Earth Day Required Viewing


Reading time – 31 seconds; Viewing time – 2:07  .  .  .

I’ve been saying for a while that the Millennials will save us. That’s “us” as in our country, democracy and the entire planet. Now it turns out that even younger kids are joining them.

On this Earth Day you need to watch this video. That’s “need” as in: required viewing.

We have handed the next generations a gigantic pile of equine feces and it’s going to take all their collective brainpower to deal with this mess. On the other hand, they’re the ones who are going to have to live with the disaster outcomes we’ve engineered, so they’re more than invested in finding best solutions.

Get over any “they’re just kids” notions you may be carrying around and start to support and promote the survival heroes who are on their way to save us from our foolishness. Because we’ve proven beyond any doubt that we’re not up to the task. They are.

————————————

Ed. Note: I don’t want money or your signature on a petition. I want you to spread the word so that we make a critical difference. So,

YOUR ACTION STEPS:

  1. Pass this along to three people, encouraging them to subscribe (IT’S A FREEBIE!).
  2. Engage in the Comments section below to help us all to be better informed.

Thanks!


Copyright 2019 by Jack Altschuler
Reproduction and sharing are encouraged, providing proper attribution is given.


What do you think?

Your name and e-mail address are required, but your e-mail will not be disclosed.

Keep the conversation going by both adding your comments and by passing this along to three friends.
That´s how things get better.

3 Responses to Earth Day Required Viewing
  1. Paul Winsor Reply

    Jack, I agree that Peterson comes across as arrogant. The reason what he says resonates with me is my personal experience.

    My youth experience, studies and career were wrapped around energy management and thermodynamics. Right from the time my family was stuck at the New Jersey shore during the 1972 gasoline shortage to saving water and energy for customers at Klenzoid. This is what I thought about, acted on and was fanatical about.

    Yet energy use never went down. It only goes up. Make cars more efficient, people buy bigger trucks and drive further. LED lighting is remarkably more efficient, yet what is happening is that we increase the amount of lighting. This is seen from space. Houses become more insulated, people live in bigger houses. We can t make it fool proof because the fools are so ingenious.

    The most radical solution would be change our tax system so only pollution is taxed. Who would decide the tax rate for each pollutant, This would eliminate the progressive tax system. Unlikely.

    I personally have reduced my energy footprint, only have 1 family car, recently bought a smaller house within walking distance to a village. So I’m doing my part. I don t expect this to reduce energy use. Since I use less, the price of energy will drop enough so someone else will buy it.

    We are going to burn all the fossil fuels in the ground at a faster and faster rate because we have a market economy.

    Society has tried to reduce energy use since the 70’s yet energy use keeps rising.

    Since the 70’s there have been amazing pollution control initiatives that worked. Ozone depletion, acid rain, Great Lakes pollution etc. These solutions worked because there was obvious cause and effect within 20 years. Stop producing TFCs or scrub sulphur out of flue gas, or establish pollution control standards on effluents to water ways.

    Energy is different than these examples because we don t intend to eliminate it. Hence the market economy will adapt to any policy that is put in place. Energy use will rise, there is no way around it.

    Potentially solar, wind, energy storage, electric cars could put a dent in fossil fuel demand. But that would lower the price and people would buy more.

    The other solution is climate engineering. Regulate the use of devices that remove pollutants from the air and build that into the market economy. There are startup companies developing carbon dioxide scrubbers for flue applications or even outside air. That could work, but once we capture the carbon dioxide, where do we put it.

    Or introduce additives to the air that combat the greenhouse effect. This idea seems Frankenstein freaky to me.

    I wish it wasn’t the case, but I really believe it is. We re going to burn it all faster and faster.

    That’s why I feel a focus on problems we can solve globally should be a priority.

    Check out the UN sustainability goals. There are plenty of great ones. I’n Particular interested ii. those related to food, water and poverty.

    Who knows. Maybe if we tackle and succeed at one of those, the energy one will become easier.

  2. Paul Winsor Reply

    Hi Jack, We can’t solve climate change because we have no idea what will work and won’t be able to measure if what we’ve done has had any impact.

    I think climate change debate is a lot like the big environmental debate of the 1900’s, what to do with Horse poop in big cities. Cars solved that problem.

    I suspect something will reach a threshold and the problem will naturally fade away. It might be when most people in the world achieve an income in excess of $5000 per year.

    Here is a link that has an interesting view point.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

    • Jack Altschuler Reply

      Paul, I have to disagree with you and Prof. Peterson. A lot.

      First, we do have ideas of what will work, even if imperfectly.

      Second, we will be able to measure impact, although there will be a long lead time.

      What I’m confident about is that if we do nothing, very bad things will happen, so doing nothing is not an option.

      Peterson seems to revel in being clever in finding others stupid. He makes himself part of the problem.