. . . more than just new cars
thanks again, guardian
traffic now more than all this heat
overwhelming too here at home
as wifeling & me on the way out
mother sure on her way back
this morning wifeling adele & i again with our saint-of-the-day
in robert ellsberg’s best 1995 all saints
seattle, chief of the suquamish ( 1786-1866 )
( via chief seattle’s message in power of the people,
eds robert cooney and helen michalowski )
we’re so touched. adele says, gotta call him to thank you
so right away that she does, all the way to MARYKNOLL
secretary puts him right away on. adele can’t believe it
thank you, thank you, daily-bob !
so here, what we just read, is this holy day . . .
Seattle was born in a Suquamish village along Puget Sound, sometime around 1786. As a child he witnessed the arrival of the first whites in the Northwest. They were trappers and traders who did not come to stay. But for Seattle and his people, it was the beginning of irrevocable change.
In his early twenties, Seattle was named the chief of his tribe. By this time the early white visitors had opened the way for an ever-increasing stream of settlers. It fell to Seattle to set a strategy for dealing with these invaders and their insatiable claims. Seattle rejected the option of violent resistance and put his trust in the possibilities of peaceful dialogue. But as the full intentions of the whites became clear, his goal was reduced simply to ensuring the survival of his people.
In 1830 Seattle and many of the Indians in Puget Sound converted to Christianity. As a leader of his people he tried to integrate the principles of his faith with the beliefs of his ancestors. But with each passing year it seemed that his traditional world was growing smaller. Ultimately, Seattle came to believe that the struggle with the whites really represented the contrast between conflicting spiritual values. In particular, the Indians and the whites held to completely different understandings of the relationship between human beings and the earth.
The whites considered the land something to be bought and sold. As Seattle observed,
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us … Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people … We are part of the earth and it is part of us.
In 1855 Seattle signed the Port Elliott Treaty, which trasferred ancestral Indian lands to the federal government and established a reservation for Native American tribes in the Northwest region. The alternative, he believed, was the extinction of his people. But he took the opportunity to address a letter to President Franklin Pierce. It is a haunting and prophetic document, often cited today by the proponents of ecology. It certainly does reflect Seattle’s profound ecological imagination, as well as the spiritual vision in which it was rooted:
We know that the White Man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on.
One thing we know, which the White Man may one day discover -our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own your land; but you cannot. He is the God of humanity, and his compassion is equal for the red man and the white. The earth is precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator … Even the white man cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see.
Chief Seattle died on June 7, 1866, on the Port Madison Reservation near the city which today bears his name.
thank you seattle ! thank you robert, robert, helen, and more
after all that, sure gotta find more . . .
here, have a look at danish manisha’s own beautiful, first music video of the same story
thank you everyone
( . . . updated today
amy goodman + bill mckibben take us over all of it
then, i added more to my edited marches music-video
do have a look, let’s do keep bringing ma back . . . )
czech video editor mirek lefou shares this
10 days after i posted dicaprio’s new preview
a much better chance to see his super work
one great movie, even if restricted under nat georgraphic’s new $$ fox-top
keeping it down past leonardo welcoming us all to see his best
so ok, we’ll all take part in sharing our planet first-class
i did buy the dvd soon as i could. you could too
or take a look instead at mirek’s better preview above
past that, david goncalve’s accurate, full version below, in portuguese subtitles
the road forward, per climate reality project
watch with us next week
stand up with us
demand real solutions to the climate crisis
when world comes together – ALL
sure no challenge we can’t overcome !
time to go right to the top – for ma herself
if not recognizing what happened right here, this weekend
full ICN quote below
what only make’s sense this morning
after yet more trump-awful from last night
meantime, thanks pres obama for all you’re doing
along with everyone pulling the paris agreement into action
Following the devastation from Hurricane Matthew
and a campaign urging moderators to ask a climate question,
the issue was again ignored.
By Marianne Lavelle, InsideClimate News
Oct 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton affirmed her commitment to fighting climate change, while Donald Trump pledged to take advantage of what he called “clean coal” stores that will last a thousand years, in response to a question on energy policy in Sunday night’s presidential debate.
Climate change was treated as an afterthought, despite a campaign by environmental activists urging moderators to press the candidates on the issue—especially on a weekend that saw the southeast U.S. coast battered, and Haiti devastated, by the extreme weather conditions from Hurricane Matthew.
The debate focused on topics that drove much of the presidential campaign coverage over the weekend, in particular the revelation of a video in which Trump made lewd and aggressive comments about women.
The query on energy came near the end of the contentious evening, designed in a town-hall style with undecided voters reading many of the questions. The energy question didn’t mention climate change but was focused on the nation’s production of energy. “What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs,” a member of the audience asked, “while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly, and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?”
Republican Trump, answering first, launched into an attack on environmental regulators. “Energy is under siege by the Obama administration, under absolute siege,” he said. “The Environmental Protection Agency is killing these energy companies.
“Now, I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, but we need much more than wind and solar,” he said.
“Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business,” Trump claimed. “There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country.”
