Global warming is a moral issue.
Humanity is in the process of effecting a change in the world’s climate, that even exceeds the natural cycles that in the past have produced ice ages. The impact on the life of this planet will be monumental and it is already being felt.
Thousands of people have already become climate change refugees from Wellington, NZ to New Orleans, USA. As the ice continues to melt, and the seas continue to rise, the UN believes this will run to 50 million people by 2010 and some scientists predict this to rise to 150 million. For those fortunate enough not to be forced from their homes, they will still be subject to more intense weather patterns, from stronger storms more often, to more severe droughts more frequently. Global warming is a moral issue.
The impact on other species in unprecedented - from caterpillars with scientific names we will never learn to polar bears drowning in the arctic because the ice has melted. We are killing off other animals 1000 times faster than nature’s average. Global warming is a moral issue.
Plants are not immune to these changes either. This global warming is caused by carbon in the form of carbon dioxide trapping the sun’s heat under the atmosphere like the glass windows of a car on a summer’s day. Almost 30% of all the Co2 that goes up into the atmosphere each year comes from forest burning. Global warming is a moral issue.
Even the rocks and oceans are crying out. As the earth heats, evaporation increases, not just from the oceans, but from the land as well. The soil is getting drier. The world’s permafrost is melting. The world’s glaciers are melting. The world’s ice caps are melting. Global warming is a moral issue.
Yet “humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problems.” (Pacia and Socolow: 2004)
Only two of the world’s developed nations have not joined the rest in ratifying the Kyoto protocol on reducing carbon emissions. Australia is one of them. The USA is the other.
Global warming is a moral issue. It is time for us to do something about it.
(Can you tell I saw An Inconvenient Truth today?)
February 15th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Yep, very obvious you just saw that movie!
It’s a huge issue and I’m glad it’s finally hitting some of the prime time news and political debates.
So, what are churches out there doing to minimise their CO2 levels? Where I work, we’ve finally convinced the board to begin acting on this. Part of our facility has just over 100 bathrooms (we run a small hotel) and they all have the normal big shower heads. FINALLY, they’ve agreed to change them for water saving ones.
It’s a little thing in the big scheme of things, but it does have a positive effect on the people here. Bring change to the “ground troups” in your organisation and they will in turn help you to pressure government and bigger institutions to act.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Well done Carl that is great.
Isn’t it funny how such straightforward changes, which in the big scheme of things are relatively minor steps, can be so hard to get off the ground. But once they do, they precipitate much bigger changes relatively easily.
It was only this year that I finally bothered to change to renewable ‘green’ energy, which has been available in Victoria (mostly in the form of hydro but also increasingly wind power) for over a decade. Better late than never. We can still all do more.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
The primary concerns of evangelicals is to evangelize, not social justice or care for the environment/God’s creations/etc. The new convert’s faith might bring about his/her concerns for social justice/environment, but only as a consequence.
I’m not saying that one has to believe in Jeyzus to spawn interest in social justice/environment, but evangelicals argue that their primary role in life as a believer is to bring people to Jeyzus.
When our ecosystem is destroyed and have nowhere else to live, then the second coming of Jeyzus would be realized, and all those who won’t submit to Him shall perish.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
…YES you are on to something there Zqudlyba…and just think if there were millions of environmental refugees all in the one place and totally vulnerable becasue they had just lost everything - including family members - they might be really receptive to hearing my good news that didn’t care less for what had put them in this terrible position… What a wonderful opportunity… I don’t know why God didn’t think of doing this to them before…how else will they ever learn what Jesus meant about loving your neighbors?
February 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
There is no such thing as global warming… Nature is just adjusting the climate to compensate for pollution.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Nuke the whales.
Drive a V8
Have long, hot showers.
Eat McDonalds.
and whatever you do, don’t buy real estate in Greenland or Holland.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
oh.. by the way…
Akevin, it’s easy for you to say that when Americans use up approxmately 70% of the worlds resources.
In the words of David Bowie…. I’m afraid of Americans.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Nature is just adjusting the climate to compensate for pollution.”
Adjusting how? By getting warmer? That would be global warming wouldn’t it?
February 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“Nature is just adjusting the climate to compensate for pollution.”
Love it - going straight up on my wall! (made of asbestos)
February 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Akevin… your certainly polishing up your right wing political credentials… I can only hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek with that gem… and then there’s that David Horror-vitz bloke you posted about yesterday who ranted about how public schools entrench disadvantage (presumably he wishes to close them and make private schools the only educational option… yep, that would level out disadvantage in society!)
February 15th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Ten facts about global warming THEY don’t want you to know
Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.
Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.
Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.
The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.
References
SEPP
Still waiting for greenhouse
CO2 Science
Philip Stott
Warwick Hughes
Oregon Petition Project
Global warming: a closer look at the numbers.
Sorry, wrong number!
When it was really hot!
David Deeming
Chris Landsea
The long term view on climate change
Index
I also suggest that you check out the following links below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Moral issue, YES. However, just as it is with Bible Doctrine, we need to not gullibally accept everything that we are told, but we need to also seek the TRUTH behind the spin.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
How dare you present us with facts, get-rid-of-the-spin. You would be aware that people who belong to belief clubs (aka churches), have very sophisticated means of dealing with facts and evidence - they just ignore them.
