VIDEO #1 BY ASTRUM – WATCH AND SUBSCRIBE TO ASTRUM

COMMENT:

This was a great video, and I loved how overall climate change throughout the history of Earth was covered. The problem right now with this topic is that it has become tribal and political. Furthermore, when considering the actions to take to mitigate greenhouse emissions, those who are most vocal about climate change issues typically completely neglect to consider the effects different approaches have on the economy. Too many people think “The Economy” is just rich Wall Street executives when instead, it is really about the systems of exchange/trade people have amongst themselves to secure necessities, such as food and shelter, and luxuries such as movie tickets and vacations. We also have many politicians and leaders who push for things like an increase to the cost of gas across the board because they have the money to easily afford quadrupling the cost of living while those of us in more average positions end up getting squeezed tighter and tighter to be able to even make basic ends meet. The politicians and leaders in charge can continue to live their lifestyle while we are just the commoners and our lifestyle can be degraded.

My point is not that we should do nothing about our greenhouse emissions, but that we should come up with approaches that, as much as possible, allow us to continue living the lives we enjoy while making meaningful impacts to how we’re caring for the planet. There are a couple of things I think can be done reasonably well in the near future.

Probably the first and easiest to implement almost immediately is to make remote work the norm. I know that now every job can be remote — many of them can’t be, but so many office jobs really don’t need people in the office — at least not every day. We’ve seen since the Pandemic that remote work is not only possible but favorable for businesses and employees. I think if the government offers more tax breaks to businesses that are remote, then we can reduce how many people are on the road (and will help reduce rush hour where greenhouse emissions are the worst). Pushing for more remote work is already been a trend, but I think we also need to very seriously acknowledge that it is a great step to help reduce our greenhouse emissions.

The other step that I think is something we can do in the near future is to fully embrace nuclear energy. I’m not sure why so many governments that claim to be concerned about climate change are shutting them down, but these don’t have greenhouse emissions and are a cost effective way to produce energy. I really only think governments and politicians who are paving the way to ensure nuclear energy can thrive are serious about climate change. I think others are just posturing to further their individual positions or to distract from other policies they’re pushing that makes increases our CO2 output rather than decreasing it.

Wind and solar are good options only for specific areas. For example, solar panels in the Seattle area are going to really struggle to be effective since it’s almost always overcast there. Whereas solar panels in Las Vegas are great because it is a desert with almost no cloudy days and a ton of sun. The government typically needs to subsidize wind and solar, so it results in a net loss. An argument for using tax money to subsidize these can definitely be made, but our tax budget isn’t limitless, and we should really consider where we should pull that money from.

Other things are sold as environmentally-friendly when they actually have no effect or make things worse. In short, companies and politicians that make claims that they are reducing greenhouse emissions need to actually be able to verify their work and be held accountable if they can’t sufficiently prove that what they’re selling/pushing for actually helps reduce greenhouse emissions beyond a given margin of error. In short, we all need to get out of our tribal areas about how we handle our greenhouse emissions and come up with solutions that work for common people.

VIDEO #2 BY REASON TV – WATCH AND SUBSCRIBE TO REASON TV

PREFACE:

In 2001, Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg burst onto the international scene with his bestselling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. The onetime member of Greenpeace said that climate change is real and that human activity is clearly contributing to it, but he said the best science didn’t support the apocalyptic visions put forth by people like Earth in the Balance author and former Vice President Al Gore. Lomborg went on to create the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank that applies cost-benefit analysis to problems facing the global poor and works with Nobel laureates, policymakers, philanthropists, and researchers to develop pragmatic, relatively low-cost solutions to issues such as tuberculosis, malaria, lack of education, and access to food.  His new book is called Best Things First and it presents what Lomborg says are “the 12 most efficient solutions for the world’s poorest people.” He argues that for about $35 billion a year—a little more than half of what the US spends annually on humanitarian aid—these policies would save 4.2 million lives and generate an extra $1.1 trillion in value every year. Nick Gillespie caught up with Lomborg in New York City during the latest meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. We talked about Best Things First, his view of the current environmentalist movement, and why politicians and the media continue to fixate on the possibility of future climate apocalypse rather than helping the global poor in the here and now.

COMMENT: (by @karlwheatley1244 on YouTube)