"The west of Thy has been designated as the first Danish national park. The National Park, Thy stretches for an up to 12-kilometer-wide belt along the Jutland west coast from Agger Tange in the south to Hanstholm in the north. It is an enormous and unspoiled natural area totaling 244 km2 – almost the size of the Danish island of Langeland. In the National Park you can go between outstretched, wind-swept wilds and aromatic pine trees. You can also throw yourself into the sparkling waves of the North Sea or bike through cool dune plantations."

BUT IT'S TIME TO ACT (TO SAVE THE FUTURE)!!!

So, the Government of Denmark is clear-cutting trees in the Thy region and evicting citizens to clear the area for wind turbines:

"The Danish environment minister Troels Lund Poulsen decided, on behalf of the government, on 30th September 2009, that the clearing of 15 km2 of forest in the north west of Denmark will take place. A test centre for the development of offshore windmills is planned to take up 30 km2 of land in the Thy region, near Østerild. This deforestation will create an increase of 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emission, the equivalent of the CO2 emission of 100,000 people per year."

http://www.nationalttestcenter.dk/nyheder/english

Jared Diamond in his book "COLLAPSE" points out that the ruling class, having succeeded by using Plan A, will never adopt Plan B, C, D..., but instead will redouble their efforts at Plan A.

An example is the Greenland Norse, who collect more hay and keep their cattle inside barns as the pasture becomes shorter and the winters more severe. They do not adopt the hunting and fishing skills of their Inuit neighbors who go on to survive them.

So the only open question is how steeply the population will crash from the 9,000,000,000 or so at mid-21st century to a sustainable population of 90,000,000 or so.

Kali:
You said: "One can still do the right thing locally, but what's already been done to the earth can't be undone while humans live."

Is this, actually, the real bottom line? That we, as humans, cannot be trusted. So that it is we who must die -- all of us, or most of us -- so that the planet, with all its wondrous flora and fauna, may live?

This seems, on one level, such a hyperbolic question. yet, is it the REAL question? Because mankind just cannot seem to rein in its avarice, no matter what?

FDR once said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
In 2010, must we face the fact that the only we have to fear is we, ourselves?

Organic farming seems to be more about dogma than actually feeding people.

Because it is easier for headline writers and readers to understand oversimplified duality than complex reality. Remember "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? You can enjoy your "freedom fries," knowing that Edith Piaf and Brigitte Bardot support terrorism, without having to bother changing channels.

Uh, who mentioned taste? I was talking about feeding hungry people, something organic farming cannot hope to accomplish.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175486

I'm immune to organic woo, sorry.

I prefer the middle ground. Yup, an Earth purgatory is the way to go.

Some things are gone, but not everything. Not here nor there. Not good or bad. Just so so.

What are you even talking about?

If you want to believe in ecological woo, fine. But no one else is obligated to buy into your doomer rhetoric.

The point was that organic farming cannot meet the planet's food needs. Drop all the red herrings you want to keep your faith solid, but it won't change my opinion on organic farming.

Attacking organic farming with such attitude is an attack on some of the only people who have fought for environmentalism, many putting their lives on the line. Even the rednecks out here respect us and buy our food to supplement their forest-fed deer and elk. It's people like you that give corporations the OK to pollute millions of wheat land with pesticides and then pass on the poisons to real people who get sick from it. Choke on your lilly-white wonder bread.

Many thanks for the kind words DD!

Have never thought about this. Is anything under way that seems possible?

I'd have to agree that it is too little too late, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do things that matter because they can. The problem is that doing anything that makes a real difference is going to cut into some rich people's profits and that means you have to have a leader with some balls to push it through anyway. Sad to say, we don't have that.

I believe that there have been plans for making protected areas interconnected. The Nature Conservancy tries to buy up corridors that links protected areas. But efforts will probably have to be increased 10-fold or some things could just go extinct. In mountainous areas, things can simply move up--except creatures and plants already at the top. Pikas in Colorado, for instance, will be in trouble as their alpine tundra homes shrink.