The world is ending, and we’re all responsible. The greedy industrialists and we rabid consumers keep building factories and wasting more natural resources. We are filling the skies with carbon dioxide and pollutants, causing temperatures to rise around the world. The polar ice caps are melting, leading to tsunamis and further warming. Dogs and cats living together! The end of life as we know it!

At least, those are the dire warnings we’ve all been reading for the last twenty years and more. But what if they’re all wrong? What if the warming trend is just a natural cycle, just as Earth has gone through many times before? What if our factories, automobile exhaust, and love of one-use packaging are completely unrelated to the issue of global warming? What if it isn’t a real problem, or at least not one we can solve?

Today (October 15, 2009) is Blog Action Day and this year’s topic is Global Warming. This got us to thinking. We have a really good – and highly intelligent – friend who argues persuasively that “global warming” is a myth. He points out that the world has always had cycles of warmer and cooler climates and that there is no real proof that our industrial society is contributing to the current warming trend. It may well be that Earth is not so much heating up as emerging from a mini Ice Age into a more normal pattern.

The Principle of the Least Mistake

Another friend of ours loves to use the phrase, “The Principle of the Least Mistake.” The idea is that any time you can “take out cheap insurance”, you should. For example, you are going on a car trip through the desert. Your car is in good condition and well maintained, and you don’t expect any problems, but you take a few gallons of water with you anyway. This action has a cost – You had to go through some effort to pack something you don’t expect to need – but the reward if you do need it might literally be your life. You pay a small cost rather than have a small chance of suffering a major loss.

Conserving, recycling, and minimizing our “carbon footprint” are least mistake actions. Each takes some effort and might not make a big dent on global warming, but a lot of such small actions taken by many people could prevent a big mistake. And, as with many least mistake actions, they can pay unexpected dividends. California is banning incandescent bulbs. Replacing them with compact fluorescent or LED lights will cost us money in the short run, but the long-term benefits include longer life for the bulb and less power consumption. We’ll all win in the long run even if we aren’t helping to save the world.

It Can’t Hurt

There are a lot of small things you can do that might or might not help global warming… but could make your life better regardless:

Avoid packaged foods. Eat more fresh vegetables and other simple foods. The cost: You may have to shop more often. Preparation will take longer. The benefits: Less waste (from packaging). You’ll save money. Fresh food tastes better and your health and energy level will likely improve.

Refill water bottles at the store rather than buying new ones each time you run out. Or install a water filter so you don’t need to buy bottled water. The first approach is a pain, but it will save you money. The second has an up-front cost, but will save you time and possibly money in the long run. And you won’t have to deal with all those empties.

By the way, drink water, not soda. More and more research is showing how terrible sugar is for our bodies. The artificial sweeteners are probably safer, but they haven’t been around long enough for us to be sure about that. Learn to love tea (we make it a pot at a time with a single teabag) or the freshness of plain water. You’ll eliminate the wasted cans and bottles and do your body a favor.

Next time you trade in your car, get a fuel-efficient model. If you can, take public transportation. Even better – Ride a bike. The cost – You may have to wait for a bus and stand in a crowd. You may have to walk at each end. On your bike, you will constantly be in danger from careless drivers. Oh, but the benefits! You will save a fortune. You’ll never have to worry about finding a parking space. That extra walking – or bike riding – will improve your strength, energy, and general health. So what if global warming isn’t caused by hydrocarbon emissions? You’ll have made your own life better.

Keep Your Cool

Here’s the thing – Even if you disagree with someone’s main thesis, that doesn’t mean you can’t listen to the rest of what they have to say. There may be reasonable doubt about the causes of global warming, the best way to handle health care, and many other issues. But that doesn’t mean that someone who disagrees with us on the major points has nothing valuable to say. I’ve heard some great ideas from people all across the political spectrum.

In the case of global warming, we have a “least mistake” situation. If it’s an inevitable, natural climate change, then perhaps there’s nothing we can do about it except learn to live in a hotter environment. But if we’re making it worse with our industry and personal habits, why not take out a little insurance? Do what you can to reduce your use of energy and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same. The costs are small compared to the potential benefits… and you may find you’re making your life better even if the theories of global warming are completely wrong.

Be one of the cool people. You know the mantra – “Reduce, Recycle, Reuse.” What can it hurt?

