subject, I want to quote on this Sunday from his citation of the late great Kurt Vonnegut, and his poem Requiem:

..When the last living thing has died on account of us,

how poetical it would be

if Earth could say,

in a voice floating upwards

from the floor of the Grand Canyon,

"It is done."

People did not like it here.

But some of us do like it here, readers will protest. And no doubt Kurt would say; yes, but — not enough to save the place. And he has a point. What  we say is of little interest to the natural world…

Add yours ↓
  1. danny bee

    That quote from KV’s poem was quoted in the new York Times obit on him when he passed to the next plane recently, IF there is a nextr plane. Maybe just a plain. Maybe nothing. Maybe we better get serious about global warming sooner than later, as it’s getting later earlier and earlier. I hope humanity never has to live in polar cities…. but the concept is worth considering even now. Thanks for James Lovelock for inspiring me…. As a poet in SF said to me the other day, global warming is the 1000 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about…. I am thinking about putting my Polar Cities Research Institute on Second Life…..to drum up some more “thought” and action…

    June 24, 2007
  2. danny bee

    Polar cities in the far distant future to house remnants of humankind
    who survive the apocalypse of devastating global warming? The casual
    reader might think I am an alarmist or a mere scare-monger, but I am
    neither. I am a visionary.

    Polar cities are proposed sustainable polar retreats designed to house
    human beings in the future, in the event that global warming causes
    the central and middle regions of the Earth to become uninhabitable
    for a long period of time. Although they have not been built yet, some
    futurists have been giving considerable thought to the concepts
    involved.

    I know, I know, the very thought of “polar cities” sounds like some
    science-fiction movie you don’t want to see. But it might be
    instructive to think about such sustainable Artic and Antartic
    communities for the future of humankind. If worse come to worse, and
    things fall apart, perhaps by the year 2500 or the year 3000, we must
    might need polar cities. And perhaps the time to start thinking about
    them, and designing and planning them (and maybe even building, or
    pre-building them), is now.

    Here is more food for thought, from an entry in Wikipedia:
    “High-population-density cities, to be built in the polar regions,
    with sustainable energy and transportation infrastructures, will
    require substantial nearby agriculture. Boreal soils are largely poor
    in key nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, but nitrogen-fixing
    plants (such as the various alders in the Artic region) with the
    proper symbiotic microbes and mycorrhizal fungi can likely remedy such
    poverty without the need for petroleum-derived fertilizers. Regional
    probiotic soil improvement should perhaps rank high on any polar
    cities priority list. James Lovelock’s notion of a widely distributed
    almanac of science knowledge and post-industrial survival skills also
    appears to have value.”

    Oh, I know it’s fashionable to mock global warming alarmists and doom
    and gloom futurists with no credentials except a keyboard and a blog,
    but there’s a method to the madness of thinking about polar cities.
    Maybe, just maybe, if enough people hear about the concept of polar
    cities and realize how serious such a possibility is, maybe, just
    maybe, they will get off their tuches and start thinking hard and fast
    about how we humans are causing climate change by our lifestyles and
    inventions and gadgets and need for cars and airplanes and trains and
    ships and factories and coal-burning plants across the globe — and
    then maybe it won’t be fashionable to mock global warming alarmists
    anymore.

    The future does not look good. But we can do something now. No, not
    building polar cities now. That’s for the future to decide. What we
    can do now is stop what we are doing now and start planning in a more
    sane way for the future of the species. If we even care. I do. We must
    stop all human acitivity that is responsible for emitting carbon
    dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. Now. It’s getting later earlier
    and earlier, I tell you.

    June 27, 2007
  3. danny bee

    Solutions for climate change?

    June 13, 3007 (sic)

    Climate experts may turn up their noses at far-fetched fixes and ideas
    for the future such as sustainable polar city retreats, but
    interest in projects with a science-fictional twist appears, if
    anything, to be growing.

    Early this year, a blogger in Taiwan proposed designing and building
    polar cities to house survivors of global warming, taking his cue from
    the thoughts of British global warming activist James Lovelock.

    Other projects with Jules Verne-like overtones include polar cities,
    sunshades in
    space, and seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfur particles.

    A number of scientists say it would be foolhardy to rule out the most
    ambitious projects.

    “We are going to need technologies that at first light seem like
    silver bullets because the scale of the climate change problem is so
    large,” said Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia
    University. On current trends, the Earth is just 35 years away from
    the point at which global warming would be impossible to reverse, said
    Lackner, and “we need to throw everything we can at the problem.”

    James Lovelock, the British scientist and founder of a theory called
    Gaia, which describes the earth as a livingorganism that humans have
    knocked out of balance, champions even more radical solutions, like
    spraying thestratosphere with sulfur compounds to reflect sunlight
    back into space.

    Lovelock also says massive, immediate roll out of nuclear power, which
    emits little or no carbon dioxide, is needed. Without such measures,
    warns Lovelock, human beings could end up living in a few habitable
    pockets of the planet, such as the Arctic basin.

    June 28, 2007
  4. Kit Stolz

    I’ve noticed a lot of “pushback” lately against those advocating nuclear power; for example, this from the Oxford Research Group:
    http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-06-27T222504Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-282066-1.xml&archived=False
    (via Grist). They argue that the world must build four nuclear power plants a month for the next seventy years to have a significant effect, an obvious absurdity. At least the polar cities argument is trying to open minds to new realities, not close them.

    June 28, 2007
  5. danny bee

    People like this Hank Cox have their heads in the sands. He writes for nam.com, some kind of industry group. In taking issue with Al Gore’s movie and in supporting Emily Yoffe’s recent humor column on glo war, Cox writes:

    “[Yes], There is a scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up, and it is plausible that human activities, emission of greenhouse gases, are a contributing factor. But it is also true that the Earth was heating up and cooling down billions of years before humans appeared on the scene. World weather patterns are poorly understood and may very well have as much to do with sunspots as with human activities.”

    So let’s do nothing, Hank? Just turn on the aircon and SUV it over to the grocery store and live it up like there’s lots of tomorrows (er, no tomorrow)?

    See link on name above

    June 29, 2007
  6. danny bee

    http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/06/heat_mongering.php

    June 29, 2007
  7. danny bee

    Kit,
    When I wrote to the LIFEBOTA FOUNDATION, to ask if they might be interested in my concept/blog on polar cities, they wrote back:

    “Dear Danny,

    Your idea is not something that interests us as the theory that carbon
    dioxide causes significant global warming was proven wrong a long time
    ago. From 1940 to 1970 carbon dioxide went up in the atmosphere and
    world temperatures went down. The best scientific theory to explain
    global temperature fluctuations is that changes in the sun’s intensity
    cause changes in global temperature and this theory predicts that
    temperatures should start dropping within the next decade, not going up.
    It currently seems as if temperatures peaked in 1998.”

