Pages

Monday, October 29, 2012

Mitt Romney: A Disgrace to Women


I had a lot of things I on my mind that I wanted to share this week. First I wanted to address the comments on my post about the separation of religion and civil marriage. I wanted to talk about the political roadblocks to renewable energy. But then I found this video and everything else needed to go on a back burner because I was too outraged to write about anything else.

Madison in the Middle wrote a very interesting article on Church and State. I agree completely with her views on Richard Mourdock's statement that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen". She says, "It is not sound logic to make a political argument on and frankly, I am quite sick of it. It degrades not only the political debate behind the argument, but it also paints a bad picture of Christians."

In class we debated about abortion and religion in politics. I don't believe that it is wrong for someone's religion to influence their actions and therefore their votes but I do believe it is wrong to inflict an extreme position on the entire nation. Not only does it not reflect the values of America as a secular nation but, as Madison said, it reflects poorly on religion.

Religion cannot serve as a defense of a political belief. To say that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest because when a life begins it is an act of God goes against the fundamental principles of America as a secular nation.

It is highly disturbed that a presidential candidate who has made ads supporting Mourdock has not condemned Mourdock's statement and withdrawn his endorsement. Rape is a crime that is taken far too lightly in America. Having a president who endorses people with such views will have a very negative impact on the perception of rape.

Mitt Romney's continued endorsement of Mourdock is a disgraceful demonstration of his lack of respect for women.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.



Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Ending Rape Illiteracy


Ending Rape Illiteracy



This week, a DC-based feminist group projected the phrase “rape is rape” onto the US Capitol building. The action was meant to highlight survivors’ stories and bring attention to the way rape is often mischaracterized. The sentiment may seem an obvious one—who doesn’t understand what rape is?—but the message, sadly, is much needed. It was only this January that the FBI updated its archaic definition of rape, male politicians’ “gaffes” about rape have become par for the course, and victim-blaming in the culture and courts runs rampant.
Feminists have done a lot to change policies, but not enough to change minds. Despite decades of activism on sexual assault—despite common sense, even—there is still widespread ignorance about what rape is, and this absence of a widely understood and culturally accepted definition of sexual assault is one of the biggest hurdles we have in chipping away at rape culture.
When Todd Akin uttered his now-famous line that women rarely get pregnant from “legitimate rape,” he didn’t misspeak. This was something he thought was true—both the bizarre logic about pregnancy and the idea that there is such a thing as a rape that isn’t legitimate. Last year, Wisconsin state representative Roger Rivard told a newspaper reporter that “some girls rape easy.” Now under fire, Rivard attempted to clarify his comments, claiming they were taken out of context. 
What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me [from my father], telling me, “If you’re going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.” So the way he said it was, “Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.”
Rivard obviously thought this explanation would lessen the damage of his original statement; he assumed his belief that women regularly lie about being raped was a commonly held one. What’s depressing is that he’s probably right.
To too many people, “rape” and “rape victim” are not accurate descriptors but political shorthand—the product of an overblown, politically correct interpretation of sex. As Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry said in 2008, “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse.”
If you’re married, you’ve contractually agreed to be available for sex whether or not you want to. If you’re a woman of color, you must be a liar. If you don’t have as much money as your attacker, you’re just looking for a payday. If you’re in college, you shouldn’t want to ruin your poor young rapist’s life. If you’re a sex worker, it wasn’t rape it was just “theft of services.” If you said yes at first but changed your mind, tough luck. If you’ve had sex before, you must say yes to everyone. If you were drinking you should have known better. If you were wearing a short skirt what did you expect?
The definition of who is a rape victim has been whittled down by racism, misogyny, classism and the pervasive wink-wink-nudge-nudge belief that all women really want to be forced anyway. The assumption is that women are, by default, desirous of sex unless they explicitly state otherwise. And women don’t just have to prove that we said no, but that we screamed it.
Recently the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned a sexual assault conviction for a man who attacked a woman with severe cerebral palsy. The woman cannot communicate verbally, and according to the court’s documents, has the “intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old.” Still, because of how the state defines rape in cases of physical incapacitation, the court decided that the victim was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” and therefore could have communicated a lack of consent and didn’t. Basically, she didn’t fight back hard enough in order for what happened to her to be considered rape.
This is not just a problem of rhetoric or legalese. The lack of an accepted cultural definition of rape leaves room for mischaracterizations that turn back the clock on progress already made.
Five years ago, anti-feminist author Laura Sessions Stepp popularized the term “gray rape” in her book,Unhooked, to explain the confusion women may feel after they’ve been sexually assaulted, and their hesitance to call themselves victims.
The term took off, and Cosmopolitan magazine featured a cover story by Stepp about this “new kind of date rape.” (If you doubt the cultural relevance of Cosmo, consider that it has a circulation of 3 million readers and—sadly—is the best-selling magazine in college bookstores.)
Stepp wrote in Cosmo that “gray rape” is caused by “hookups, mixed signals, and alcohol” and “the idea that women can be just as bold and adventurous about sex as men are.” She also called it a “consequence of today’s hookup culture.”
A generation ago, it was easier for men and women to understand what constituted rape because the social rules were clearer. Men were supposed to be the ones coming on to women, and women were said to be looking for relationships, not casual sex.
But these boundaries and rules have been loosening up for decades, and now lots of women feel it’s perfectly okay to go out looking for a hookup or to be the aggressor, which may turn out fine for them—unless the signals get mixed or misread.
A few months after this article ran, a student at Lewis & Clark College in Portland was sexually assaulted, forced to perform oral sex on her attacker. The young woman called what happened to her “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan.
“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head. I started gagging and choking and I couldn’t really breathe.” She says she started pushing on [her attacker’s] abdomen to tell him to stop. ‘And he was like, “yeah, that’s right, choke on it.”
There is nothing “gray” about this. There is nothing gray about violence, there is nothing gray about “choke on it,” there is nothing gray about rape. But thanks to this made up definition that isn’t recognized by law, medical professionals or sexual assault advocates—and that puts the blame for assault on women’s sexuality —this young woman and countless others think that maybe the sexual assault that was perpetrated against them was something less than a violent crime.