Similar Posts:

This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 15th, 2009 .
Please add your own comments, We'll be happy to hear from you.

Comments

e7th04sh Says:

The problem with original post is assertion, that what is recommended to help combat climate change typically is really marginal. Was that the case, there wouldn’t be any debate really, because majority of people are rational already.

So, pretty much all to be said now is – it’s not really marginal.

First of all we’re talking real money here. Reducing so called carbon footprint is reducing efficiency of any human endeavor. You are people of games – imagine a game of survival along the lines of minecraft or don’t starve titles. Imagine that, to optimize short term risks and long term prospects, the player has to put 50% of their effort in early game to prevent direct death. The other 50% will be primarily put into providing more stable means of solving basic survival problems (food, shelter etc.).

So, a player will seek readily available food some of the time, while also gathering seeds and material to create a renewable accessible farm plot. An example of course.

Now, let’s imagine the designers reduce quantity and prevalence of, say, berries, honey and such stuff. Now player has to spend 80% of their time maintaining their hunger. Creating the same farmland will become much more important, but primarily much more difficult. Player will need five times more total time in game to achieve this goal.

Putting any environmental regulations has this effect on society. We barely have any ways to invest, that do not require serious maintenance over time. Not even the quantity, but the quality of our economy depends on the efficiency of work of men. If 10% of population can supply all the directly needed resources, we have 90% to specialize in various other fields. Would we need to put 20% into essential labor, we’d be left with 80% for the rest. Does that mean we can make essential labor half efficient and it will only cost us some 11% of our luxury goods? Not really. The less efficient any branch of economy becomes, the less opportunities to profitably specialize over all economy.

Some say – a little input change in environment can lead to large output changes. This is much less doubtful in the realm of economy.

And what is the pinnacle of economy? Research and development. The lore and more are we satisfied with our lives, the more likely are we to invest in wonders of future, rather than consume all we’ve got. Only the hungry and the rich men can invest really – one, because he’d rather be even hungrier now, to secure better future; the other, because he does not need to sacrifice even least significant whims to invest.

Take from people to save the planet, you may very well kill our science.

Posted: February 9th, 2014

paradigmShift Says:

It is true that the Earth can take a great deal more abuse from business entities. In this sense, business practices can be made easier to execute.

That is important for the little guy, but we shouldn’t have such sympathy for the extremely large entities out there.

Of course, when making laws about pollution, it is one size fits all. And these become regulations.

Being green obviously hasn’t caught on as being such a great trait in the free market for a reason. And that reason should be questioned.

Posted: November 18th, 2012

Eandyil Says:

Randomly enough, Les Johnson (one of… five or six very intelligent individuals) was talking about this at LibertyCon earlier this year. The Russians have a few things they were looking into to combat Global Warming… some of em were pretty crazy sounding, including introducing chemicals to the ocean, which would cause more evaporation, which would increase cloud cover and reduce global temperature… I think it was up to two degrees F.

I liked the Dyson Dot from the list of things that was gone over. Basically, it’s… call it a series of solar panels the size of a continent. It’s not exactly accurate, but a good enough way to describe it. They block some of the light from the sun, which reduces the global temperature by up to 2.7 degs F, and they can shoot that energy to various… ah substations is a good enough word, that circle the earth. Talking about a few petawatts of energy that can be used to power, well, anything we wanted to power. Clean energy and global cooling. And, it’s not permanent. Of course, it would take fifty years to get the thing launched and at the right location…

Right, all of that was just a way to say that some people don’t just wonder if they’re right, instead these people are planning to do something about it. *Whistles, then wanders off*

Thanks for writing, Richard. You provide a lot of facts I haven’t seen before.

I am constantly frustrated when trying to make arguments such as the one in the original post. I try to say, “Ok, suppose X is wrong. Then…” At which point I am generally cut off by, “It isn’t wrong! How can you say that?” Or, “Of course it’s wrong, duh.” In neither case is the other person actually listening to my point, which is typically that it doesn’t matter whether X is right or wrong – Our “best response” is the same in either case.

Speaking of “best response”, I recently completed a Game Theory class from Stanford’s free online offerings at Coursera. I learned some useful things. One of the frustrating parts was studying the Nash Equilibrium, which is totally based on short-term utility. Basically, if two parties are interacting and each has made a decision, they will tend to stick with it unless they can get a higher payoff by changing the decision. That’s logical and fine on the surface.