I wonder if belief club culture makes one more openly accepting of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”?
February 16th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Assuming GROTS’ facts are true (even though I dispute many of the conclusions drawn from them) I’m not sure what they add to helping us address this real moral crisis of the unsustainable impact of our lives on the environment particularly in relation to global warming.
1) Britain may well be cooler … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate crisis.
Plus if you used the fact that one place on earth is still cooler than the last global heat wave, to prove that the globe isn’t warming you would be mistaken - and potentially disingenuous.
2) Greenland was once greener … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of global warming.
But if you used this one fact to imply the rapid thawing of the ice that is there now won’t cause significant environmental problems you would be mistaken - and possible disingenuous.
3) Water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of global warming.
But if believed this proved the human influence of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is not significantly increasing the greenhouse effect, you would be mistaken - and it is disingenuous to call the straw that ‘breaks the camels back’ of the ecological balance “minor” since people are already dying in our world because of the changes we have made to that balance.
4) Without the greenhouse effect there would be no life on Earth … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate change crisis.
But if you used this fact to imply that since some green house is good, more would be great, and much more would be even better, you are mistaken. To recognise the importance of the ecological balance for all life on earth and then participate in destroying that balance would be bloody stupidity!
5) You believe the few weather measurements that support your theory and disregard the majority that don’t - justifying this in your own mind because as they are “mainly non-western” and therfore “probably ill maintained” or “contaminated” … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate change crisis.
But if everyone in the world was to base their actions on this approach they would not only be mistaken but extremely dangerous.
6) Computer models of the climate are based on assumptions … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate change crisis.
But if we used the existence of such assumptions to try justifying ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus about the impact of humans on global warming we would be deceiving ourselves.
7) The Kyoto agreement would effect the world economy … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate change crisis.
But to argue that any changes that may costs us something are not valuable or necessary is a mistake. It is precisely this age old temptation of us rich and powerful people in the world to value our own comfort, security and wealth at the expense of acting more compassionately to those most vulnerable to these climate changes that brings the morality of this issue into stark relief for me. Besides, wouldn’t it be disingenuous to ask others to put their faith in economic modelling that is based on assumptions?
But it would be a mistake to imply that since someone, somewhere did the wrong thing those who talk about the reality of climate change are “a corrupt engine promoting a scare” - and wouldn’t it be disingenuous to ignore the possibility that those who oppose taking responsibility for caring for the earth are driven by interests in ways that can also extend to corruption and misrepresentation? I believe the actions of rich and powerful interests, like those whose wealth is based on burning fossil fuels, is worthy of an honest examination but that judgement can wait for another day.
9) Nobel prize winners have called for “a rational scientific approach to environmental problems” … OK, so what? This doesn’t change the reality of the climate change crisis.
But if you let such petitions blind you to the rational science about this issue you would be mistaken - Plus it would be disingenuous to say that “The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it.”
February 16th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Akevin, it’s easy for you to say that when Americans use up approxmately 70% of the worlds resources.
Dido - just where do these facts you quote come from, do you have a source that you can reveal??? A wise person once told me that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. therefore, we only use 33.7% of all the resources.
Yes Janet - toungue in cheek, but it is amazing to see how literal every comment is taken, even the Horowitz stuff. The amazing thing to me is how y’all get so up in arms so quick over politics? ( which is derived from 2 greek words #1 Poly meaning MANY and #2 Ticks meaning BLOOD SUCKERS.) It’s funny how politics and religion do not mix, unless your a left winger of sourse, then it’s okay.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Her is a global warming thought… 2 Peter 3:9-10
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:9-10
Greenpeace is gonna have to work hard to stop this.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:26 am
“Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.”
This is exactly why I loath people using the “global warming” term. “Climate change” is far more an appropriate description of what is happening to our planet.
Even if it isn’t true and is just a scare tactic, what’s the problem with reducing our emissions and moving towards a more sustainable model?
Yes, it will be tough on our economy but we will all be the better for it. More investment into the things that really matter, more focus on the important things in life and those less fortunate than us, and we will be forced to all become humble in a world of financial difficulties.
All those challenges are awesome and worthwhile in my books. Let’s go for it! Let’s see how far we ahead can take our incredibly creative species. Take up the challenge to advance with the caveat of ensuring it is a sustainable advancement to the detriment of no other. Now that’s a challenge worthwhile of our effort.
What’s wrong with doing any of that regardless of whether global warming or climate change is true or not?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Akevin….
“The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.
America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.
The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.
Based on factors such as a nation’s consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological ‘footprint’ for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.
America’s consumption ‘footprint’ is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK’s 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.
The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year. ”
and…
“The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.”
from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750783,00.html
and….
* The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.
* As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles.
* New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.
from: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:UMkyn7Ygtd4J:www.worldwatch.org/node/810+US+consumption+of+global+resources&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au
which is by far the most damning report on US behaviours.