This is not an isolated example. Every day, the severity, violence and criminality of what rape is—its very definition—is distorted in a way that makes it more difficult for survivors to come forward and for anti-violence advocates to do their work, while making the world easier for victim-blaming and for rapists themselves.
In 2006, for example, a Nebraska judge ordered that the victim in a rape trial not be allowed to use the word rape or sexual assault when describing what happened to her because it would be too prejudicial. The words she could use instead? Intercourse or sex. In Maryland, up until 2008 it wasn’t considered rape if a woman withdrew her consent during sex and her partner kept going. (Who else would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner besides a rapist?) And this month in Oregon, a woman who was raped, beaten and choked by a man she went on a date with was ordered to provide her Google search history. The defense team hoped that if she Googled the definition of rape, it would show that she wasn’t sure if she had really been sexually assaulted.
Even the way that the United States compiles rape statistics has been affected by bad language. After the Department of Justice reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that their numbers were wrong—thanks largely to the way they talked to women. Instead of asking questions like “Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?”, they asked women if they had been subject to “rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack.” Thanks to the confusion around the definition of rape, and the hesitance of many women to label themselves victims, the actual number of women raped was much higher—the center put it around 1 million.
What feminists should do in response to bad policy and legislation has been clear cut—and successful. When the GOP tried to pass an anti-abortion measure last year that would redefine rape only as an assault that was “forcible,” feminists groups immediately took action. Thanks to national organizations, online activism and a clever Twitter campaign, the language was taken out of the bill. Feminists also won a campaign to push the FBI to change their outdated definition of rape, language dating from 1929 that said sexual assault was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.”
But how we change the culture is a hurdle we haven’t properly tackled. Feminism’s major cultural successes around rape have occurred on a micro level—taking on individual television shows or products. And, for the most part, our cultural work has been reactionary—we’re constantly on the defensive, whether it’s trying to fight back against victim-blaming headlines or offensive rape jokes.
This is work is important, but what’s crucial is that we make a shift from targeting pieces of the culture in a reactive way to proactively changing the broader culture in a more lasting way. We need to spend less time worrying about ultraconservative misogynists and extremist politicians and focus on shifting the way we all think about sexual assault and consent. We need to think and act much, much bigger.
Instead of pressuring Facebook to take down offensive groups like “It’s not rape if you yell ‘surprise’ ” (yes, that group really exists), feminist leaders should be petitioning to get in a room with Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to brainstorm ways that the company can actively push an anti-rape message. In addition to creating our own alternative media, we need to be working with and within existing mainstream media. I want to see a show do for sexual consent and sexual autonomy what Glee has done for LGBT issues. I want to see a “yes means yes” model in our sexual health textbooks, but I also want to see it on the cover of Glamour magazine. We need a multi-faceted, nationwide campaign so widespread that every person who opens a newspaper, watches television, goes online or just walks down the street knows about it.
The time is ripe for going big. The American public, young women especially, are ready for a new message about sexuality and for a definition of rape that is accurate, strong, progressive and indisputable.
When Vice President Joe Biden gave a press conference last year about the administration’s efforts to curb sexual violence in schools, he laid some groundwork, saying, “No means no. No means no if you’re drunk or sober. No means no if you’re in bed in the dorm or on the street. No means no even if you said yes first and changed your mind. No means no—and it’s a crime…”
This particular section of his speech—a strong message against rape, that called out victim-blaming, and put the blame squarely on the perpetrator—was tweeted and sent around Tumblr and blogs tens of thousands of times. No offense to the Vice President—but can you imagine the impact if wasn’t Joe Biden but Taylor Swift giving this message? Our politicians should be making bold feminist statements about sexual assault, but our pop culture icons need to be talking about it too.
Of course, the most important question to ask is: Is it possible to do all this with a definition of sexual assault that is not only widely understood and culturally accepted—but that is also comprehensive, intersectional and forward thinking? Can we get broad agreement around a definition of rape that shifts the focus away from the victim and onto the perpetrator, advocates for enthusiastic consent, and recognizes and centers structural inequities?
Clearly, this is just one piece of a tremendous battle. A widely accepted definition of rape—even a progressive, feminist one—will not change everything, and it won’t eradicate rape. But it is a necessary step to shift the culture.
The reason we have qualifiers—legitimate, forcible, date, gray—is because at the end of the day it’s not enough to say ‘rape’. We don’t believe it on its own and we want to know what “kind” of assault it was in order to make a value judgment about what really happened—and to believe that it couldn’t happen to us. It’s not because most people are bad, or want to blame rape victims. Americans are simply too mired in misogyny, and without feminist influence, to think any differently.
Thanks to widespread online activism and women’s issues dominating election discourse, feminism is enjoying a moment of real cultural power. Now is the time to use it.