The issue is, “What is a payoff?” Economists define it in terms of immediate gain. And certainly many people live their lives that way, making moment to moment decisions without looking ahead. But for intelligent, reasoning individuals who can “see” (or at least guess) the “payoff chart”, frequently it can make sense to take a short-term loss that will encourage the “other player” to change his decision so that both of you get a bigger gain than by staying at the equilibrium.

For example, let’s say two people have the choice of staying home or going out and planting flowers. One of them has seeds, the other the water source (or fertilizer, or whatever) – The idea is that the flowers won’t grow unless both cooperate. The “value” of staying home is “1”, meaning you get some benefit by doing something else. The value of going out and doing your part of growing the flowers is “-1″, because it’s hard work. If you do the work, and the other person doesn’t, you lose – hard work and no flowers.

But if both of you cooperate, you each get a payoff of “3”, because the flowers are so pretty, they’re more than worth the effort. If you prefer, you can think of it as planting a food crop or building something, as those might have real utility beyond the beauty. By classic economic theory, both players will end up staying home, because they will not trade a positive value for a negative one.

Fortunately, we break Nash Equilibria all the time in real life. People look beyond the immediate “cost” to the possible big payoff they can get if others cooperate. Sometimes they guess wrong and put in a lot of effort for little or no payoff. But when they’re right, and others share the mindset of taking risks for a possible big gain, everyone wins. A new equilibrium is established where it really does not make sense to break it.

Heroism is like that. It’s painful, dirty, hard work if you do it alone, and the rewards can be small or nonexistent. Get a few people to be Heroes together and you move to a different state of the payoff matrix – It’s still painful, dirty, hard work, but it’s a lot more fun because you’re sharing the labor with others. And the results can be so beautiful!

Our response here should be independent of the reality of climate change and its human influence.

The fossil fuel supply is limited. Currently, it is the only source which can fuel jet aircraft (based on its high chemical energy to mass ratio), meaning it will retain a high military value for some time. In a few hundred years fission fuels required for 20th century nuclear power plants will become rarer (uranium), meaning the only long term option is nuclear fusion (hydrogen/helium). Fortunately our supplies are plentiful. For early generation fusion, this will constitute Deuterium (extractable from sea water) and Tritium (breedable in fusion reactors), and then Helium 3 (requiring potentially moon harvesting – although providing an even cleaner alternative). It will be thousands of years until either sources are depleted.

With respect to environmental safety; in all designs, there is no probability of melt down (stopping the reaction basically involves switching off the power). The radioactive half lives of first generation fusion power by-products are orders of magnitude less than that used in fission power (they naturally decay in x1000 faster, meaning they do not stay radioactive for thousands of years). Hydrogen bombs use the same process, which for reference are 1000 times as powerful as an atomic bomb (uranium/fission), like that which was dropped on Hiroshima. The main task of scientists today is to harness nuclear fusion in a controlled manner (effectively creating a star on earth). The two main projects working on this at the moment are ITER (based upon a Russion Tokamak design / magnetic confinement), and LIFE (laser inertial confinement, promoted by the US at the National Ignition Facility).

Atomic hydrogen constitutes 90% of the visible universe, and helium nearly 10%. Fusion is the primary source of energy in the universe. Massive stars are kept from internally imploding as a result of nuclear fusion: all stars 30% or greater than our own would collapse and become black holes, instead of becoming shining power plants for billions of years. In the case of our sun, nearly 50% of the age of the universe. It heats the earth to provide wind and wave power, and of course feeds solar cells directly. Heavy elements including those used in fission power plants are known to be the by-products of supernovae, and therefore a result of nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron actually take energy to join, and give energy when split – the opposite of fusion. Perhaps tidal energy is an to the rule exception, but even that is affecting the moon’s orbit.

Right now, the world is governed by those who think the 1960s was the peak of human ingenuity and scientific progress. If human climate change is both real and negative, then I couldn’t imagine a worst state of public opinion (mass conformity to a futile ideology). Individual efforts in 1st world countries are not going to solve the problem (apart from making us feel good – hence the morality). Wind mills are not the solution. There is a reason people don’t use “renewable” energy – economics. One has to solve the economic problem; making it both viable and competitive. This means funding research and education.