    Lifeboat Foundation

    July 1, 2007
  8. danny bee

    “There’s no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is
    changing,” Lovelock says. “Maybe 200 million people will migrate close
    to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps,
    it would take the world 1,000 years to recover.”

    July 1, 2007
  9. danny bloom

    POLAR CITIES ENVISIONED TO SURVIVE GLOBAL WARMING

    Webposted: July 1, 2007

    Environmental activist Dan Bloom has come up with a solution to global
    warming that apparently no one else is talking about: polar cities.
    That’s right, Bloom envisions future polar cities will house some 200
    million survivors of global warming in the far distant future (perhaps
    in the year 2500, he says on his blog), and he’s lobbying on the
    Internet for their planning, design and construction — NOW!

    “Sounds nutty, I know” the 58-year-old self-described “eco-dreamer”
    says from his home in Asia, where he has been based since 1991. “But
    global warming is for real, climate change is for real, and polar
    cities just might be important if humankind is to survive the coming
    ‘events’, whatever they might be, in whatever form they take.”

    Bloom, a 1971 graduate of Tufts University in Boston, says he came up
    with the idea of polar cities after reading a long interview with
    British scientist James Lovelock, who has predicted that in the
    future, the only survivors of global warming might be around 200
    million people who migrate to the polar regions of the world.

    “Lovelock pointed me in this direction,” Bloom says. “Although he has
    never spoken of polar cities per se, he has talked about the
    possibility that the polar regions might be the only place where
    humans can survive if a major cataclysmic event occurs as a direct
    result of global warming, in the far distant future. I think we’ve got
    about 30 generations of human beings to get ready for this.”

    Does Bloom, who has created a blog and video on YouTube, think that
    polar cities are practicial?

    “”Practical, necessary, imperative,” he says. “We need to start
    thinking about them now, and maybe even designing and building them
    now, while we still have time and transportation and fuel and
    materials and perspective. Even if they never get built, the very idea
    of polar cities should scare the pants off people who hear about the
    concept and goad them into doing something concrete about global
    warming. That’s part of my agenda, too.”

    For more information:
    WIKIPEDIA: “polar cities”

    July 2, 2007
  10. Kit Stolz

    I looked up the Lifeboat Foundation, but I don’t really understand who they are. And it’s puzzling that an organization that seemingly wants to face “existential risks” and even go into space in case earth becomes uninhabitable should have a knee-jerk opposition to discussion of global warming. Especially since they have a large board of scientific advisors, according to Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_Foundation

    Care to comment?

    July 3, 2007
  11. danny bee

    Kit, I am also puzzled by Lifeboat’s response to global warming…

    July 3, 2007
  12. danny bee

    Thursday, July 5, 3007
    11:55 pm

    It is now really 55 minutes past the 11th hour, and global warming is a major, major problem. There are many ways to deal with the issue, including ignoring it entirely. Movies like “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The 11th Hour” produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio on the state of the natural environment, are important.

    Thinking about POLAR CITIES in the future, to house some 200 million survivors of climate change in the year 2500 0r 3000, say, might also be important.
    “It really is getting later earlier and earlier.” Who said that?

    “Global warming is not only the number one environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity … We all have to do our part to raise awareness about global warming and the problems we as a people face in promoting a sustainable environmental future for our planet Earth,” says Leonardo DiCaprio.

    July 5, 2007
  13. danny bee

    Editorial: Polar Cities in the Future

    [This is an unsigned editorial from the Global Warming Warning Post:]

    “We don’t know about you, but the recent a recent news story (see below) about the possibility of polar cities to house survivors of global warming in the future has caught our attention. Say what you will, it’s an intriguing idea, even if a bit far-fetched. On first reading, the concept seems preposterous, ridiculous, unscientific and impractical. But upon further reflection, the idea of planning, designing and building polar cities now — while we still have time and resources and fuel and transportation and perspective — makes sense. And even if the envisioned polar cities never get built, the very idea of them should frighten us all into taking concrete steps now to reduce our carboon footprints and dependance on oil and coal for energy needs and transportation.”

    “Polar cities are a preposterous idea that nevertheless should be taken seriously. Consider this: what if it really comes to that? What then? And more importantly, what now?”

    July 5, 2007
  14. danny bee

    After watching LIVE EARTH on TV here in Taiwan, around the world shows, I was inspried at 2 am here to write some words for a song. Maybe some band can do it.

    HOW ON EARTH

    lyrics by Danny Bloom
    (cO 2007-3007

    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna find the way?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna have our say?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna find our way?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna reach that day?
    ….
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Did the planet get this way?
    HOW ONE EARTH?
    Did we make a mess today?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Did we forget to pray?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Did we ever reach this day?

    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna mend our ways?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna say our say?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna find our way?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Are we gonna write this play?

    HOW ON EARTH?
    Is there any way to stay?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Did we lose our way this way?
    HOW ONE EARTH?
    Are we gonna learn to pray?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    Did it come to this, I say?

    HOW ON EARTH?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    HOW ON EARTH?
    HOW ON EARTH….

    July 7, 2007
  15. danny bee

    Letter to editor in Providence Journal, July 7, LIVE EARTH DAY, re POLAR CITIES:

    Dear Editor,

    In P.H. Liotta’s June 9 commentary titled “We’re nearing climate’s tipping point,” he quotes Mark Twain’s famous quip that “everybody talks about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it.” Liotta concludes his appeal about global warming and climate change with these chilling words: “The time for debate is long past. Perhaps we should pray that the time for effective action has not passed as well.”

    I am not going to talk about the weather here, because there is not much I can do about it. But as a former Massachusetts resident now residing in Taiwan, and very concerned about the issue of global warming, I am doing something worth talking about. I am calling for the creation of polar cities in the future to house remnants of humankind who might survive the hell of global warming 500 or 1,000 years from now. And I am calling, through a blog on the Internet, for the planning, design and construction of these sustainable polar-city retreats now, while we still have time, fuel, materials and transportation to build them.

    July 8, 2007
  16. danny bee

    somebody said this on Wash Post comments blog today, re a glo war article by Steve Mufson: “Humans behave like animals who eat their offspring. We are destroying
    the bleak future our children face. No problem, like immigration, we
    are here – screw the rest! The planet will support our decadence until
    we die – then the kids can deal with it. Creationism is proof that
    faith is stronger than evidence! Let us not confuse facts with the
    “gut feel” that everything is allright.”