I guess Romney never watched Dirty Dancing


The 1980's called.. they want their foreign policy back


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Joe Biden: Politician of the Century?


Separation of church and state. It’s in the First Amendment and it is a crucial to the identity of the United States. However, it seems that people have a hard time applying this concept to their political actions whether in office or in electing officials. Joe Biden is an exemplary politician in that he is able to separate his personal beliefs from his political beliefs.

Paul Ryan is the antithesis of separation of church and state. When asked how the role of religion plays into his views on abortion, Ryan replied “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith…Our faith informs us in everything we do.” I think it is very wrong for a politician to blatantly speak out against the separation of church and state because it is a core value to American government. If Ryan cannot separate his religious beliefs from the actions he would take as vice president of the United States, he is not qualified to serve as a political official in a secular nation.


Joe Biden on the other hand serves as a role model for all politicians. He is Catholic and accepts the church’s position that life begins at conception.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.

Both Biden and Ryan agree that people have differences of opinion on when life begins and abortion, however, where they differ remarkably is that Ryan disregards the duty to separate religious beliefs form a decisions in a secular nation while Biden upholds it. America is a secular nation and no president or elected official should be making decisions that affect all of America on the bias of their religious beliefs. This is an incredibly difficult thing to ask of any religious person, which is why Joe Biden is such a noteworthy politician. He upholds the true values of America.


Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Op Eds

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/the-radical-is-romney-not-ryan.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/gay-rights-may-get-its-brown-v-board-of-education.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/29/opinion/patel-apple-maps/index.html?hpt=op_bn4

Monday, October 15, 2012

Do the debates really matter?

Do the debates really matter? That was the main question on my mind while watching the first debate between Obama and Romney. In my mind, Romney outdebated Obama very clearly. That doesn't mean what he said had more merit but rather the way he presented his statements and attacked his opponent was superior to Obama's performance. Despite feeling this way, I didn't agree with anything Romney said and thought most of it was a bunch of fluff. He never once stated what he WOULD do as president only what Obama had done 'wrong'. As I watched, I was nervous for how Obama's poor performance would affect the election. I hoped that it wouldn't make a huge difference because most people who watch the debates care enough to have already formed an opinion about most of the important issues. But that might just have been because I didn't watch the debates as an undecided viewer.

 'As many as 62 percent of voters agree with the statement: "Romney is promising more than he can deliver."' This number gives me hope that other viewers saw what I saw in Romney's performance. A good debater not a good president. 

However, I think the truth is that the debates do make a difference. 
Romney has gained an average of 4.6 percentage points since the debate. That's a big change in the polls. Studies indicate that the presidential debate doesn't usually have a big impact. But this year it could.

But in this final month of an election, people decide whether or not they're going to vote, whether they're going to try to enlist other people. So I think that almost day-by-day, for the month that's left, we're going to see changes in this narrative that will matter and should matter. -Jim Fallows

I think Fallows is right. The debate won't really have changed people's opinions on the issues or their views of the candidates and where they stand. What it will have changed is people's perception of the candidates which will influence whether or not they vote and how much they encourage others to vote.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Climate Change: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly


As an environmental studies major, I am very interested in what is being done to stop climate change and more importantly what can be done. In this post, I will examine one NGO’s prosed solution. The most important first step in climate change mitigation is educating people on the facts and ensuring that everyone understands the necessity and urgency of the situation.

Lets take a look at the facts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gathered and compiled data showing the correlation between the rise in CO2 levels an rising global temperatures. Research shows that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, three-quarters of atmospheric warming has been caused by anthropogenic sources.[i]  Although there is a natural greenhouse effect, anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused an enhanced greenhouse effect, which leads to the atmospheric warming that is occurring.  Those who deny climate change are merely choosing to ignore the data because it is not to their economic benefit to accept the reality of climate change. 
The Greenhouse Effect


According to the IPCC, the total average temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 was .76°C.  The general consensus amongst scientists is that a 2°C change in global temperatures could lead to catastrophic effects and extreme sea level rise which would submerge several island nations.  Furthermore, if emissions stayed at 2000 levels, a further warming of 1° degree would be expected for the next two decades.[ii] 

Emissions levels have increased greatly beyond 2000 levels and will continue to rise unless urgent measures are taken to stop them.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s records show the annual mean atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1960 was 316 parts per million (ppm) while the 2010 concentration was 389ppm.[iii]  This huge increase in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed mainly to anthropogenic causes and specifically industrialization.  Since 1961, observations have shown that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 meters and the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate systems.  The IPCC has measured sea-level rise over the 20th century at .17 meters.[iv] 

At the current rate of emissions, climate change and sea level rise is happening at an increasing rate.  Preventing global temperatures from rising above 2°C only lowers the chance of the extreme effects of climate change occurring to 50%. 

There is no time to wait. Action needs to be taken now.

