There is something energising when threads come together. Synapses sparking perhaps, a sense of increasing ease with a way of thought. The same concepts being aired from different sources and with slightly different perspectives and a sense of things coming together.
I'm wary of the echo chamber trap but we have to make our own judgment calls on what sources to trust and the value we place on their output. Which is all by way of saying how much I enjoyed this conversation!
I was struck in particular about your remark on how there are so many voices vying for space and failing to drive a collective sense of what it is happening and how to address our predicament. As is so often the case, there is a surfeit of knowledge and a paucity of wisdom.
Paul is one of those quiet voices that tend to signal a reflective approach to making sense of the complexity of life and cutting through the complicated layer that humanity has superimposed. I have ordered his book and look forward to reading it.
Can't agree more with that statement. The carbon phobia is no doubt the result of poor awareness among the general public of basic scientific insights about how nature works. In the 1950s in my secondary school training in the Netherlands, we studied inorganic chemistry as well as organic chemistry. The latter was referred to in the curriculum as 'carbon chemistry.' The distinction made it immediately clear that without carbon there was no life. Such concepts were given attention also in the mass media, particularly radio and magazines that one could affordably subscribe to or read in public libraries. My poorly schooled grandparents benefited greatly from the availability of such channels. Now that the media’s primary focus is on commercial interest rather than the public interest such facilities have become rare. NPR's 'Science Friday' is one of the few--and a high quality one for that matter--that remain. But NPR is now under threat of being defunded. Oh, my poor world. What's happening to you?
Good interview with Paul Hawken, but co-host Mike (?) missed a key point when he said we are at the mercy of our leaders and the best we can do is try to influence them. Paul emphasized that any effective response to our predicament would not be top down. I agree.
Carbon, carbon everywhere and none of it fit to burn. Water, water everywhere and none of it fit to drink. Air, air everywhere and none of it fit to breathe. Humans, humans everywhere and precious few worth listening to. Simply put, this is our ecological existential dilemma: too many humans are using natural resources (including fossil fuels) and producing too much GHG, resulting in overproduction of CO2 and global heating. Easy enough to understand? Don't want to understand? At the current rate of global ave. temp. increase, we may see the extinction level 3 degC anomaly by 2032, or sooner, 7 yrs. hence. An elementary school student can understand this, can you?
It's more complex than that - seems you haven't done your homework ...
"Data from various sources indicate that CO2 levels are presently at the low end of the historical spectrum while recent rapid increases are not considered anomalous. Similar increases have occurred in the past. It is also important to note that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of greenhouse gases, with 95% coming from natural sources and only 5% from human activities. Additionally, CO2 increases typically follow temperature rises rather than precede them, and there is no consistent correlation over extended periods of time. One of the most important considerations is that CO2 is critical for life on Earth. Eliminating CO2 emissions, if that were possible, would be tantamount to a suicide pact because it would lead to CO2 starvation."
I will ignore your provocative insult, as I'm really not that interested in energy sources, other than to point out the obvious: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transitioned in form and the real issue is the accumulation of heat energy from myriad sources (each one of us 8 B humans generates approx. 11,000 BTUs daily min.) in our environment, the 8-20 (NOAA vs Eliot Jacobson) Hiroshima nuclear bomb blast equivalents being released into our global environment EVERY SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. 93% of this heat energy is sequestered in the 321 million cubic miles of rapidly warming global oceans, although I've yet to see an accounting for the amount of heat energy being phase shifted from ice to water, the 1.2 trillion TONS of melting global ice melting annually, where each pound absorbs 144 BTUs. Human activity is the prime cause generating this energy, although solar radiation has a role, but was in a stable equilibrium due to the hydrological cycle before we started extracting and burning fossil fuels: 8 billion tons of coal/yr. and 100 million barrels of oil/day, 13.3 M here in the oil addicted US. My initial premise of too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution remains unchallenged by you or anyone else.
I like that the Greek roots of entropy translate to "transformation" or "a turning toward" Which I feel is more appropriate in regards to the fact that sometimes breakdown is an act of creation as it can leave the environment with new combinations not available before. The synthesis of the forth law (reversibility) and the ecological climatic maximum is attributed to the notion of equilibrium based exploration, so it is also exploration within this stable isolated state that evoke transformation or turning toward something new i.e. evolution. The few discussions I have heard seem focused in these directions many thanks
__________________ PROFIT= Quality of life for ALL humanity ~~~~VS~~~~ OPULENCE for a few, Owners of the rest as cheap disposable LABOUR______YOUR CHOICE?
There is something energising when threads come together. Synapses sparking perhaps, a sense of increasing ease with a way of thought. The same concepts being aired from different sources and with slightly different perspectives and a sense of things coming together.
I'm wary of the echo chamber trap but we have to make our own judgment calls on what sources to trust and the value we place on their output. Which is all by way of saying how much I enjoyed this conversation!