    “Hey – this is evolution. Remember the dinosaurs? When we are gone the
    planet will regenerate and from the ashes a new species may arise.”

    “The climate problem is like a person who has cancer.
    Its expensive to get surgery and chemo, but if you don’t you’ll die.

    If we don’t address climate change we’ll die.

    Viewed in that light, its not very expensive to address it.

    Its only going to get more expensive if we wait longer, and if we wait
    too much longer it may be too late.

    How much money are our lives worth to us?”

    July 15, 2007
  17. danny bee

    On WKIPEDIA mention of polar cities for first time: under James Lovelock item:

    “Mass human extinction

    Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century. [2]

    He claims that by the end of the century, the average temperature in temperate regions will increase by as much as 8°C and by up to 5°C in the tropics, leaving much of the world’s land uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming, with polar cities needed. He suggests that “we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can”. [3]”

    July 16, 2007
  18. danny bee

    “[Lovelock] claims that by the end of the century, the average temperature in temperate regions will increase by as much as 8°C and by up to 5°C in the tropics, leaving much of the world’s land uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming, with *polar cities* needed.”

    July 16, 2007
  19. danny bee

    Tuesday, July 17, 4007

    Lavish Celebrities No Climate Example

    says GLEM BARRY:

    After the climate concerts, urging Gore to change focus to the grassroots, and equitably reducing consumption

    Humanity’s obsession with celebrity, status and wealth is a major component of the disease killing the Earth and her species including humans. I am concerned with the direction Al Gore, as the self-appointed climate movement leader, is taking — emphasizing celebrity and inadequate small personal responses, to the detriment of grassroots inspired major cultural change necessary to save the Earth. Anyone thinking climate change will be solved without personal sacrifice and societal change is guilty of wishful delusional thinking of the sort that has caused the climate change crisis in the first place. Active alcoholics do not make credible messengers of sobriety, nor are celebrities living opulently valid climate messengers. Leading by example is crucial to achieving realistic, credible climate solutions.

    I would rather not have to write this Meander, not wanting to be a cranky contrarian (OK, maybe some truth there, but it is more than that). A grassroots movement that allows celebrity, wealth and power to muzzle its dissident voices will fail. I have agonized over generally supporting Gore’s climate strategy and pleasure at his success, while being deeply distressed over his tactical choices. I remain an ardent Goracle supporter, yet must disagree vociferously with his approach. I do not know about you, but I am tired of being lectured on climate change by celebrities living lavish lifestyles. This emphasis upon celebrity cheapens the message and undermines the politically difficult program of reducing total global consumption.

    We live in an era of the cult of celebrity. Like many I am interested in celebrities — liking both movies and music — and I have sought fame and fortune; but also have a growing sense of repugnance at star-studded excessive lifestyles in an era of ecological collapse. This is particularly true when they take the stage and rant about how their Prius and carbon offsets justify their lavish lifestyles, and have the gall to tell us how to live. I am less concerned with the sum environmental impact of the relatively small number of celebrities, and more with the poor example it sets for others.

    I have to question Gore’s vision of a climate movement that is celebrity rather than grassroots driven. Celebrities spewing at the mouth about climate change as they live large in the lap of luxury are doing great harm to the environment and the movement for its protection. We cannot get to a carbon neutral planet by all aspiring to live like rock stars, pretending we can sends precisely the wrong message to our children. Certainly many are grasping for ways to live more sustainability, and nobody including myself is going to be perfect; but come on, look at Cameron, Madonna and Al’s mansions and cars and selfishness.

    The Gore inspired Live Earth concert’s seven point pledge was generally rigorous and identified important policies like dramatic emission cuts and ending conventional coal power; yet it failed to mention reduced consumption and having fewer children. It is difficult to imagine a successful climate change mitigation strategy that fails to engage these critical subjects. Changing light bulbs and the myriad of other personal actions highlighted are important but will only get you so far.

    Climate change is above all else a matter of total consumption determined by population size and per capita consumption. My fear is that the wrong message is being sent regarding high rates of inequitable consumption being alright if it is only offset with illusory carbon credits. It is a valid concern that Gore and pals’ carbon output is massive (Madonna’s was estimated as being 100 times the average). This leads to the false impression that living like a star is sustainable and that minor personal change will solve climate and related environmental sustainability issues, to the detriment of essential broader societal and political change such as over-population, equitable consumption and militarism.

    I do not know how to mention it without sounding petulant, but Al Gore is not the whole climate movement; and my perception is that besides being on an ego trip, he is pushing a top-down hierarchical movement he controls at the expense of supporting long-standing existing, more grassroots efforts. It is strange that Gore seems to have personally approached just about every celebrity to help in his campaign while this climate campaigner, that runs the largest climate change portal, has found it impossible to reach the Goracle. This is not sour grapes, it is just interesting that on every turn his PR people contact me to blog on the movie, concerts, etc., but he seems to have little desire to work with non-celebrities.

    The most important thing we can do for the Earth individually is have fewer children, consume less and work for a more equitable, just and sustainable world. What am I for you may ask? High quality, simple living that can be sustained upon the Earth indefinitely; and for committing to serious actions like reducing consumption and population as answers to serious, planet-threatening questions. I am sure many celebrities are nice people and have worked hard to get where they are. Unless celebrities are willing to actually simplify their lives dramatically to reduce their ginormous carbon footprints they should shut their pieholes.
    Labels: Al Gore, climate change, consumption, population

    posted by Dr. Glen Barry @ 11:49 AM 16 comments

    16 Comments:
    At 1:11 PM, Germain said…
    Thanks Glen,

    I agree with you entirely. Gore is an opportunist. One day one knew nothing about him and the next day he has proclaimed himself the leader of the climate change mouvement.

    Germain

    At 1:12 PM, Clara said…
    Those darlings of the cause could certainly make a difference if even
    just a few the “ecocelebs” started dishing out some dough rather than
    blather, the Goracle included. As you so well know, raising awareness of a cause, does not often translate into raising funds for a cause… and those doggone resources just keep turning into polluted stuff and
    disappearing…

    Clara

    At 1:12 PM, nettle said…
    I’m glad you wrote about this – too few people have. I thought this “Live Earth” event was very cynical – Madonna’s charity is a Ford and Weyerhaeuser stockholder and she gets to sing at a concert against global warming?! Just another marketing strategy…

    At 1:14 PM, Candace said…
    Don’t forget that Al Gore has a special interest in new technology related to global warming.

