portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

environment | government | imperialism & war

If Bush wins, "within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet . . ."

Speculation that if Bush wins then Havana will be bombed, that seemed maybe a possibility but mostly what you could call "over the top". Then I read a story on world leaders in science and religion getting together to remind us of the nuclear disaster and DR. HELEN CALDECOTT says, "My prognosis is, if nothing changes and Bush is re-elected, within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet, or little."
I do not want to fear-monger, but it looks bad. On Monday, March 8, 2004, world leaders in science and religion got together to make a statement on the likely future of Earth and the people of Earth. Why all this seems to come down on one George W. Bush, maybe that's unfair or irrelevant. Dr. Caldecott qualifies the alarm with "if nothing changes" --- probably meaning things continuing more or less like they are going now. But still we could hope that "W" will change and become enlightened? I mean, that's probably more possible than that he will lose the election. And then again, maybe we could ALL of us in this U.S. of A. become enlightened enough to vote Nader in. Something has to give. I do not feel comfortable with the old SNAFU philosophy (Situation Normal All Fucked Up).

From www.commondreams.org, published on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by OneWorld.net, by Jim Lobe:

An international group of religious and scientific leaders Monday launched an appeal to the United States and all other nuclear states to pledge never to use nuclear weapons and re-affirm their commitments to achieving total nuclear disarmament.

Since the Bush administration took power in 2001, however, the U.S. has been ambiguous on the question, while its opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--seen as a key step toward eventual disarmament--has fanned concerns that Washington does not intend to follow through on its earlier commitments.

Adding to these concerns are the administration's efforts to reverse a unilateral 1993 ban on research and development of low-yield atomic weapons, such as "mini-nukes" and bunker-busters" which Bush officials insist would provide greater flexibility in dealing with small-scale conflicts, such as last year's war in Iraq, or with terrorists holed up in remote regions. Such weapons could destroy small targets with much less damage in terms of blast and radiation, according to their proponents.

Democrats in Congress tried to prevent the administration from going forward by denying funding for development, but the administration succeeded in prying loose $7.5 million for the project late last year.


Scientists and weapons specialists who signed the Appeal stressed that the administration's insistence on retaining a nuclear arsenal and developing new weapons not only risked undermining the NPT and global non-proliferation efforts, but also made little military sense in an era when smaller, more precise conventional weapons using sensors and other systems are available.

"Military leaders don't see any military utility for making these weapons," according to Ivan Oerlich, a nuclear physicist at the Federation of American Scientists. "It's the civilians who want them," he said. "There is no military mission that cries out for nuclear weapons. These are weapons in search of a mission."

Monday's appeal, however, is based more on questions of morality than on utility, according to its signers, who also include Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Nuclear Policy Research Institute who shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

"My prognosis is, if nothing changes and Bush is re-elected, within ten or 20 years, there will be no life on the planet, or little," she said. "It's good to use the words 'sin' and 'evil' (in this context)," she added. "It is true that it is evil to have power to destroy life on Earth."

Marie Dennis, who serves on the executive committee of Pax Christi International, noted that U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference recently endorsed a global ban on nuclear weapons as a policy goal and called on the U.S. to issue a no-first-use policy on their use. As recently as one year ago in the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration refused to do so.

finally they just come out and say it 15.Mar.2004 01:07

fucking bush-fixated vote pimps


"If Bush wins, all life on Planet Earth will end! If Kerry wins, everything will be fine. Vote!"

This is the crud that's left of "the Movement" we had in 2000?

The funny thing is.... 15.Mar.2004 01:14

Tony Blair's dog

that you will have the same scenario with Mr. Kerry.

He is chosen to take the reins and continue what
the men behind "W" started. They know that
Bush will be out of the White House in a year but
that doesn't matter as long as none in the current
"administration" is asked "tough questions".

Which means, that as long as the Bush administration
manage to stay out of court hearings regarding their
criminal involvement, they are laughing all the way
to the bank.

Question for Dr. Helen Caldicott (and all who hail her on this specific topic) 15.Mar.2004 01:20


"if nothing changes"

--and you believe John Kerry will bring "changes"?

Sweet Helen, angel woman of truth 15.Mar.2004 01:44

Migratory Bird

I have great respect for Helen Caldicott. I once had the brilliant experience of listening to her speak on current events and much of what she had to say was thrilling and enlightening. She said that we (americans) have it ass backwards. While you pay almost twice or three times as much for a gallon of gas in Europe all medical treatments are free. I could go have brain surgery for free but if I want to go for a Sunday drive it's gonna cost through the roof. Now that makes sense. Being a doctor she had lots of good stuff to say...

