Carbon Nation

[Beau Stockard]

Peter Byck's new movie Carbon Nation is a mellow ,optimistic , astute ,solutions-based , documentary on why it is incredibly smart to be part of the new low carbon economy, it is good for business, it strengthens national and energy security, improves health and saves healthy ecosystems that we all rely on for life and happiness. http://youtu.be/S9jUspaxhWw

[max1]

I don't believe global warming is solely a man made issue it's as much cyclical as anything in the world of mother nature (opinion) How could you deny most of what is said in this clip, we need to think way ahead here folks because at some point oil won't be the goto source for energy. The problem right now is a lot of the green solutions are untested over time and from a fiscal stand point just not viable look how much of our tax dollars have been wasted so far on this presidents green jobs, its a damn joke. I try to do my part here, turn the lights out consolidate errands burn lots of wood ect. Anyway it was a cool clip even though there was some mis-leading parts, did anyone catch the ship with a huge sail on it? Thats what I'm talking about!

[Curly]

I have no problem with it (and they're great ideas) but it can't even come close to competing with the energy output of petroleum. The one thing that bothers me is all the sunshine they blow up your ass about how much they spend a day keeping something cool, driving this kind of car, using wind or solar.....Guess what? I can't afford to install/buy any of that shit! That's right preachy people, you can and I can't, so in the mean time it isn't gonna fly with those living pay check to pay check until it's affordable AND competitive with petroleum.

They haven't got the bugs out of the Wind energy idea either, noise, flicker, ice throw etc.

[Beau Stockard]

You're right to an extent Curly that many of us poorer folk still can't afford some of the great , innovative , low-carbon solutions like water filtration devices, irrigation systems (run by wind or solar power) on some family farms, hybrid-electric cars, pesticide-free organically-grown food, etc. etc. However, why should we pay the greater share of the tax burden to give big oil companies or big nuke power companies subsidies to make their energy and petroleum products price-competitive when we don't give the same favor to alternative , renewable energy companies? We grant permission through mostly conservative politicians to big oil , chemical, and ag companies to damage and harm our health and livelihoods for greater profit margins ,but then pass on the costs to us average tax payers in higher insurance premiums, taxes on social security and medicare benefits, making us all have to retire later in life, etc. etc. That's just not right . I was taught that everyone who benefits from society's gifts should pay something back to secure society's benefits for future generations too.

[Joe Walther]

A major problem, particularly in the country, is that we deny the science at the beginning of impending problems, reduce everything to political partisan food-fights, jump on whichever bandwagon that suits our preconceived notions, and rally around the TV/radio/print media guru of our choice.

This entire green process should have begun 50-years ago. It wasn't, though, because the farther into the future we perceive problems to be, the less the incentive there is to act. We rave about the power of free markets to make our lives better, but we rarely take advantage of them in any meaningful way.

And when the proverbial doo-doo hits the oscillating device, we blame the corporations and government because the lobbyists own both of them and poor little ole John Q. Public is no match for the money people. It gets tiresome listening to it!

If the majority of this country were truly interested in going green, all they would have to do is speak with their dollars by making sure that every corporation in this nation providing products and services understands that if they don't show a realistic and verifiable green footprint, we're not BUYING. And, their stuff better be affordable, too.

Do this and I assure you that every corporate boardroom from coast to coast and the mighty halls of Congress would begin to reek of chlorophyll. Until we start doing this, we'll continue to get lip service from the private sector and useless bandwagons from the political sector.

I usually don’t even get into discussions relative to climate change because it’s an extremely complex issue. My scientific field is astrophysics—and even within this broad subject, my expertise deals primarily with cosmology.

However, what I do know about the nature of climate change is just enough for me to know the difference between legitimate scientific disagreement and sheer baffle-gabbing bullshit.

As a rule—and by a significant margin in the range of 1000 to 1—the human species hates suggested outcomes that are contrary to intuitive thinking. As usual, and this includes yours truly, we gladly accept as fact only those things we already believe to be such.

But like it or not, we live on a FINITE planet whereon, unfortunately, most people think in linear terms. Every system we've created has been based on linear logic. And far be it from humans to even consider that linear systems cannot run indefinitely on a finite planet.

So, since no other species is capable of intentionally circumventing Mother Nature’s procedural manual, something has to change, either the planet or the PEOPLE living on it.