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

    At 1:18 PM, Jane King said…
    Dear Glen: You are not alone. Many of us feel that “the celebrity message” has run its course in the environmental movement. I mean, John Denver was one thing—he lived what he preached and sang about, but this is different. I didn’t watch one minute of it! jane King

    At 2:29 PM, Adrian Dorst said…
    Hello Glen,

    There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what to do about climate change. The other day I was in the checkout counter with my two bottles of eastern-brewed beer, when the man behind me asked the cashier if the beer brand under his arm was brewed locally, as he felt guilty otherwise about
    buying it. He had the right idea, but I noted that this man has no less than 7 children. And as you rightly note, having multiple children is one of the most damaging things a person can do. My point is that, although everything we do to reduce our footprint is a good thing, if we fail to realize just
    how serious the situation is and if we fail to individually and collectively tackle the big stuff, we are going nowhere. Continuing to live a lavish lifestyle while making a token effort by recycling your wine bottles is not going to work. We need huge changes. In Canada, for example, we need to shut down the oilsands project which consumes enormous amounts of energy just to extract more oil from the ground. The US needs to stop making war at enormous expense and use the money to develope alternative energy. And we as individuals need to embrace a much simpler, more satisfying lifestyle. Food for thought. Keep up the good work.

    Adrian Dorst

    At 2:30 PM, Gordon said…
    Dear Glen, (& all)

    Thank you for composing and sending this. I’ve been having the same quandaries regarding these issues and what it means to sacrifice for the wealth haves to ultimately have a real and positive change occur.

    It must be a paradigm shift at all levels!

    Peace, Gordon

    At 2:30 PM, Jack Harper said…
    Hi Glen

    Glad to hear you’re not shying away from the population problem.

    Jack Harper
    Environmental Biology

    At 2:32 PM, Jim Wager said…
    Glen,

    I would like to suggest you enhance your blogs by providing a way to easily print them. I currently bring them into Word, massage them to get into a nice visual form, then print.

    Thanks for all your work.
    Jim Wagner

    At 2:33 PM, Leha said…
    Hi, Glen:

    Of course, you are absolutely right about this. I remember having a strange
    process to go through after I first saw _Inconvenient Truth_. At first I
    felt so relieved, because I had been convinced the situation was utterly
    hopeless, and somehow Gore’s soothing solutions made me feel better: if only
    everyone could just do a little bit better, things would cumulatively be a
    lot better… But then over the next few weeks I got over that and went back
    to being despondent, and with this came the thought that maybe the Gore
    effort would at least help some of the apathetic people to get less
    apathetic because they would see some hope, and maybe that would move them
    to some kind of action, as opposed to none. So I kind of took the stance
    that even though the Gore thing was not really the solution, it could be a
    part of the solution that dwelled somewhere near the edges of apathy. To
    date, I have not decided if this can work, because something in me keeps
    telling me that people have to care at least a little bit before any of it
    will work, and I’m not sure that many do. They don’t grow up playing
    outside, so they don’t know what they are killing. The Gore thing, like the
    whole movement in general, relies on people caring, and now matter how it’s
    delivered, will only reach those people.

    So now I just view it as something totally separate from the real movement,
    but maybe important in its own way, for its own little share of those who
    might care. I mean, the truth is, before his movie came out there was hardly
    anyone in mainstream society I could even *have* the climate discussion
    with. Now at least they know something of the concepts. If Gore appeals to
    people exclusively through celebrity, then I think his whole approach,
    though it definitely creates a star-studded and unrealistic view of what
    needs to be done, is a major attack at the belly, while the real movement
    works mostly at cutting at the corners. Both are important to those they
    reach. Your own voice speaks largely only to those of us who already care
    immensely. We are at the extreme edges. Maybe a few Gorites will wander
    across the lines of their own experience and begin to be receptive to the
    real truths and real hard work needed. I have come to feel that this can
    only happen, though, after they wake up to the damage we all do by being
    such energy addicts and then hit the wall of grief.

    And again, who is going to care but those who love? After all, giving up our
    addiction to energy is a lot more than just inconvenient–it will require
    acknowledgement that this is not the way we were meant to live, and a dive
    into crisis like lemmings into the sea. Civilization has already killed off
    the support systems that could have sustained us without the energy drug. If
    humanity survives into the distant future, it will have to be in numbers
    much smaller than those we presently have, and nobody is going to politely
    opt out while others get to carry on. Did you hear about those
    anthropologists who studied garbage in the USA and found that during a meat
    shortage people threw away more meat than ever before? Apparently they were
    so afraid of having to do without that they went out and stocked up on meat
    so they would not run out, then had to throw most of it away when it went
    bad before they could use it. If there is one person on this earth who can
    get these kind of people to loosen their grip on convenience enough to do
    the right thing, I think I would grant that person celebrity status! (But I
    agree it would not make sense for that to happen when they are behaving like
    pigs themselves.)

    Sorry to ramble on so much, but you inspired me (again). (-:

    Leha

    At 2:34 PM, Nancy said…
    Very well done – you are my rabble rousing son and I love it.

    At 2:55 PM, Rui said…
    thanks Glen, I fully agree with you. celebrities are no good example – with few possible exceptions – all they are really doing is trying to keep up their status and so keep up their highly earth exaustive consumption – Gore included – and leaving behind all their poluting rubbish full of the half digested nature the over-fed so often do. thanks so much for reminding us all of what really matters. Rui

    At 4:02 PM, Gary said…
    Glen,

    I tend to agree with you regarding the glitzwashing by celebs, but you need to put forth an alternative celeb who doesn’t live excessively. May I suggest my friend and actor, Ed Begley, Jr., a man who gives of himself to small organizations, stays in the spotlight to do his craft and to be the champion of energy efficiency and holistic living, and actually walks the talk. His home is very modest. Perhaps you have seen his show, Living with Ed?

    Your rants about the excesses of celebs need to be tempered by something positive. How about a piece about people who you feel should be getting the attention. That way, you can be seen as someone who has a positive side without selling out.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Regards & keep up the good fight,

    Gary

    At 5:20 PM, Michael Major said…
    I agree with Glen Barry’s blog on celebrity (sell-ebrity) environmentalism but I am more concerned with the absence of strategic leadership on climate change. Gore did well to convince the global middle class that something must be done about climate change. However, it’s a pie-in-the-sky leap to expect the world’s informed and motivated public’s to respond either democratically or effectively to climate change. Gore influenced the public but the public is no longer connected to the helm of our global ocean liner.

    Democracy implies that authority will respond to the will of citizens but the only ranking citizens of this global republic are huge corporations among whom the idea of equality is a distant meme compared with the more primitive values of power, growth and unconstrained liberty. Al Gore would invest conscience in corporations but each mega-corporation understands in its nascent awareness that anything stronger than simply pretending conscience is a poison pill against expansive growth, liberty and plunder.