Now common dreams I don't like as much and a lot of times I think they post stupid, missing half the picture shit. Most of it is all democrat-still wearing a blind fold- shit...

Which leads me to conclude that a) Helen didn't mean elect Kerry. b) that Helen did not meant that Bush would stay in power if "re-elected". c) and that Helen was saying vote democrat. However it does mean that voting for Kerry is the goal of common dreams. It also means that most nobel prize winners on Nuclear disarmament would hate any guy to actually reestablish the star wars program, start up nuclear testing, and revive the cold war as if the quote of "if the jews didn't exist I would have made them up" was an oft repeated inside family joke.

Yep, it probably means that he should be seen as the greatest threat to the human race, bar none. Any Nobel prize winner could see that.

Pathetic Fear Mongering 15.Mar.2004 01:50


So this is what the Democraps and so-called (cough, cough) American progressives have been reduced to--fearmongering and scare tactics in the extreme?

If Bush "wins" the 2004 pseudo-election, the Apocalypse is coming. Oooooh, I am so scared, and so convinced. NOT!

And if Kerry wins? We get what? Apocalypse Lite? Vote for Kerry. He will only kill tens of millions of people--as opposed to Bush, who will kill billions!

For the umpteenth time: the problem ain't Bush, Kerry, Democrat, Republican, NeCons or NeoLiberals.


Vote BushKerry!

Choose and Lose!

"If... if" 15.Mar.2004 03:01

That's so annoying

Idle speculative crap. Isn't there anything better to write about? He's not going to win anyway, so this is all just wasting your energy and time, as well as space on Indymedia.

time for radical voting initiatives 15.Mar.2004 09:57

empire slayer

ok, to most people with a still functioning bullshit detector, it is clear that the choice between two skull and bones zombies [bush/kerry] is a NON-CHOICE. so, that leaves us no option but to do something radical on election day, to protest the fixed election. as someone suggested earlier, we could write in who we actually want to vote for, and then occupy the voting booth [days if necessary] until we are absolutely sure that our vote has been counted. there are many many options to make a radical statement. for me personally, i am just DONE with the whole scam of the federal government--rotten at its core.

why bush 15.Mar.2004 12:24


"Why all this seems to come down on one George W. Bush, maybe that's unfair or irrelevant."

Unfortunately, it's not irrelevant. He's a "true believer" that he is doing god's work to bring the second coming ... the Dominionists. And many of those who back him also believe it.


Choice? 16.Mar.2004 00:24

Catalina Eddie

The indoctrination I got in Jr High School is unfortuately still programmed so I'm gonna hafta vote, even though for the past thirty years I've felt like a chump for doing it. One guarantee though; it ain't gonna be for a bonesman. There's always Nader, or Kucinich, or whomever the Libertarians run. Or some write-in; Bullwinkle Moose has always been a good choice

Sorry. I know there's nothing significant about this post, but I jus hadta add some comment. Vote for something. It isn't much, but it's something


i'll try the apocalpyse lite 16.Mar.2004 00:49

if that's the choice you're offering me

"And if Kerry wins? We get what? Apocalypse Lite? Vote for Kerry. He will only kill tens of millions of people--as opposed to Bush, who will kill billions!"

That would be an easier call than you sound like you think. I'd take Kerry in a heartbeat. I have better ideas but I'm not sure how the free trip to Guantanamo for Bush / Cheney is coming along, so file that under "not very viable" I guess. Alas, unless nature or sabotege take their course, it may well be one or the other, and pretending it's not so, doesn't seem helpful to me.

Okay, how DO you deal with this which follows as being as serious as it is, without being suckered into getting all hot for a War President as the easy way to keep us on top during the troubled times we may be creating for ourselves? If you do believe it, an hyperaggressive leader looks better, and if you disbelieve it, you may have diffused your own environmental concerns. Feels like the old, "do you want to be hung with the red rope or the blue rope?" trick, as does the Presidential election. But while the options may be engineered, the situation may not be.

(Didn't "Badmouthed Bill" Clinton (Democrat) actually sign the Kyoto pact before Bush (Republican) reneged on it? Blasphemy!- a difference in major parties?!?!? If the Republicans can run their wolves in sheeps clothing, the Democrats can run their sheeps in wolves clothing, if they got any, and if that's what Mr. "Apocalyse Lite" is (all he has to do is break his campaign promises that relate to outBushing Bush, since when was that hard for a politician to do?)- maybe it's already working- and more power to 'em unless anyone has any more viable ideas than pointing out the billionth time that Kerry or any other Democrat may or may not be the solution to anything - freaking DUH!!! already with THAT... you want to fiddle while Rome burns? We already have Emperor Bush for that and that is what I like least about him).


Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible,' Says New Report
Mon Mar 15, 9:50 AM ET

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Mar 15 (OneWorld) -- Ten years after the ratification of a United Nations (news - web sites) treaty on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming are still on the rise, signaling a "collective failure" of the industrialized world, according to the Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI), a leading environmental think-tank.

"We are quickly moving to the point where the damage will be irreversible," warned Dr. Jonathan Pershing, director of WRI's Climate, Energy and Pollution Program. "In fact, the latest scientific reports indicate that global warming is worsening. Unless we act now, the world will be locked into temperatures that would cause irreversible harm."

WRI researchers estimate that greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide rose 11 percent over the last decade, and will grow another 50 percent worldwide by 2020. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the international agreement that sets out specific targets to follow up on the treaty, 38 industrialized countries were supposed to reduce their emissions by an average of seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The administration of former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) signed the Kyoto Protocol, but President Bush (news - web sites) withdrew the U.S., which currently emits about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, from negotiations over Kyoto's implementation.

Russia, which indicated initially that it intended to ratify the Protocol, remains undecided. As a result the Protocol--which must be ratified by countries whose greenhouse emissions totaled more than 55 percent of global emissions in 1990 in order to take effect--remains in limbo.

WRI decided to make a relatively rare public statement now, both because the tenth anniversary of the UNFCCC's ratification will take place next weekend and because of the growing pessimism surrounding the international community's ability and will to deal with the problem.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which called for voluntary reductions in greenhouse emissions, was signed by, among others, then-President George H.W. Bush, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and took formal effect March 21, 1994. Today, 188 countries are signatories.

The Kyoto Protocol grew out of the UNFCCC when it became clear that plans for voluntary reductions would not meet the initial targets, and as climate and atmospheric scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become increasingly convinced that the rise in global temperatures of about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century is due primarily to artificial emissions, notably the combustion of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas.

Studies over the past decade have shown that the warming trend continues. "The five warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place over the last six years," noted WRI's president, Jonathan Lash.

"The ten warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place since 1987. Whether it's the retreat of glaciers, the melting of the permafrost in Alaska, or the increase in severe weather events, the world is experiencing what the global warming models predict," he said.

Europe, the main champion of the Kyoto Protocol, suffered its hottest year on record last year. Some 15,000 people in France alone died due to heat stress in combination with pollution, while European agriculture suffered an estimated $12.5 billion in losses.

Britain's most influential scientist, Sir David King, recently excoriated the Bush administration for withdrawing from the Protocol and ignoring the threat posed by climate change. "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today," he wrote in Science magazine, "more serious even than the threat of terrorism."

Even the Pentagon (news - web sites) recently issued a warning that global warming, if it takes place abruptly, could result in a catastrophic breakdown in international security. Based on growing evidence that climate shifts in the past have taken place with breathtaking speed, based on the freshening of sea water due to accelerated melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps.

Given enough freshening, the Gulf Stream that currently warms the North Atlantic would be shut off, triggering an abrupt decline in temperatures that would bring about a new "Ice Age" in Europe, eastern Canada, and the northeastern United States and similar disastrous changes in world weather patterns elsewhere--all in a period as short as two to three years.

Wars over access to food, water, and energy would be likely to break out between states, according to the report. "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," according to the report. "Once again, warfare would define human life."

Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050. A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually.

"Accelerated development of a portfolio of technologies could stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, enhance global energy security, and eradicate energy poverty," noted David Jhirad, WRI's vice president for research. "We urgently need the political will and international cooperation to make this happen."

actually 16.Mar.2004 01:08

clinton's legacy

"Didn't "Badmouthed Bill" Clinton (Democrat) actually sign the Kyoto pact before Bush (Republican) reneged on it?"

No, he didn't, but thanks for playing "find a difference between the two corporate parties", better luck next time.

well 16.Mar.2004 01:33


Clinton did sign Kyoto, that is, he put his name on the treaty, it was just never ratified. The real question is, since everyone knew kyoto would never be ratified thanks to the republican majority in the house (not to mention many democrats who were opposed to it), would Clinton have signed if it could have been ratified?