It isn't a question of whether humans have contributed to climate change; we have. Every living being has contributed to it. Natural disasters—ALL of which are Mother Nature's own doing—have contributed hugely. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it sent more carbon emissions into the atmosphere in the FIRST 15-minutes than all of our automobiles had since their invention.

ONLY humans have the reasoning capacity needed for an attempt at negatively countermanding the natural order of things. We're also the only species capable of rationalization, also making us the only species arrogant and stupid enough to think we can get away with it.

Add to this the notion that we humans love to launch ourselves into blood pressure-raising hissy fits over just about ANY topic that comes up—whether we possess any technical knowledge or NOT—and it’s a miracle that we haven’t already extinguished ourselves.
Mother Nature runs the show. But as powerful as she is, she's powerless when it comes to forcing the human species to change... ANYTHING... in any way. All she can do is change the planet; and she won't hesitate to do it.

And, WHEN—not IF—it happens, we're not going to like the changes. But she won’t care how we feel because she doesn’t give a crap about our insignificant little political Leftie/Righty temper tantrums over what we think is or is not happening or who's to blame for it.

From its point of formation—with the aid of liberal helpings of random luck—Earth managed to evolve quite well for BILLIONS of years (best scientific estimate: 4.5-BILLION) before the first human-like beings appeared some 2,000,000 years ago.

However, our anatomically-recognizable modern human ancestors didn’t appear until about 200,000 years ago.

The arithmetic is simple, assuming you know how to handle percentages. In our modern form, we've inhabited this planet for approximately 44-TEN-THOUSANDS of 1 percent of Earth's existence to date! In terms of cosmic reference, that's slightly shorter than the time it takes to blink.

And, the planet will continue on—with or without us, but mostly WITHOUT—for approximately 7-BILLION more years, 6 of which will be as a lifeless material body in space.

I sure hope this doesn’t cause any undo concerns, but in about 1-BILLION years the Sun will have begun some significant expanding—it’s part of a star’s dying sequence—causing its heat radiating power to increase in the neighborhood of 11%, at which point it will begin evaporating the planet’s water supply… BIG TIME.

Folks—Biblical revelations notwithstanding—Earth was formed and has evolved within the context of the cosmos, which is completely indifferent to our continued existence.

If this planet poofed out of existence in the next instant, the universe would not even notice our absence. No obituary. No wake. No memorial service. EARTH?

And all folks can do is rage into a tizzy, NOT over the facts of rising temperatures, melting polar ice caps, collapsing glaciers, and disappearing shore lines, but whether it’s actually happening and who’s to blame—although it’s probably Al Gore.

[Curly]

However, why should we pay the greater share of the tax burden to give big oil companies or big nuke power companies subsidies to make their energy and petroleum products price-competitive when we don't give the same favor to alternative , renewable energy companies?

Beau, check into who has their hand in wind power, the subsidies and the write offs that come with it. Yup, big oil and Wall Street. We do pay the tax burden for Greed Energy. Solar, I have to look into but, as with wind, if there's money to steal from the tax payers to fund these expensive projects, I'm sure the same big money people will be involved. Money talks and us middle class folk get the carrot as usual.

[Beau Stockard]

@JW

A major problem, particularly in the country, is that we deny the science

Nicely put,Joe. Our economy is only a subset of the greater whole of the Earth's ecological system. You can't have a strong,developing economy without a healthy ecology. I believe that Jared Diamond has shown it in his comparative historical narrative " Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive". In our own society, it is becoming more apparent that you can never create a sustainable economy based on an infinite planet vision of unlimited growth. Jeff Montgomery and Molly Murray wrote an excellent NewsJournal article in last week's paper. "Fighting rising tides:Which properties to protect?" www.delawareonline.com They put the climate change problem in proper perspective to our troubled economy, declining quality of life despite an unprecedented rise in our standards of living based on economic growth and material possessions , and the limits of built capital as substitute, man-made solutions for the continuing loss of healthy natural ecosystems and the free public goods and services that they provide.

[Beau Stockard]

Beau, check into who has their hand in wind power, the subsidies and the write offs that come with it. Yup, big oil and Wall Street

Very good point,Curly and accentuates a major point of my own. Why should the average tax payer pay all the costs and grant permission to Wall Street to control our diminishing natural resources for their own private short term financial gain when it so obviously robs us of our rights to enjoy the bountiful natural gifts of the Commons?