    Yes, given sufficient time and cybernetic opportunity and appropriate selection pressure, our corporations or their persisting components and constituents will evolve a conscious morality to constrain their actions within a framework conducive to co-evolution and proliferation in an environment of declining resources. But the present difficulty with waiting for this event, is that there is inadequate selection pressure and insufficient time left for humanity and other life to become a constituent or component of that corporate future.

    There really is enormous selection pressure on corporations but the current environment selects best for the least socially responsible and least environmentally conscientious traits. Unfortunately, if human civilization (if not life itself) is to survive the era of corporate driven climate change then we must replace corporate rule with the life affirming rule of human civilization. But who’s going to bell the cat? Comfortable well ensconced corporados and celebrity volunteers? Not likely!

    Our representatives in such decisions are our governments and governments are stepping back and waiting for corporations and their corporatocracy to tell them what actions and directions are desirable. The corporations are saying loud and clear that governments must standback and provide for room for economic growth. How long will the global middle & enabling class wait to hear corporations say that rapid contraction of the industrial economy is the solution?

    Michael Major

    July 17, 2007
  20. danny bee

    Stop having children to combat climate change??

    posted by siddhran

    The simplest truths are sometimes the hardest to recognise. This month, according to the UN, world population will reach 6.7 billion, en route to a newly revised global total of 9.2 billion by 2050. The latest housing forecasts for England predict that we will need about 5m more homes in the next two decades. The economist Jeffrey Sachs devoted this spring’s Reith lectures to a planet “bursting at the seams”. And the most recent Social Trends analysis from the Office for National Statistics painted a picture of a Britain driven mad by overcrowding. Meanwhile, Gaia scientist James Lovelock has been warning about ecological collapse and world resources able to support only 500 million people, with many extra millions driven to take refuge in the UK.

    July 18, 2007
  21. danny bee

    6 comments

    #1 i agree with all of you. it is an issue that it not that hard to decide on. while i do believe that drastic increase in population is a drain on our limited resources and adds to pollution, the reality is how do you tell future parents (including myself) you cannot and should not have as many children as you dreamed of?

    but also as gecko68 said some people simply shouldn’t be allowed to breed…

    #2 I don’t quite understand all the fuss about this: its quite simple to rephrase the argument along moral lines that most parents would agree with. Namely, if you decide to have two children instead of one then you are inevitably reducing the quality of life/nonrenewable resources available to both children by having two instead of one. I would suggest that the taboo surrounding the discussion of population control has as much to do with religion where birth is a ‘miracle’.

    #3 Hopefully more governments will stop viewing population/birth control issues as taboo because we desparately need more progressive policies to address over population, in both developing and developed nations.

    July 18, 2007
  22. danny bloom

    Climate change action: Too little, too late?

    Author: Climate change will threaten human race

    Fred Pearce says change will be more dramatic than ever

    He says politicians must lead the fight against actions that hurt environment

    By Simon Hooper
    Special for CNN

    LONDON, England (CNN) — “I want to scare you about climate change,” says Fred Pearce, veteran environmental journalist and author. “We are probably the last generation to be able to rely on a stable climate.”

    Ice has been melting in Greenland and other areas of the Arctic at a high rate.

    Addressing a sympathetic audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival, Pearce is preaching to the converted about the reality and risks of climate change.

    But it is his fear — as the title of his new book, “The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change” (it is called “With Speed and Violence” in the U.S.), suggests — that we still haven’t fully realized the apocalyptic forces we have awoken and the reality of what is at stake if global warming continues untrammeled.

    This is not just about warmer weather, environmental degradation and a looming refugee crisis, according to Pearce, but “about our survival as a species, as homo sapiens.”

    This year’s series of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been broadly welcomed for a sober and sensible tone, which, while acknowledging the dangers of global warming, also suggested that our destiny was still in our own hands.

    Our carbon emissions would have to be slashed with strict targets set and met by 2050 to avert catastrophe but this was essentially a man-made problem with man-made solutions.

    Don’t Miss
    Global warming: A natural cycle or human result?
    Special Report: Planet in Peril
    Cheltenham Science Festival
    But Pearce says the IPCC reports are “not the whole story.” Carefully restricted within narrow parameters framed by measurable quantifiable change and imprecise computer modeling, what they don’t factor in are the “long shots” which could throw all our existing certainties into disarray.

    “The truth is, the more we observe about the climate system, the more frightening the scenarios that scientists are starting to develop,” Pearce says.

    “Past climate change has been more violent and extreme than we have been led to believe.”

    In the history of the planet, Pearce argues, the past 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age, in which humanity has established itself as the earth’s dominant species, have been unusually benign in climatological terms. But that tranquility “looks like the exception rather than the rule.”

    Now he warns, human activity in the space of less than 200 years threatens to re-awaken extreme climate change of the sort never experienced in the era of recorded history. Already, average sea level rise has doubled in a decade due to the destabilization of the Arctic and Greenland ice shelves.

    “We could soon be measuring sea level rises in meters, not centimeters,” says Pearce. “Old ideas about climate change are just not how the world works. When climate does change it does so suddenly and violently.”

    He highlights one such episode 11,000 years ago when temperatures in some parts of the Arctic warmed by 16 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) in the space of a decade: “Nature flicked the switch 10,000 years ago. We could be flipping the switch again.”

    As Pearce says, the “last generation” of his book title refers to the final years in which we will be able to depend on a stable and predictable climate.

    The challenge for future generations, he predicts, will come in dealing with the sudden destabilization of the planetary ecosystem and the social chaos likely to ensure.

    “When that certainty fails, how will society respond? One hurricane (Katrina) brought the world’s greatest nation to its knees. We believe we can control climate change but I wonder whether that is actually the case.”

    That, however, does not alleviate the need for urgent action, says Pearce, insisting he retains a sense of “apocalyptic optimism” harbored by the sense that politicians, in the IPCC reports, U.S. acknowledgment of the scale of the problem and the beginnings of moves towards a post-Kyoto consensus, are finally treating climate change seriously.

    “The technology to do things so much better is there. The economics is not hard, they’re not going to break the bank. The problem is political, making it happen. I hope we are reaching a political tipping point.”

    He also sees hope in the fact that corporations have spotted lucrative potential in adapting to ever more-stringent environmental regulations more effectively than their rivals.

    The next step, Pearce believes, is to add an ethical dimension to the struggle by highlighting the fact that those initially affected will be almost entirely located in the developing world where infrastructure and resources are already at their most over-stretched.