The effects of climate change will be felt by everyone but most heavily in states that do not have the economic resources to adapt.  The countries that will be least affected are also the ones that have contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions.  For example, the United States is responsible for approximately 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions (2009 statistic) but has the capacity and resources to adapt to climate change better than other nations.[v]  Small island nations, like the Maldives, will face flooding and coastal erosion and the displacement of their people due to rising sea levels.  Warmer, drier conditions will threaten agriculture, especially in many African regions where food supply is already short.[vi]  Overall, the entire world will be affected by climate change but developing nations will be hit harder than other places due to their decreased economic and social resilience.  That is what makes climate change a truly global issue, which is why I chose to examine what can be done at an international level.

Action needs to be taken now to prevent detrimental climate change.  In order to stay below a 2°C increase in global temperature, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2015.  A 2°C increase is what climate scientists believe to be the maximum temperature increase the Earth can sustain without catastrophic effects.[vii] 



Here’s how it would work:

A successful treaty would require a commitment to providing clean and safe energy for all through clear implementation measures, funding provisions, and enforcement mechanisms. Governments need to commit to making the switch to renewable energies.  In addition, governments and businesses need to commit to zero deforestation by 2020.  This can only be achieved by addressing the demand-side causes of deforestation.  When a truly fair and just Green Economy is established, the economy will be a tool to deliver societal goals rather than economic growth itself being the end goal.[viii] 

Together with the European Renewable Energy Council, Greenpeace developed the Energy Revolution, a plan that demonstrates the ability to achieve a fair and just Green Economy.  The Energy Revolution would cut emissions by more than 80% by 2050, deliver energy to people currently without it, and create more jobs.[ix]  The Energy Revolution requires an ambitious energy efficiency program along with massive development of renewable energy.  If implemented effectively, 95% of the global energy system could be powered by renewable energy and energy could reach more people in remote locations through a decentralized system.  The founding principles of the Energy Revolution are 1) increasing human well-being without fossil fuels, 2) fair energy access for all, 3) respect for natural limits, and 4) phasing out dirty, dangerous fuels like coal and nuclear by using proven existing renewable energy.[x] 

The amount of renewable energy that is technically accessible is enough to provide six times more power than the world currently consumes, and it will never run out.[xi]  The renewable sources included in the Energy Revolution are wind, biomass, passive and active solar, geothermal, and ocean and hydroelectric power. 



The key to successfully implementing renewable energy is decentralized energy systems where power and heat are produced closer to the final point of use, which avoids the current waste of energy spent transporting energy.[xii]  This will require infrastructure investments for smart interactive grids, supergrids which can transport large quantities of offshore wind power, and clusters of renewable microgrids and similar mechanisms.[xiii]  Although initial investments are required, renewable energy is the only option for the future because we will eventually run out of non-renewable energy sources.  Currently fossil fuel energy is made available at a lower cost than it actually should be due to subsidies.  If social externalities were considered, renewable energy would be just as affordable as fossil fuels if not more.

Due to the initial infrastructure costs, the Energy Revolution can only become a reality if developing nations are given funding for these investments.  Greenpeace developed the Greenhouse Development Rights framework to deal with this.  Designed by EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environmental Institute, it provides a mechanism for calculating the national shares of obligations for financing the Energy Revolution based on two factors: responsibility, or their contribution to climate change, and capacity, their ability to pay.[xiv]  This emphasizes the polluter-pays principle and the shared but differentiated responsibilities principle as rich countries will be responsible for increasing the proportion of renewables more so than poor countries.

For example, based on a responsibility and capacity indicator, the US accounts for 36.8% of the world’s responsibility for climate change and therefore would be responsible for funding 36.3% of the required global emissions reductions (given that it also has the capacity to pay that share).  Through the Greenhouse Development Rights framework, industrialized countries can help developing countries ‘leapfrog’ into sustainable energy.[xv] 

The Energy Revolution would require the following policy changes:
1)    Phase out all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy.2)    Internalise the external (social and environmental) costs of energy production through ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading.
3)    Mandate strict efficiency standards for all energy consuming appliances, buildings and vehicles.
4)    Establish legally binding targets for renewable energy and combined heat and power generation.
5)    Reform the electricity markets by guaranteeing priority access to the grid for renewable power generators.
6)    Provide defined and stable returns for investors, for example by feed-in tariff programmes.
7)    Implement better labelling and disclosure mechanisms to provide more environmental product information.
8)    Increase research and development budgets for renewable energy and energy eficiency.[xvi] 