I apologise, the 70% figure was not accurate…. typo.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Dennis Leary’s song “Asshole” was not a parody… it was a blueprint for the United States for the next 20 years.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
And one more for good luck:
http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2
February 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Dido - I thought the Americans were supposed to be the arrogant ones. So I guess if your numbers come from a website they must be accurate? If you live by worldwatch then I am sure you are composting, lobbying your local government for new sidewalks, or this gem (from your source)If you don’t have a yard or space for a compost pile, try indoor ‘vermiculture,’ or worm composting -
Dido - i bet YOU don’t live by worldwatch guidelines either.
Growth in China (from the website you gave)
Every day in 2003, some 11,000 more cars merged onto Chinese roads—4 million new private cars during the year. Auto sales increased by 60 % in 2002 and by more than 80 % in the first half of 2003. If growth continues apace, 150 million cars could jam China’s streets by 2015—18 million more than were driven on U.S. streets and highways in 1999.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
oh, yeah, here is there link to how to save the planet. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldwatch.org%2Ffeatures%2Fwwuniversity%2F10waystogogreen
February 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Compost heap in back yard… check.
Toyota Prius hybrid electric/petrol car…. check.
Recycle paper and plastic household waste separately to garbage…. check.
Solar hot water heating…. check.
Rain water tank for gardens… check.
I wish I could do more but that’s all my finances allow for at the moment.
Now, according to the US government’s own CIA department, China’s 2006 population was approximately 1,313,973,713. (july 2006 estimate)
America’s population 298,444,215 (july 2006 estimnate.)
You do the math.
I’m hardly being arrogant. I’m just relaying some information for you to digest whilst shaving your red neck.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“Get rid of the Spin”
Good idea.
“a rational scientific approach to environmental problems.”
Another darn good idea.
It’s also a good idea to link to balanced and reputable sources.
Let me suggest that New Scientist can be depended upon to give a balanced and cautious review of the research and the conflicting views on this matter.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400
(Ditto Scientific American, Nature, Science Direct…. But beware of journalists in newspapers wishing to sensationalise… ditto for politicians.)
Now to your links:
Christopher Monckton (writer of the linked article) is the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a public servant and journalist. He has no scientific qualifications, and has mercifully recanted from this delightful claim:
“There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life […] Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month […] all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”
As the link below shows, his article on global warming has been strongly disputed.
http://www.answers.com/topic/christopher-monckton-3rd-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley
As to link two… Senator James Inhofe seems to be behind this Senate paper… I encourage you to do a search on him… again, he’s no scientist… (Lance, you’d love his proud claims about no homosexuals in his family!)
Your third link is far more reasonable. However, the nature of science (and academic endeavour in general) is to test ideas and to argue conflicting points of view… yes of course some scientists will suggest that the effect is due to natural causes… of course there will be divergent views (these are indicated in the New Scientist article)… but to link to one scientist who is one of these divergent voices and to assert as fact there’s a massive global conspiracy is a disproportionate response.
Why do people love conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories?
And by the way… who are “THEY”?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“The amazing thing to me is how y’all get so up in arms so quick over politics?”
Guilty confession Akevin… the American right scares the life out of me… those nutters vote for the president of the only world superpower.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Just so where we know where we stand. American bashing on ecological footprints should be put into perpsective.
“When Australian consumption is viewed from a global perspective, we leave a large ‘ecological footprint’. The ecological footprint is a measure of how much productive land and water is needed to produce the resources that are consumed and absorb the wastes produced by a person or group of people. In 2001, there were 1.8 hectares of globally productive land per person. In 2004 Australia’s ecological footprint was calculated at 7.7 hectares per person (among the world’s top four resource-consuming nations) compared to the average global footprint of 2.2 hectares. Clearly, the consumption of resources at current levels is not sustainable. ”
http://www.science.org.au/nova/087/087print.htm
Oh and by the way “green consumption” is an oxymoron. Yes we need to get on with moving to environmentally concious use of resources a la Dido #22 but not until what we have is beyond any further reuse. The oft forgotten first R of the 3R campaign is reduce.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
That is a great list of practical things to do, Ditto.
The next time I change cars I hope to go for one of the low-emission deisel engine currently available in Australia in Pugs and Vdubs. Imagine how much cheeper they would be, if the law in Australia was that al cars had to have them.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Sanders (22)… maybe it’s time you forgave and got over whatever the fundamentalists did to you… the caricature you paint and criticise isn’t the whole picture of people of faith.
Grace Required… glad you said that… in just_nigel’s original post it was pointed out both Australia and the US are the only countries not ratifying the Kyoto treaty… it’s rather hypocritical to criticise until we do something about that!
February 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Janet - why does the American right scare you? The left will do the same things, they just talk different about it.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
October 17, 2006
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.
Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L’Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.
“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html
Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.
Allegre’s conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as “global warming deniers.”
This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
AND this tibbit from th esame article…
“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.
*** NOTE the words - WHEN IT DOES NOT FIT WITH PREDETERMINED POLITICAL AGENDAS -