    “If the economics is what gets the politicians going, it’s the ethics that gets the people going,” he says. E-mail to a friend

    — With thanks to the Cheltenham Science Festival

    July 18, 2007
  23. danny bee

    The Last Generation
    by Fred Pearce

    Pearce is no idle Jeremiah…his book signals a shift of tone in the popular debate…The Last Generation makes you feel that we know enough now to conceive of the problems ahead. And anticipating a problem is half way to being able to do something about it.
    –James Flint, The Daily Telegraph

    ‘Engaging, lucid and balanced…This is a powerful book about the most important event in human history. Read it.’
    –PROFESSOR LORD MAY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY

    Since the last ice age, almost 13,000 years ago, human beings have prospered in a stable, predictable climate. But our generation is the last to be so blessed. In THE LAST GENERATION Fred Pearce lays bare the terrifying prognosis for our planet. Climate change from now on will not be gradual – nature doesn’t do gradual change. In the past, Europe’s climate has switched from Arctic to tropical in three to five years. It can happen again. So forget what environmentalists have told you about nature being a helpless victim of human excess. The truth is the opposite. She is a wild and resourceful beast given to fits of rage. And now that we are provoking her beyond endurance, she is starting to seek her revenge.

    ‘Do we really need another book telling us that doom is imminent? In this case, the answer has to be yes.’
    –James Flint, DAILY TELEGRAPH

    July 18, 2007
  24. danny bee

    Gore: human species in a race for its life !!!!

    Sarah Gilman –
    Aspen Daily News Staff Writer

    Wed 7/18/3007 (sic)

    “There’s an African proverb that says, ‘If you want to go quick, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ We have to go far quickly,” former Vice President Al Gore told a packed, rapt house at the Benedict Music Tent Wednesday. With many scientists pointing to a window of less than 10 years to moderate the effects of global warming, he said, meaningful change is still possible, but “It is a race.”

    The size of the climate problem? Worldwide atmospheric carbon has jumped from 280 to 383 parts per million in the last century; the polar icecaps are melting three times faster than anyone’s direst prediction; China is on the verge of surpassing the United States for greenhouse gas emissions; bark beetles and wildfires are sweeping across Western forests; temperatures are climbing, sea levels rising, glaciers vanishing. By some estimates, humans must pull 30 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere to have a shot at reversing such effects.

    “What we’re facing worldwide really is a planetary emergency,” Gore said. “I’m optimistic, but we’re losing this battle badly.”
    Gore, interviewed by business luminary John Doerr, spoke at the Aspen Institute’s Greentech Innovation Network summit — a gathering of world innovators hoping to boost the development of green technologies.

    It’s going to take a 90-percent decrease in carbon emissions from developed fossil fuel guzzlers like the U.S. and a 50-percent decrease worldwide to get a handle on the problem, Gore said — changes that will take major leaps of political will far beyond what current politicians see as feasible. That reduction, which would be mandated by a world-wide treaty, could happen through carbon taxes, cap and trade, technological innovations, and energy conservation and efficiency, he continued, as long as it is accompanied by a major grassroots public shift to sustain it at the level necessary.

    Gore advised the audience to compare the blue orb of the Earth to Venus, where daytime temperatures reach 867 degrees Fahrenheit and it rains sulphuric acid. The two planets have the same amount of carbon, Gore explained, but Venus’ just happens to be in the atmosphere, while most of the Earth’s is still locked underground. “The habitability of this planet for human beings really is at risk,” he said.

    So is there room for optimism faced with the specter of Venus? Gore thinks so, but it’s not in the current parade of presidential candidates or the slew of climate-related bills moving through the U.S. legislature — measures Gore called “baby steps.”

    “It’s going to depend on what’s in the hearts and minds of the people,” he said, and that’s part of the motivation for Gore’s recent Live Earth event — a 24-hour, seven-continent concert series that featured more than 100 musicians hoping to raise awareness of the solutions to global warming. Live Earth reached countless concertgoers, he said, as well as more than 8 million people by Web streaming.

    Add to that the fact that Gore has spent 30 years trying to bring the world around to the effects of global climate change, and the last several touring with his slideshow (now the Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”), writing books, and teaching 1,400 people worldwide how to deliver the global warming message in several different languages. Next week it will be China, then India.

    “It’s a different kind of campaign,” he noted, one that surpasses what he might be able to accomplish in a bid for the presidency in 2008.

    “Dealing with this climate crisis is not only what we have to do, it’s our chance to get our act together,” he said, pointing to the escalating loss of tropical forests, the crisis in Darfur, the destruction of global fisheries. The problem is so big, any solution must be comprehensive – and it should be a wakeup call. “These are not political problems. They are moral imperatives.”

    July 19, 2007
  25. danny bee

    By the way, Kit, today i received an email from a well known glo war activist writer in the UK, no, not James Lovelock, but someone else, just an important, and he said idea of polar cities is an important one in terms of scaring people into taking action NOW…which is the intent of my Swiftian modest proposal of polar cities……i am now calling them “sustainable polar retreats” (SPRs) so as not to scare people too much. Most people are reacting angrily and negatively to the concept of polar cities, so I am going to revise a bit. My aim to inspire people, not make them angry….SIGH…. danny

    July 19, 2007
  26. Kit Stolz

    Sustainable polar retreats…SPRs…I like it! Do you know that artist Bruce McCall, who sometimes does New Yorker covers? I bet he would make the point beautifully…

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/19/dining/20diningcover.1.html

    July 20, 2007
  27. danny bee

    Yes, the term needs an artist to cover it. I will look Bruce up. — db

    This letter in a newspaper in Taiwan today: It’s Greek to me but i think it talks about polar cities….

    敬愛的編輯先生(小姐):

    您好!自從全球暖化與溫室效應的問題在台備受重視,我建立了一個中英文兼具的部落格。探討未來人們住的城市只能建在北極,要住在像台灣或美國這樣的國家,是不可能的事。 貴報社讀者可於:climatechange3000 閱讀相關文章。

    敬祝 編安

    丹布隆(Dan Bloom)
    嘉義

    July 20, 2007
  28. danny bee

    “Gallows humor for global warming” is the name of a ne humor site i have concocted and am currently collecting jokes and humor for it. Contributions welcome.

    July 22, 2007
  29. danny bee

    Kit, this index blog by Ms Nagy might be useful for global warming and nature ideas too. Take a look!

    db

    July 23, 2007
  30. danny bee

    http://www.gradin.com/2007/07/23/polar-cities/

    A very good discussion here about polar cities, pro and con, and his own ideas, and comments, by Olaf Gradin.