He also spoke of the fracking boom and pledged to continue to encourage it: “Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. Over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. I will bring our energy companies back. They’ll be able to compete, they’ll make money, they’ll pay off our national debt,” Trump said.
In sum, it was a repetition of Trump’s all-of-the-above, drill-baby-drill “America first” energy policy. And it continued his denunciation of the “war on coal” that he and his running mate have articulated as they dismiss the climate crisis as a meaningful issue.
Democrat Clinton, as she did often during the evening, walked close to the questioner to answer and said to him that it sounds as though he works in the energy industry. She said it was good that the U.S. was energy independent “for the first time ever,” but said the Middle East still controls the price of oil.
Clinton then turned to alternatives, beginning with natural gas, a sign that she, too, favors the all-of-the-above approach to fossil fuels.
“We are…producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels, and I think that is an important transition,” Clinton said. “We have got to remain energy independent. That gives us a lot more freedom and power than to worry about what goes on in the Middle East.”
“I have a comprehensive energy policy,” Clinton told the questioner, “but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving to more clean, renewable energy because I believe we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower.”
Clinton said that her policy included a plan to revitalize coal communities along the way: “I want to make sure we don’t leave people behind.”
Some climate activists put out statements immediately after the debate expressing disappointment that the global crisis had been given short shrift. “We finally got a question about energy policy in the 89th minute of the debate, although it left out any mention of climate change,” said 350 Action Executive Director May Boeve. Nevertheless, Boeve said the answers revealed the “fault lines” in the election. “Trump doubled down on fossil fuels, while Hillary talked about a clean energy future that doesn’t leave anyone behind.”
Boeve did take issue with Clinton’s reference to natural gas as a bridge fuel: “It’s just a fast lane to more climate destruction,” she said. But she added that the group would work for her election: “350 Action will do everything we can to defeat Trump and then get to work pushing Hillary Clinton to move our country off all fossil fuels, including natural gas.”
Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard likewise lamented the debate’s handling of the subject. “The candidates spent very little time talking about climate change during tonight’s debate but it is on the minds of so many Americans, especially as Hurricane Matthew continues to take a heavy toll here and in Haiti,” she said in a statement. “Climate change demands the attention of both candidates and their parties, and it is shameful that it was given so little.”
Environmental and social activist groups, led by the League of Conservation Voters and Media Matters for America, a media watchdog grop, organized a social media drive that gathered 150,000 signatures urging moderators to bring up the topic.
“This summer, the climate crisis has fallen right into America’s front yards—from devastating floods in Louisiana to damaging droughts and sweltering heat, we are feeling the impacts of climate change every day,” said the environmentalists’ petition. “Yet according to a recent Media Matters study, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox collectively spent five percent less time covering climate change in 2015 despite landmark actions to address global warming.”
Four questions on climate and energy were voted into the top 30 questions in the online poll organized by the Open Debate Coalition . The organization, started in 2008 by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and progressive and conservative groups, has pushed for a debate format that allows for crowdsourced questions. The moderators of Sunday’s debate had agreed to “consider” the 30 most upvoted questions on the site. More than 3.8 million votes were recorded for some 15,900 questions.
“What are the steps you will take to address climate change? ” was the fourth most popular question on the site. It received 46,470 up votes, coming behind two queries on guns and one on Social Security.
The moderators asked one question from the online forum, about new Clinton emails posted on Wikileaks.
The high priority that poll participants gave to climate change contrasts with the topic’s near invisibility during the campaign. Trump’s only public statements on climate change were regarding a tweet he sent in 2012 claiming global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese.
During the candidates’ first debate on Sept. 26, Clinton brought up Trump’s hoax statement as an example of the contrast between the two candidates. After Trump responded bluntly that it wasn’t true, his 2012 post became the most retweeted tweet during the debate.
CNN columnist John Sutter has called climate change “the most important issue  almost no one is talking about this campaign season.” And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on Friday that it would be “almost criminally irresponsible ” for the debate moderators to ignore it. “There is, quite simply, no other issue this important,” he wrote.
After last week’s vice presidential debate ended with only a brief mention of climate change, Heather Hargreaves, vice president of NextGen Climate, a political group run by Clinton supporter Tom Steyer, said in a statement: “Voters rely on debate moderators and the media to hold the candidates accountable for their views—a clear debate on the differences between the candidates’ climate policies is vital in helping inform citizens who will be making critical choices for their futures on November 8th.”
Although President Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain were asked about climate change  by an audience member in their 2008 town hall debate, global warming did not come up in the 2012 presidential debates. Clinton and her primary opponent Bernie Sanders faced off extensively  on climate and energy in an April debate. But Media Matters  noted that Trump did not have to field a single climate change question through 11 GOP primary debates. He has not had to address his climate denial in media interviews.
TV news coverage leading up to the debate focused on the revelations of recordings of Trump, which touched off a crisis in the Republican party. Some prominent Republicans withdrew their endorsements of him and the GOP suspended its Trump campaign activities.