Currently conventional energy sources receive approximately $250-300 billion in subsidies per year globally.[xvii]  This results in artificially low prices for conventional energy sources, which makes renewable energy less desirable.  If subsidies are eliminated and the externalities of conventional energy sources, such as the cost of climate change damage, were factored in, renewables would be competitively priced.  To implement the Energy Revolution in industrialized countries, subsidies for conventional energy would need to be eliminated and the money saved needs to be put towards investments in renewable energy technologies and infrastructure.  To make renewables affordable for consumers there are several options including tax credits, rebates, and loans for using renewable energy instead of conventional energy, installing solar panels, etc.[xviii] The capital and technology is available to make the Energy Revolution, it simply requires states to acknowledge climate change mitigation as a top priority.

Implementation in developing countries would require financial support from developed nations to help bridge the gap from existing infrastructure to a more sustainable future.  The Greenhouse Development Rights framework previously discussed would determine the level of contributions from each nation and the financial resources can come from a variety of sources including the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.[xix] 

Greenpeace proposes the Feed-in Tariff Support Mechanism (FTSM), which would help with initial investment costs.  The FTSM will be supported by a bankable support scheme, which will lower costs by reducing risk for investors and equipment suppliers.[xx]  Bankable support schemes have proven to be the most efficient and successful mechanism for supporting renewable energy.  For example, in Germany, where there is a bankable support system, wind-powered electricity is 40% cheaper than in the United Kingdom.[xxi] 

However the FTSM still leaves consumers with a slightly higher electricity cost than current conventional energy costs.  Cost is the major obstacle in executing the Energy Revolution in developing countries, which is where the financing from the Greenhouse Development Rights framework would come in. 

The goal of the Energy Revolution is to reduce CO2 emissions to 10 gigatonnes per year by 2050 and phase out nuclear energy.  Currently renewables account for 13% of the world’s primary energy demand and with the Energy Revolution, by 2050 80% of the primary energy demand can be supplied by renewable sources.[xxii]

In addition to climate change mitigation, 3.2 million more jobs can be created by 2030 through the policies Greenpeace is promoting, thereby effecting a secondary positive social benefit.[xxiii] 

Sufficient renewable energy and other solutions to climate change exist; the missing component is making the switches mandatory and economically viable.  The Energy Revolution provides the tools to accomplish this.  

Although there are many different plans for climate change mitigation, I particularly like Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution because it addresses an array of issues related to climate change, in particular, the need for different levels of contribution.  It is highly unlikely that the Energy Revolution will be taken into effect any time soon considering the nature of government; however, it shows how climate change mitigation is feasible.  Once people begin to realize the necessity and feasibility of climate change mitigation, there will be more pressure on governments to make changes in their policies and we can work towards a Green Economy.






[ii] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
[iii] ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
[iv] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
[v] http://sage-ereference.com.libproxy.usc.edu/view/activism/n188.xml
[vi] http://sage-ereference.com.libproxy.usc.edu/view/globalwarming/n329.xml?rskey=DpnI2w&result=2&q=effects%20of%20climate%20change
[vii] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 8
[viii] http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/72GREENPEACE_demands_a_just_fairGreenEconomy_RioSummit2012.pdf
[ix] http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/72GREENPEACE_demands_a_just_fairGreenEconomy_RioSummit2012.pdf
[x] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/energyrevolution/
[xi] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 9
[xii] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 9
[xiii] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 9
[xiv] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 9
[xv] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 10
[xvi] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 12
[xvii] World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, United Nations Development Programme, 2000.
[xviii] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 19
[xix] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 21
[xx] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 21
[xxi] ‘The Support of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources’, European Commission, 2005.
[xxii] Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution – Full Report, 10
[xxiii] http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=510&nr=72&menu=20