    TEXT:
    The idea of Polar Cities is in response to doomsday concepts from global warming. Should the ecosystem collapse as a result of a massive build-up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then this idea has only rhetorical value. As for the development and planning of Polar Cities for this foreseen eventuality, I think it either a bad plan or at least very pessimistic.

    The estimated surface area of our polar land masses seems pretty high – almost 30 million km². Our population is over 6.7 billion at the moment. If you do the math on just those numbers, you get population density of around 224 persons/km². But I think that argument is far too simple. If we assume that 3/4 of the earth’s population dies due to the volatility of the environment, you’re left with 1.675 billion people looking for ocean-front property. I was also being nice by saying that we had nearly 30 million square kilometers of land mass between our two polar regions. If you look at what happens after the ice sheets melt, land rises from a release in pressure, and volcanoes blow, you’re looking at a lot less inhabitable land after all. I’ll cut it in half to 15 million km² because I’m skeptical about our building too close to volcanoes, fault lines, and other natural disasters. I also have to account for the plethora of lake and rivers that would undoubtedly remain on Antarctica – not to mention its steep mountain sides and craggy peaks. Now you’re looking at a population density of around 112 persons per square kilometer. That’s actually not that bad. There are far worse places in the world as far as population density goes.

    Now that we have a workable number of people, we can start analyzing what this new homestead would be like.

    I imagine a world metropolis at each pole (technically, the Arctic surrounds the pole). All nations and all diversity of people have centralized in two locations of the planet. The central lands of Earth have become desolate and hostile. You can venture out onto them, but survivability is contingent upon resources and exposure. The populations live in high-rise hotels methodically placed in a grid over the available land masses. The fringe area of decent land would be more barren of people than the central, cooler parts. Unfortunately, most people would need to be in Antarctica because of its concentration of land at the pole. Each hotel would be surrounded by land necessary to grow food and raise livestock. Everyone in the square kilometer living unit would be required to do their share of work to earn their food and living quarters. I’m not entirely sure how waste would be dealt with – perhaps pumping it into magma faults would suffice, but it may also be problematic in maintaining such a system. A refinery would probably take up too much valuable land area.

    There would certainly be a militant government in place at both polar regions. I doubt anything more than a form of Feudalism would be adopted. With so many different people from different backgrounds, humans would probably resort to brute strength. With anarchy-like crime abound and tough living conditions, citizens would surely profess an allegiance to a “king” for support.

    A glimpse into what living in Polar Cities might be like seems more like a good idea for a Science Fiction novel than any reality we should plan for. I can almost see an adaptation of “Firefly” applying to Earth’s new living conditions. While interesting to contemplate, I think time is better spent learning what exactly is happening to the environment, and reducing our adverse impact to it. Then again, if the environmental changes are a natural evolution in planetary cycle, then we humans are going to go through some hard times. I don’t think Darwin’s theory of natural selection comes without its pain. A species must suffer untold losses to survive with its fittest.

    July 28, 2007
  31. danny bee

    A Modest Proposal

    By Jonathan Swift (1729

    For Making Sure That The Children of the Future Can
    Survive the Impact of Global Warming by Building Polar CIties
    For The Roughly 200 Million (Estimated) Survivors of Catastrophic Global Warming Events and
    For Making These Polar Cities Beneficial to The Public

    August 5, 2007
  32. danny bee

    apparently , someone has come up with idea of polar city illuminators, see here

    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/enenator.htm

    September 4, 2007
  33. danny bee

    The Energia launch vehicle could be used to launch 100 orbital reflectors to provide light to cities located in the polar regions.

    September 4, 2007
  34. danny bee

    The world’s media to Svalbard

    August 15, 3007 A.D.

    Some 30 journalists from all over the world will on Wednesday visit the World’s First Model Polar City which is under construction on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard.

    Construction work on the Svalbard Model Polar City (MPC) started in April 3007 and the first blastings were performed in May. The facility will be opened on 15 February 3008.
    The visit to the facility will be lead by Project Manager Magnus Bredeli Tveiten from the Norwegian construction body Statsbygg. Part of the tour will include press briefings by Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey, the head of the UN’s Climate Secretariat Yvo de Boer, Development Minister Erik Solheim, Danny Bloom of the Polar City Research Institute and the governor of Svalbard.

    The MPC is being constructed as a cave excavated into the permafrost just outside Longyearbyen. The MPC is intended to ensure survival for some 200,000 survivors of global warming in the year 3500, and will have storage capacity for food and supplies.

    (Press release)

    3007 A.D.

    September 20, 2007
  35. danny bee

    A researcher in Alaska, at UAF there, says “good idea, but where will these polar cities be located? Murmansk? Anchorage? Wrangle Island?”

    I am compiling a list of suitable or likely places for polar cities: among them, Nanisivik, Barrow, Bathurst Island, Resolute, Ellesmere Island, Hammerfest, Longyearbyen, Baffin Island, Greenland, Iceland, Novaya Zemlya and Archangel’sk….

    September 27, 2007
  36. danny bloom

    some recent comments about polar cities, thanks to this blog:

    ”That’s interesting about polar cities! I read somewhere that by genetic engineering they are trying to harvest produce that can withstand extreme temp like when nuclear winter in future….your thought is somewhat related to that..its good. But whatever we do mother nature should not be altered…we need to somehow convey people that its high time come out of this mundane material world and try to change our lifestyle and restore the balance….we need to convey to people that adopting a moderation in spirituality and materialsm in their lives we could restore the balance of nature. Right now we are more inclined towards materialism which Is disturbing the planet earth. I think spirituality is the basis of planet earth. So if somehow we can convey this its better…”

    2. “I don’t know anyone in the media who could publish your ideas. My cousin used to be a freelance investigative journalist for Panorama but sadly he no longer holds that position. I wish you the best of luck, *** if only to get people thinking of alternative solutions to global warming…” ****

    September 28, 2007
  37. danny bee

    Kurt said,

    You certainly have an interesting idea. It sounds as if you are a believer in James Lovelock’s climate change forecast from “The Revenge of Gaia.” I’ll be following your work and may have an interest in writing something after you’ve developed your blog and the idea some more. Good luck!

    Best regards,

    October 1, 2007
  38. danny bee

    The most common comment i get from bloggers about the idea of polar cities is that it is “terrifying” to think about. I agree, at first, the entire concept is terrifying, but as you get used to it, and study the idea, polar cities need not be terrifying but in fact helpful and even hopeful for our future. Think about them, slowly…

    October 3, 2007
  39. danny bee

    A global warming writer in Canada writes:

    “Bonjour Danny,

    Je vous remercie de vos commentaires si a propos.
    Je crois que James Lovelock exagere peu etre un peu trop. Bien que ce
    scenario reste plausible, il serait dommage que nous ne pourrions pas
    changer le futur plus que ca. J’ai bien lu le livre de Mr. Lovelock et je
    crois qu’il a bien dessine les possibilites atroces qui peuvent nous
    attendre. Je ne crois pas d’autres parts que ses predictions nefastes qui
    sont dominantes dans la derniere partie de son livre sont croyables, surtout
    que celles-ci ne sont pas basees sur des recherches scientifiques assez
    valables.