Environmental scientist Peter Gleick, who has been calling for more attention to climate change in the campaign, tweeted before the debate that a climate question might come as a welcome relief for Trump.
Here are the other three climate and energy questions that made it into the top 30 on the Open Debate Coalition’s website:
Ranked 10th most upvoted: What is your plan to combat climate change & build a green economy? 
Ranked 14th: What will you do to protect the rights of Native Americans and their land?  ( related to the fight over the Dakota Access oil pipeline)
Ranked 29th: Is Climate Change a national security issue? Why or why not? 
Election 2016 
© InsideClimate Newsn
. . . and for these ma-pix always we’ve been needing
( from me too . . . soon )
In Panama, indigenous tribes are turning to a modern tool to help protect their homes: drones.
Vast rainforests, which once covered more than half of Panama’s land surface, are shrinking – eaten away by development, both official and unofficial. Forest land is becoming mines, hydroelectric projects, farmland, cattle habitat, and the site of illegal logging.
In response, seven indigenous tribes, whose members live in autonomous zones known as comarcas, have begun sending up drones to keep an eye on their forests.
Three members from each tribe received a month of training on how to use the drones, REUTERS REPORTS. That included FLIGHT PLAN DESIGN, ASSEMBLY, MANEUVERING, and image processing, reports the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
Indigenous groups are running the program in conjunction with the Panamanian environmental authority, the Rainforest Foundation, and the FAO, a UN anti-deforestation program.
The FAO believes the program will help tribes monitor watersheds, crop harvests, and forest fires by taking high-resolution images, among other data, that identify deforestation and other negative changes to forest cover.
“These tools enable us to better know the forests’ characteristics and resources we have in our territories,” said Eliseo Quintero, a representative of the Ngäbe-Buglé tribe, in a statement to Reuters.
The Ngöbe-Buglé comarca, located in the western part of Panama, is both the country’s largest comarca and one of the two most affected by deforestation, along with Darien province along the border with Colombia.
The drones have proven especially helpful in monitoring areas where manpower is limited and the rainforest is vast. Last May, NPR reported that a Peruvian conservation group was using drones TO SURVEY AND TAKE PICTURES OF A 145,000-MILE SWATH of the Amazon that had come under pressure from illegal loggers and miners.
Drones have fought deforestation another way, too: planting trees.
The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR’S KEVIN TRUONG reported in September that the group BioCarbon Engineering, led by a NASA engineer, was using drones “in the entire three-step planting method. First, using mapping software to create accurate imaging of the prospective planting area. Second, actually planting the trees. And third, going back to monitor the progress and growth of their technological handiwork.”
And it’s not a minute too soon. Panama LOSES ABOUT 50,000 ACRES (50,000 hectares) of rainforest annually, estimates ANCON, a Panamanian conservation association, while some 2 million hectares of land and water resources – an area the size of New Jersey – is degraded each year. Reforestation efforts have yielded about 75,000 hectares of secondary growth.
Deforestation hurts the economy, too. In a 2014 study, THE UN ESTIMATED that the damage to rainforest from 1999-2012 cost Panama about $3.7 million, adding that better stewardship could create jobs while producing more food and preserving watersheds and other natural resources.
Rosilena Lindo, head of the Climate Change Unit of the Ministry of Environment of Panama, called the drone monitoring system “part of our country’s commitment to address the adverse effects of climate change.”
She said the country hopes to increase the carbon absorption capacity of its forests by at least 10 percent, or more with international financial support.
. . . A new study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that even members of the public who are “alarmed” about a warming planet show relatively low levels of public-sphere action, such as volunteering or protesting. The paper then sought to get to the bottom of why that is, investigating “what drives public actions of the certain segment of the population that’s already really concerned about climate change,” said Kathryn Doherty, a research associate at the Social and Environmental Research Institute in Massachusetts and lead author of the paper.
Why even the people who worry the most about climate change often take little action, Chelsea Harvey, May 16, 2016, The Washington Post, Energy and Environment
* * *
( my return note yesterday . . . )
thanks seri & wash post – that’s where i am too
nearby activist friend john of clearly charged living
must also be asking that of me
ok, these goings on of my own don’t take me there
yet some do keep me chasing what to do for our ma
this retirement age – these final days
free at last, oh so happy keeping it so simple
plugged into earth’s sensitivity
what can be this beautiful, so very natural !
then too, what to do if wife & me really could ?
yes, live so in public – join an ecovillage
meantime every roadtime’s loaded with bumps
” why am i pumping so much carbon too ? ”
that’s when a cool intellect starts its message
” simply member of a culture; not your fault ”
get them to do it first, as naomi’s been showing
tax those fossil fuels for all the mess they’re giving us
meantime am doing what i can to spread the word
. . . compost too
that’s about it
not that much here either, wash post
tho at least this, an old familiar thing –
admitting as much of ME before saying so of OTHERS
~ jim rucquoi
. . . more 350.org happenings around the world
full of action happenings – stories – photos
CHECK THEM OUT – JOIN THEM WHERE YOU CAN