My opinions on Global Warming can be neatly encompassed by the documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Rather than waste large amounts of space ranting about it here, I’ll provide a link to it at the bottom of my comment.

The problem with a ‘least mistake’ mentality is that it is basically reactive. Making concessions to everything that may or may not be true simply doesn’t work. It’s like trying to be a member of every branch of Christianity; there are too many conflicting doctrines to form the basis of a coherent life.

For example: recycling paper leaves you with a quantity of concentrated toxic sludge (the ink on the page doesn’t miraculously vanish), and the newest line of ‘environmentally friendly’ fluorescent bulbs actually contain mercury and require special means of disposal. Environmentalists decry the misuse of petroleum and other fossil-based resources for fuel, yet never seem to complain about the use of plastics (which are petroleum based) in… well… just about everything.

In the end, the best thing to do is to do the research. Don’t just buy into whatever other people try and sell you, go and find out what you’re really getting in the deal. If you’re reading this you have internet, which you could easily put to use in figuring out for yourself whether or not something is a good idea.

If you decide that something is a good idea, then do it; If not, then don’t. Just be sure you’re making a decision rather than humoring some media pundit whom you’ll never actually meet.

MetaControl: Your reply was “strange” mostly in that it did not directly address the topic of my post. I frequently receive messages that look real, but are obviously designed to insert advertisements onto my site. I mark all of those as spam and do not allow them in the Quest Log. Yours had content that might be interesting to my readers, so I approved it.

Your new reply addresses the “What if We’re Wrong?” post directly and is very interesting. I liked your two monkey tales. Thank you for commenting.

Why is my post strange? Because the approach I propose to overcome the crisis we seem to be in starts at the mind instead of economy? Because I advice a positive and responsible projection of the time ahead? Because I see the biggest potential for change in a collective creation of a better future?

True, it all sounds weird – and I would not recommend my site either (and there are warnings all over the place there about its content ^^) – but I can assure you my post was not meant as spam.

For many many years, I pondered over possible ways of how humankind may enter an era of peace and harmony. And for all those years I thought that only a sudden, instant and global state of awareness, that somehow and miraculously affects all humans would be the only way how our species might create utopia.
The problem with that idea is, that there is no simple way in achieving it. A movement is too slow, bears ideology (which inevitably leads to fascism, always) and will certainly not cover all humans equally – and we had some of those in the past, witch terrible outcomes. So how?

Recently – through several inspirations and a lot of research – I finally understood that it does not need to be a global and collective change in consciousness and that the simplest solution is to go for what we all want. A happy live (which is actually very easy to achieve, even without giving up on the luxuries and technical advancements)…

Anyway. I just wanted to offer a different point of view on this whole “Global Warming” issue, by (admittedly) diverging from the whole notion of doom.

The whole global warming thing might be a bit overblown, our critical situation is not. We are – in terms of resources – near collapse. Which is mostly due to very very bad distribution of the same.
We are nearing depletion of oil (peak production was 1996 since then it’s declining rapidly, while consumption still grows immensely), we are already unable to feed the whole world population as it is, and while WE (the ignorant 1st world inhabitants) might still feel safe from all that, we will experience it too soon enough.

And while all the tips mentioned in the article are nice and good, the real change will not come from buying local veggis, or driving a hybrid. To really change, we have to change our attitude. The way we create our own future.
And believe it or not, it starts in our minds.

So while the facts (without all the propaganda – no matter from which side) should be kept in mind, they should not cloud the horizon we are approaching.

Here are a few practical tips:
– It is not consumption we need to change, but the use and distribution of goods. Why? Because nobody want to let go of the comfort they are used to. So we need to change the way we approach our consumption. Support those who do it properly and boycott those who don’t. The big Corps will change their policy according to the customers preferences, because only that will bring profit – which is a Corp’s only goal.

– Do not fall for propaganda. Stay critical to all information and believes, especially your own. Do not buy any truth, discover it yourself. Yes, that also includes my rants – no one should just take my words for it, but try to figure it out yourself. It is the original thought most humans lack, following predefined laws, rules, regulations, restrictions, structures and systems of moral and believes.
None of them are real, natural or predetermined. WE created them and we are free to change them. We are not bound to them in any way, other then clinging to them by choice.