I was struck in particular about your remark on how there are so many voices vying for space and failing to drive a collective sense of what it is happening and how to address our predicament. As is so often the case, there is a surfeit of knowledge and a paucity of wisdom.
Paul is one of those quiet voices that tend to signal a reflective approach to making sense of the complexity of life and cutting through the complicated layer that humanity has superimposed. I have ordered his book and look forward to reading it.
Can't agree more with that statement. The carbon phobia is no doubt the result of poor awareness among the general public of basic scientific insights about how nature works. In the 1950s in my secondary school training in the Netherlands, we studied inorganic chemistry as well as organic chemistry. The latter was referred to in the curriculum as 'carbon chemistry.' The distinction made it immediately clear that without carbon there was no life. Such concepts were given attention also in the mass media, particularly radio and magazines that one could affordably subscribe to or read in public libraries. My poorly schooled grandparents benefited greatly from the availability of such channels. Now that the media’s primary focus is on commercial interest rather than the public interest such facilities have become rare. NPR's 'Science Friday' is one of the few--and a high quality one for that matter--that remain. But NPR is now under threat of being defunded. Oh, my poor world. What's happening to you?
Good interview with Paul Hawken, but co-host Mike (?) missed a key point when he said we are at the mercy of our leaders and the best we can do is try to influence them. Paul emphasized that any effective response to our predicament would not be top down. I agree.
Carbon, carbon everywhere and none of it fit to burn. Water, water everywhere and none of it fit to drink. Air, air everywhere and none of it fit to breathe. Humans, humans everywhere and precious few worth listening to. Simply put, this is our ecological existential dilemma: too many humans are using natural resources (including fossil fuels) and producing too much GHG, resulting in overproduction of CO2 and global heating. Easy enough to understand? Don't want to understand? At the current rate of global ave. temp. increase, we may see the extinction level 3 degC anomaly by 2032, or sooner, 7 yrs. hence. An elementary school student can understand this, can you?
It's more complex than that - seems you haven't done your homework ...
"Data from various sources indicate that CO2 levels are presently at the low end of the historical spectrum while recent rapid increases are not considered anomalous. Similar increases have occurred in the past. It is also important to note that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of greenhouse gases, with 95% coming from natural sources and only 5% from human activities. Additionally, CO2 increases typically follow temperature rises rather than precede them, and there is no consistent correlation over extended periods of time. One of the most important considerations is that CO2 is critical for life on Earth. Eliminating CO2 emissions, if that were possible, would be tantamount to a suicide pact because it would lead to CO2 starvation."
https://energyshifts.net/truth-and-energy-at-the-crossroads/
I will ignore your provocative insult, as I'm really not that interested in energy sources, other than to point out the obvious: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transitioned in form and the real issue is the accumulation of heat energy from myriad sources (each one of us 8 B humans generates approx. 11,000 BTUs daily min.) in our environment, the 8-20 (NOAA vs Eliot Jacobson) Hiroshima nuclear bomb blast equivalents being released into our global environment EVERY SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. 93% of this heat energy is sequestered in the 321 million cubic miles of rapidly warming global oceans, although I've yet to see an accounting for the amount of heat energy being phase shifted from ice to water, the 1.2 trillion TONS of melting global ice melting annually, where each pound absorbs 144 BTUs. Human activity is the prime cause generating this energy, although solar radiation has a role, but was in a stable equilibrium due to the hydrological cycle before we started extracting and burning fossil fuels: 8 billion tons of coal/yr. and 100 million barrels of oil/day, 13.3 M here in the oil addicted US. My initial premise of too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution remains unchallenged by you or anyone else.
I like that the Greek roots of entropy translate to "transformation" or "a turning toward" Which I feel is more appropriate in regards to the fact that sometimes breakdown is an act of creation as it can leave the environment with new combinations not available before. The synthesis of the forth law (reversibility) and the ecological climatic maximum is attributed to the notion of equilibrium based exploration, so it is also exploration within this stable isolated state that evoke transformation or turning toward something new i.e. evolution. The few discussions I have heard seem focused in these directions many thanks
Excellent conversation and insights here. I will definitely listen again and again to better understand the whole discussion. Thank you for sharing.
In a small community in Kenya we are struggling to understand to we can continue to preserve our environment that our forefathers bequeathed us. You can read part of this story here https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/my-visit-with-the-spiritual-voice-of-the-hidden-serengeti-feature
Fabulous discussion...
I thought I knew the onion, then 3 more layers where peeled away, I will never know the onion but at least the form is becoming clearer.
Thanks for this one Rachel, a valuable departure.
Fantastic interview. Thank you.
__________________ PROFIT= Quality of life for ALL humanity ~~~~VS~~~~ OPULENCE for a few, Owners of the rest as cheap disposable LABOUR______YOUR CHOICE?
https://taoismreimagined.substack.com/p/the-secret-to-not-losing