    Votre scenario de ville futuristique enfin est intrigant et, souhaitons le,
    ne sera pas necessaire.”

    D’accord. Let’s hope we never need them!

    October 9, 2007
  40. danny bee

    A scientist at a prestigious USA university emailed me today re polar cities idea:
    “People are clever and will create for themselves very interesting living
    conditions as time goes on.”

    That’s all he said. Enough said.

    October 16, 2007
  41. xoddam

    It’s not going to happen, that temperatures get so extreme in the presently-inhabited parts of the earth that people aren’t going to want to live there any more. There will just be fewer of us altogether, no matter where we choose to live, because we won’t be able to sustain enough food production to support 6 billion people anymore.

    The location of cities is more-or-less immaterial. People themselves are very adaptable indeed and will cope with whatever temperature.

    The real question is not where to put people, but where to grow their food. Once again temperature is not the most significant issue — it’s water. The biggest, scariest part of global warming is that it is going to alter worldwide rainfall patterns tremendously, possibly causing a collapse of agriculture. This is *in* the next 50 years, it’s not sod-turning in a century’s time. If we don’t solve the water problem in the next few decades (by stabilising greenhouse gas levels, arresting temperature increases and restoring forests), population and economic collapse will prevent much of the rest of the forecast damage to the biosphere occurring.

    October 24, 2007
  42. Danny Bee

    xoddam, thanks for your good comments. interesting, and i really appreciate the feedback. gives me food for thought. thanks! stay tuned for more later…

    danny

    October 25, 2007
  43. Danny Bloom

    friends in Tokyo wrote:

    “Dear Dan,

    We understand your view of “it’s too late now.” Maybe it’s true.
    But still we need to make efforts. Our efforts would contribute to the
    extension of the
    Earth’s life. Our efforts today would help future generations prolong a
    period of grace
    before they face the final day of their living on the earth.
    In this light, it’s NOT too late, Dan!

    Or, maybe someone might invent a wonderful technology to restore the Earth!
    (We know
    it’s too optimistic.) If our high IQ has destroyed the Earth, we cannot
    deny the possibility
    that wise humans will use their IQ to reverse things in the future….

    So, let’s continue to make efforts anyway!!

    Satoru and Mitsuko
    IN TOKYO JAPAN

    October 31, 2007
  44. danny bee

    I am going to be interviewed tomorrow by a journalist who covers climate change. He is based in Canada, and this will be the first time “polar cities” are ever mentioned in the news media, outside this blog. It will be on a wire service, with worldwide reach, and online too. When published, I will link it here for those following this old story….

    November 4, 2007
  45. Danny Bloom

    FOr those still reading this blog item comments section, was just interviewed by telephone by Canadian environmental journalist in Toronto for a news story about polar cities which he will be writing in the next few weeks. Gettting comments now pro and con from experts in the field of climate change, to see if the world might really need polar cities in the future, or not. Should be an interesting report, when published. We chatted by intl phone hookup, my dime, via a pay phone, next to a 7-11 store here, for about 20 minutes. He seems like a very intuitive and aware reporter, so this should be a very good article. Looking forward to seeing what he writes. It will mark the first time anybody ever took polar cities seriously in print, other than Kit here at his blog a few months back. Thanks Kit, for the initial post.

    November 5, 2007
  46. Danny Bloom

    WANT TO SEE WHAT ”POLAR CITIES” MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE?

    http://pcillu101.blogspot.com

    At this blogsite, you can see some early artwork depicting what polar
    cities might look like, interior views. Art was created by Taiwanese
    artist Deng Cheng-hong, with production notes from Dan Bloom, creator
    of the ”polar city blog”….

    November 13, 2007
  47. Danny Bloom

    I just discovered a sci fi writer in the UK, Noel Hodson, who write “AD2515: About Global Warming” in 2005 and it features a 3 mile high buidling in a city called New New York. More info here:

    “What an intriguing and provocative book! Rather than simply rant about
    global warming and its causes and solutions, Hodson takes us far
    beyond all that and shows us what our world could be like if we
    continue along the same path. His future scenarios are inventive yet
    plausible, and he develops his characters quickly and with a fine
    sense of irony. If this book isn’t enough to give you pause before you
    head off to the gas pumps once again, nothing is.

    This book is a counterbalance to the bleak, hopeless and pessimistic
    views of the future in films such as Blade Runner, Alien, Terminator
    etc. where the human race is consigned to a derelict
    computerised-industrial-complex run by violent psychopaths – and those
    are the good guys. Mankind needs a fair compass setting, as we create
    our own future from our imaginations, expectations and actions. AD
    2516 points us towards a better world – and it’s a really good read.

    SHORT: AD 2516 is a radical social-fi & sci-fi story. It is a world of
    11 billion networked citizens that functions democratically without
    money; lifespan is 180 years; Doctor Eloise le Friac, the “most
    beautiful woman in the universe” is 100 years old. Our 1999 heroine
    and two heroes crash into the polar ice cap and are revived 500 years
    later when New-New-York is a 3 mile high construction; London is an
    estuary taking in Henley & Oxford; and sea-levels are a hundred feet
    higher. It’s an amusing & dramatic page-turning yarn which indirectly
    addresses many current social, economic and environmental issues.”

    December 2, 2007
  48. danny bee

    Images of polar cities on a chinese language blog in Taiwan, run by a 13 year old junior high school student:

    http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ncaawin&article_id=6512742

    December 5, 2007
  49. Danny Bloom

    http://polarcity.org/Welcome_to_PolarCity.org.html

    January 22, 2008
  50. danny bloom

    On March 29, 2008, the New York Times did a brief blog on intro to polar cities idea. And to think it all began on the blogosphere here at Change in the Wind in June 2007.

    hat tip to Andrew Revkin of the Times….. !!!!

    big thanks for initial sendoff to Kit Stoltz of Change in the Wind!

    March 31, 2008
  51. Health Education

    A holistic therapy provides a complementary alternative healing method to standard medicine. Holistic natural health education and health care includes alternative natural health remedies, like herbal healing, and an abundance of health and wellness products and services. http://natural-health-care-information.blogspot.com

    May 25, 2008