– If we all strive for happiness, we do have a common goal!
And if we stay responsible and altruistic about it, there is not even the need for any rules and laws. (True, such a state of mind on a global scale may seem far away, but it is not un-doable).

Here are two short stories that might help understand how a change like that might grow naturally. Both stories are about monkeys – and since we are not much more ourself (whoever thinks he is beyond being an animal, is very wrong I am afraid) – they may be a good parallels.

Story 1 – The 12(of 42) Monkeys:
Back in the days of atomic testing, the US military tested some of their nukes on an small island in the pacific. Doing so, they killed the whole population of monkeys living on that island.
Trying to correct their mistake, they flew in some new ones and tried to repopulate the island. The monkeys felt home fast, but soon, many of them died due to radiation poisoning. The fruits and coconuts were covered with dust from prior experiments and when the monkey ate those fruits, they digested the radioactive dust.
To counter that, some scientists involved in that project tried to teach one monkey how to wash his fruits in a local river, before eating them in hopes it would catch up among them. That monkey taught another one. And slowly, the knowledge spread. But a funny thing happened the moment a certain amount of the monkey population had learned to wash their fruit, suddenly ALL of them did, even without the need of being taught. It became common knowledge and henceforth all of them washed their fruit, thus surviving…

Story 2 – I R Baboon:
Somewhere in Africa, near a landfill, resided a small tribe of baboons. These very hierarchical monkeys follow a hard packing order and those among the males, who do not make it into the higher ranks, become very social, mostly caring for others in the tribe, grooming, tending to kids, foraging etc, while the high ranking males had all the privileges. One of which was to eat first and most – the main source of food being the landfill.
One day they found something to eat in that landfill that lead to a complete social change. The food they had found was toxic. Since the most aggressive and dominant males, due to their high rank, ate most and first, they were the ones dying, while the more social, physical less dominant males, left with scraps did not.

So the whole tribe ended up loosing all its dominant, for higher ranks fighting males. Left behind were the social ones, the sensitive guys…
The most incredible thing was, that none of the males tried to re-institute the previous packing oder. There where no fights for ranks, they just stayed social, without a pyramid-hierarchy.
What was even more fascinating, was how roaming male Baboons (some leave, or are cast out of their original tribe and look for a new one) got integrated in this new Baboon-society.
At first they would try the usual aggressive approach to secure a position in the hierarchy. But the other males just ignored them. Sooner or later the new males adapted and became social baboons too.
Till today this is the only tribe of baboons that does not utilize aggression and violence to establish a pecking order, instead value is based on social behavior.

Sentient beings form reality, by observing and measuring it. We create our own reality by what we perceive, interpret and, in response to that information, project into the future.
The invention of moon-travel was conceived in the earliest days of astrology, just by imagining it.
Projections like that tend to hold on and the idea wanders through time, until it reaches the era of “Possible” and then becomes part of our collective reality.

How our own future looks like is up to us. The more people believe we will end up destroying ourselves, the more likely it is to happen. Because more people project that particular reality into the future. And subconsciously we try to stick to the reality as we create and perceive it.

So how do we really prevent ultimate self-destruction? Simply by projecting a brighter and more positive future.
Although it may sound corny, the more people believe love, peace and harmony with mother nature (which does NOT exclude technology – after all, it is part of our own nature) is the answer, the more likely we will create a future with these characteristics.

While this may sound like metaphysical babble, it is actually neurologically proven, that we are the ones that define reality. And how we define it, can be a simple choice.

So just ask yourself what kind of future you would like to have? Would you like utopia? Then imagine that. Take your time, by imagining the world as it is today and then imagine in a fast forward mode how the world changes, and imagine it to change into the harmonious future mankind actually is striving for (biological drives urge us to make our own lives more pleasant and comfortable and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we share it collectively).

And we can do all that without the need of a defined ideology, without a system of believe behind it.
By concluding the lowest common denominator of what every living being wants, we find one word: Happiness. Simple as that. And this is the only goal we need to set. And then follow a path, that mirrors the goal (you will not be able to create a world of illumination, peace, love and happiness, by using hate, ignorance, pain and corruption – “The goal is the path”).

Yes we can change the world. And the change starts in our mind.

