TED Community » Brian Reynolds

About Me

Brian Reynolds is an entrepreneur with interests in pretty much everything he liked when he was 8. He lives in Middletown New Jersey with his beautiful wife Kelly, their son Lincoln and dog Opie. Together the family does their best to not step on one another in a house just slightly smaller than they need. Professionally he consults with companies on issues of corporate climate resilience, energy and carbon. As an active volunteer for Citizen's Climate Lobby, 350.org and the Climate Reality Project he speaks publicly with people from every walk of life about the important issue of global warming.



More About Me

I'm passionate about

Carbon. Climate. Energy. Fairness.

An idea worth spreading

There are lots of legal tools used by countries to protect their mineral resources. Defenses of oil or coal or iron or gold are all enshrined in international law. Why are we not using those same tools in defense of our atmosphere? Who will step forward and use international laws regarding mineral rights to press for change in the climate crisis?

Talk to me about

Energy, energy policy, climate change and crazy ways to save the world.

Comments

  • TEDCred score: +2.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

  • A comment on Talk: Back to the Start

    Feb 28 2012: This is great advertising. It also speaks to the danger of greenwashing a brand. This isn't a commentary on Chipotle it's a comment on how even though I know absolutely nothing about their business model I feel more well disposed toward them. Well crafted messages are powerful.
  • +1

    A comment on Talk: Your Man Reminder

    Feb 28 2012: Just showed this to my fiancé. Ad worked.
  • A comment on Talk: The Bear

    Feb 28 2012: Wow. Strange that this one ad has the best special effects I've seen in years.
  • +1

    A comment on Talk: The Return of Ben Ali

    Feb 28 2012: That's brilliant.
  • A reply on Talk: Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

    Jan 17 2012: Perhaps instead we can say that Atheism is a refusal to believe in anything without evidence, agnosticism is the creeping idea that something supernatural exists despite a lack of evidence and religion the belief that evidence has been given for something supernatural.

    Does that work?
  • A reply on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?

    Dec 24 2011: Seems to me that there's a much better and more logical argument for some of the rights listed above.

    The right to peruse my own existence not derived from the fact that I exist (which is arbitrary) but instead from the fact that all people want to continue to exist so it's better if we grant that right to one another.

    The rights of free speech and free thought, because my thoughts and speech don't infringe on your right to exist. Only my actions can do that.

    The right to property and ownership because we all have a healthier more trusting society and greater chance of flourishing if I don't have to spend most of my life protecting myself from the thievery of others.

    I disagree with several of the other points above because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Any universal right is essentially a value we hold that derives it's power from it's ability to maximize societal well-being and flourishing as well as set a floor. "the right to take what I can from those weaker than I, etc..." clearly doesn't do this.
  • A reply on Conversation: What are human rights? How do we decide and are they universal?

    Dec 24 2011: It's starting to sound like you're not drawing a distinction between recognizing a right in principal and recognizing one in practice, Tim. Surely we can agree that religious freedom is a core human right and has always existed independent of what cultures have evidenced in practice.

    Accordingly, it should be hard to justify rights in a historic context. This in no way dismisses their validity. We live in a society now where scientific tools are at our disposal that can illuminate what restrictions or liberties are better or worse at promoting human well-being and societal flourishing. Prior to this we've had to work off a collective gut-check when we say "this is a right, that is a right" and many of these instincts have been spot on. (some have not)

    As we move into a global mindset different cultures will show different answers to those same human yearnings. Until now there's been no way to objectively say "this value is more important to the well-being of people and cultures than that value". That is measurable now.

    Human rights are those core principals we value and which we build the laws to run a society by, that maximize human well-being and maximize the flourishing of a culture.
  • A comment on Conversation: Against obvious logic, what is the reasonable case for Intelligent Design/God's existence? If not, why is the thought of such so prevalent?

    Dec 22 2011: Thanks for the response. I want to make sure I understand you though so let me get a little clarity. My understanding of the self-reproducing inflationary model is that it merely kicks the can down the road from a prior universal model to this one. In that sense it doesn't answer origin questions but instead confuses the issue (for me at least) by creating a chain that is reliant on prior events but offers no original event, a dissatisfying answer.

    Although I follow your point about the boundary issue I was under the impression that this was a solution to topographical questions about the universe more than it was an answer to the issue origin. Also, you lose me when you refer to arguments that "Quantum mechanics considers the origin of the universe as a quantum event" while saying that there is no need for a singularity. A singularity is a quantum event by strict definition, albeit one we don't fully understand because of the relativistic implications. This has the effect of making me feel much like I'm with an interior decorator who says "It's not crimson, it's ox blood". Forgive me here if I seem thick.

    In either case perhaps it's the limit of 1500 characters but I don't see any clear answer to the issue of defining a means for a change to occur in an a-temporal world. This it would seem is a requisite for a hot, dense beginning. I look forward to your response.
  • A comment on Conversation: Energy Crisis

    Dec 22 2011: Ok that's fair.
  • A reply on Conversation: Our weaknesses as drivers of humanity

    Dec 22 2011: Every statistical and scholastic measurement shows that as a population we are getting smarter by an average of 2-4 IQ points per decade for at least the last 100 years. Most scientists and neurobiologists credit this to the need for man to deal with more non-physical problems (ie understand things like the abstract, non-physical concept of a "market"). There is no doubt that we are placing greater reliance on exterior memory devices and computative ability, but it's very had to argue scientifically that we're devolving.
Load 10 more Comments (Showing 1 - 10 of 55)