TED Conversations

kelly crespo

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does a catastrophic event need to occur, for people to demand cleaner energy?

We are facing a silent killer, using non-renuable resources are slowing destroying our home however the initiatives are moving to slow. We can think of it as high blood pressure, people only pay attention to it after they have been to the hospital. What will it take to wake up?

+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 6 2013: We can not reverse climate change or stop it.
    More than likely, what humans can do, well, let's look at what they have done.
    They have polluted every square inch of this globe and there is pollution, dying ecological environments in all the oceans of the world. The air we breathe is filthy, the fresh water rivers, lakes, streams and so on, are heavily polluted.
    There has been some clean up on a small scale but all these things are connected, and more closely so than we humans are.
    Our land is dying from our growing procedures, and well, it just goes on and on. We have radioactive areas around the globe, leaking radioactive containers, which in Redmond, Washington, the amount is enormous and has been going on for some time. We even have radioactive dumps in the seas along with underground caverns filled with waste. And yet some continue the cry that we need more nuclear power plants as a cheap alternative. The cost is not cheap. It is the most expensive we face. Japanese have been leaving their country after Fukushima. They don't trust their government at all. And they shouldn't. Their radioactive fish has been sold all over the world and the leaking goes on as do the lies that there is no danger to the public. This is for profit, not safety. Not wise choices. Not the right thing to do.
    The right thing for humans to do is to stop what they are doing. If what we do, in any way, contributes to more pollution, the extinction of species, the degradation and destruction of ecological environments we depend upon, then
    we need to stop. We can't heal anything. We have to leave things alone. I think they would also appreciate that.

    I'm sure most everyone knows of pollution nearby.

    We cannot really fix this stuff. We can only stop doing it. The earth will find its way to dissipate all the garbage we have provided for this service.
    We need to stop. We so pridefully, foolishly and blindly continue to believe and think we can fix it if we only fuck with it some more.
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2013: So you address the waste that comes from consumption. So, we have to stop consuming. Now what.?
      Who has to stop, who gets to continue.? Who makes the choice? Consumption is life. Mankind can go on an energy diet. Lean and mean, so to speak. I don't want too. Now what?
      There are nations who have the capability to initiate a major species extinction. .that will solve the "waste" problem . I guess we can point out the obvious. But, instead of rehashing old science, would it be better for a focus on the new?
    • Mar 6 2013: Not true Random; we can and must reverse climate change.

      I believe what you mean to say is we cannot do it in time enough to avert the majority of ill effects from manifesting. This is true. We have pretty much ruined things for the kids and grandkids, but we can probably start turning it around for the genration after that. IF we start now...

      Mike, what new science you got that we can start NOW? Then I guess we need to start with old science... I like the science that Albert Howard, who went to India to teach them 'modern' agriculture instead came to embrace. Organics is, at its core, really a study of the interactions of carbon and nitrogen. We underestimate both the quantity of, and the ability of, soil organisms to store carbon; if every home, business and farm in the United States went organic today, the climate crisis would end almost instantly. Desertification is an ugly feedback loop where the soil "dies"; it loses its inherent biology and as Alan Savory's new talk demonstrates, the ONLY way to reestablish that is to reintroduce biology. While we are encouraged to plant trees, it is grass savannah, such as Alan Savory is working with, that does the best job of storing carbon, due to higher biodiversity and root densities, and attendant increases in soil biology thereof.

      As to Kelly's original question, we have had a bunch of those disasters lately, and sorry to say, while it has advanced the conversation some, the primal scream for non-carbon energy has been muted, to be polite about it. So no, dear, no amount of down-the-road-things-are-gonna-get-bad will start this conversation, even when we are already down the road. You are obviously too young to remember the Seventies, but I was there when we started this conversation (if you don't count Theophrastus, who first noticed deforestation led to warmer local climate, or Joseph Fourier in 1824, who proved atmosphere holds heat, or John Tyndall or...) See how far we have come since?

      Drill, baby, drill.. :p
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2013: Let everyone go organic tomorrow. Now what. the reason we went to industrial farming with it's chemical fertilizers etc. was that the world couldn't grow enough food. So, I have a large back yard, I could grow an organic garden, raise some chickens and a few rabbits, there are even a few nut and fruit trees that are native to this area. Maybe, I could trade a few extra eggs to a neighbor for some of his excess. I could live like that. Of course, that is pretty labor intensive, so I'd probably have to cut back on my notes on TED. OK, I'm good. What about that poor soul who lives on the 24th floor of that high rise in Manhattan. He lives in a 500 sf studio. and 30 inch plastic flower box for gardening space. Him and his 15 million closest friends and neighbors.
        Where do they go "organic"? If every farm, ranch and other generator of food stuffs were to go organic... we inverse the previous calculations that industrial food production is 30 to 50 % more then organic production. So then, who doesn't eat?
        Now climate change:
        Your position is that the planetary climate has been in stable state since the beginning until about two hundred years ago when the western (Europe and North America) industrial revolution started extensively using fossil fuels thus raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing the overall planetary temperature.
        My position is that the planetary climate is in a constant change state ranging from the planet being a giant snowball to world wide sauna with the CO2 rates swinging wildly. Further, there is nothing that man can do to change any of this.
        OK, your turn...
        As far as new science, I don't know what's out there. But, we've done wind, solar and biofuels for the last 10,000 years, if we can't do better, we deserve to go back and live in caves while we starve to death
        • thumb
          Mar 7 2013: ok this is completely deviated out of the initial question. Maybe someone mentioned this and I did not read it, but I have not stated to go back and get rid of technology, in the contrary I was looking into new technology to replace the one that is no doing us good for our future. Yes fertilizers come form petroleum, and we need to produce a certain amount for the amount of people. And petroleum has numerous uses ranging from medicines to plastics.

          But in chemistry there are many material that can have similar uses, and we can work towards new improved ways.
          For example biofuel is a potential solution that can replace non-renuable is the sense of utility, and there many others.

          Now for the second part, let's assume that global warming has nothing to do with humans interaction and it is just a cycle. That is not the only threat that non-renuable brings.

          Now if I have misunderstood some information please be my guest and share your thoughts.
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2013: Scott,
        I saw the talk as well in the TEDlive stream.

        Thank you for referring to my question. You are right about me not remembering the seventies I was born in the 90's. Just like I am sure you do not remember the 1800's when people did not want industrialization, however we can use Allan's Ted talk as an example of previous mistakes. when he was young (probably the 60s - 80s I do not recall the decade) Allan mentioned that he order to kill over 40,000 elephants to solve the problem in Africa. After many years of research he found out that he was wrong and came up with a solution to correct what he had done.
        In other words he did not say I do not know the solution lets just ignored deforestation we still have a lot of good land. He came up with a solution over years of research.
        And as I pointed out before, I am from the 90's maybe just because previous generations could not get of the addiction of oil, it does not mean that my generation wants the same. After all we are allowed to shape our future how we wanted right? For this reason I study to become an influence in my generation.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.