Do not ignore the warnings, but do not get beaten by them either. Take them as an opportunity to show how compassionate and resourceful humans can be.
We have to learn to understand that we are one people, one tribe, one big herd, one single family. And that our choices and actions should be taken responsible with an altruistic approach.

The biggest and hardest step to achieve that, is to reduce ones own ego, which has been bloated by media, false hope (all those lies that make people believe they could become rich, famous, important etc.) and the drive for more “Individualism” (the latter is an illusion since individualism is granted by the masses, not by ones own ego – what we really want is to be distinct and that is very easily achieved by personal actions and choices, how we do that will define if others recognize and appreciate it, which may lead to be lifted up by the masses as an individual, but neither has to, nor needs to happen, as long as you believe in yourself).

Yes, we all want to be recognized. We all want attention and praise. We all want compassion, love and respect. But let those be earned by actions. Start by recognizing others. Give them attention, compassion, love and respect. Act without selfish motives. You can still enjoy being altruistic – which is in itself rewarding – without compromising your altruism. And you will find people responding accordingly.

And here is the good news:
It is not necessary that all humans walk that path. Primates that we are, we only need a certain amount and then the rest of the tribe will follow suit, as soon as the advantage becomes obvious. And even the alpha-males and aggressive ones among us will change completely naturally. As soon as they realize that their alpha-male-mechanics do not work anymore, they will adapt to be part of the tribe again.

We can evolve beyond ourselves. We can grow out of the cro magnom that we have been for the last million, or two, years. And it is time we do. It is time we ascend and transcend our primate nature, our animal reality, and become a higher mind, based on collective understanding, collaboration and communication.
It is time we shed the thousands of years of slavery to our own lower nature and use the more evolved parts of our brains.

Doing all that is just a personal choice. So there are no excuses. You either want a future of happiness for all living creatures, or you don’t.

You create reality!

Posted: May 30th, 2010

Kellie Flanagan Says:

Corey, I like this very much. I looked at this piece because it’s intriguing and also Oct. 15th is my birthday. The website is great looking and I look forward to reading/hearing more. See you next Tuesday at Willow Bridge Books.
– Kellie

Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

- We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.

Posted: November 4th, 2009

fantomray Says:

I would agree that we, as people, are becoming more aware of our global warming situation. I know I have been doing my part of making our world a cleaner place to live. Such as riding my bicycle to and from work, recycling, and conserving energy. However, I believe even if all humans do what we are doing in making our world a cleaner place to live in is only a minute effect in preventing global warming.

I’ve discovered that scientists have why we are undergoing global warming. Through physics they understand that our earth is completing a polar wobble. This means both the North and South Pole shift very slowly each year. It’s caused by the orbit of our moon. Scientists have stated the Earth completes one wobble every 3600 years and will begin to complete its wobble 12/21/2012.

Posted: October 19th, 2009

Nagath Says:

Yay! Finally a new post! Thank you!

I agree with your friend that it might be that we’re kidding ourselves. We humans think so much of ourselves that we almost don’t think twice about such consequence of our actions. Do we really have such power? To destroy earth?
Well, we might but I think we’d have to try a lot harder. After all, you can only succeed at something when you really commit yourself to it. Right? We might be a blight to this planet, but I’m sure she can shake it off in time. she’s had harder beatings; even of meteoric proportions.

Regardless of who’s to blame for our environment shift, it’s a big success for our species to look at ourselves and judge if what our collective is doing is ultimately for the good of all or not. This re-examining is happening on many fronts it seems. We’re rebuilding and while we’re at it, we’re redesigning the world.

It’s that glimpse of hope in the long run: at present we keep feeling the echoes of our financial fail in our economy today. And though right now many people are suffering because of this, we are in the meantime examining ourselves and making new laws to prevent these things. I think the shady companies are having a harder time then the ones that have a sound policy. transparency will keep our economy safe.

I applaud california for banning incandescent bulbs, hopefully there will be a show of many examples of government regulations that help both our economy and our environment both directly and in the long run.

These are interesting times! we’ve much to look forward to. We have to re-invent the way we distribute energy (I’m not even going to mention production). We have to change the way we think about and use energy. And we have worry about how much we let our computers do for us.

A transparent, aware and open world is in my opinion a way out of this mess. If not, we’ll all end up living in a garbage heap that contains nothing that we really need.