Sanitation deals with measurable demand. Neo-classical economics doesn't.

[arkirk]

Human beings, by their very existence represent a number of demands on their environment. Irrespective of any other factors, the human being has a caloric demand IT exerts on ITS environment. This is a reality that cannot be avoided. The human being shares this quality with every other living thing. It is possible to quantify the metabolic demands of virtually all living things. This is true, regardless of any other factor. I spent 25 years of my life working for agencies that treated the exhaust products of human beings in water...sewage treatment. My job consisted of removing the biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand from domestic and industrial waste in publicly owned treatment facilities. The purpose of these facilities was to protect the water environment adjacent to given communities from pollution that would render that water environment unfit for living things. The sewage flows from these communities were constant but also constantly varying in chemical and physical contamination and volume. Pollution control was the purpose and indeed the obligation of these agencies. Many of these agencies had flows from industrial facilities on their interceptors. It was always a struggle, not because of the human waste we received, but because of wastes from industrial and military installations sometimes. Our processes were physical, chemical, and mostly biological. What I am trying to point to is that there is a very real, demand our huge population is constantly exerting on its environment. Alterations in our operational methods for providing for our human needs almost always increase this demand. These plants all operated on fossil fueled power for their operation and had their own demands on the environment and had their own environmental pollution plumes in the atmosphere, sometimes hundreds of miles away. We were in essence, transferring the pollution from the water to the air and to landfills. I am not recommending we stop this treatment, anybody who is conscientious knows that even these treatment devices are a long way from adequate or sustainable long term in the overall environment.

If we have an economy that is to meet the needs of society, there is much work to be done and I don't see it even beginning to be attacked. Meanwhile, the landfills leak. Native Americans in the southwest breathe particulates from giant coal fired power plants, and the chemical companies keep pumping new polutions into the environment. We need to start to accurately quantify the pollution we are creating and devise methods of bringing all the numbers down. Instead of this, we just hear from the right wing proposals to de-fund the EPA. We vacation in locations where past civilizations have failed and marvel at their ruins, flying there in jet planes with huge carbon footprints, and ignore the fact that these past civilizations failed almost always because they failed to recognize that their measurable demands were not being met and they had no clue why their water dried up or why they had plagues or simply started to starve. We are not above being victims of our own blindness to our effects on the environment and today, with the logarithmic growth of our demands, this situation is now global. Just ask Dr. Hansen about that.

The shuffling of the paper in wall street has taken precedence in our consciousness and we will be paying for that. A government that is merely a vassal of polluting industries is incapable of dealing with even a basic assessment of our problems. It is too busy spying and doing cloak and dagger politics and war. We need to be changing our ways.

 

[Bronzeage]

Neo-classical economics deals with measurable demand, we just ignore it most of the time. Sanitation is one of those expenses we find easy to ignore because the traditional solution to all unusable waste has been to send it someplace else. Out of sight, someone else's problem.

An economic transaction is a zero sum operation. I give you ten dollars and you give me $10 worth of stuff. We're both happy with the situation. How we determine the value of $10 worth of stuff is another matter. Classic economic theory say wealth is created by the combination of capital and labor. The increase in value of the product, less the costs to produce it, is its economic value. This is not always the sale price, but that's another discussion.

What are the costs? Materials and payroll are the obvious costs, but there can be a lot of hidden costs. They are hidden because the producer does not pay them, someone else does. If a person lives next to a chemical waste dump, their property values may fall and they may have increased health expenses. This is real money which must be spent because the chemical producer found and inexpensive way to dispose of his industrial waste. If the producer broke into someone's house and stole the change off the dresser and took food out of the fridge, the law on the matter would be clear. It's less clear if the producer simply forces his neighbors to spend more in order to live a healthy life.

Neo-classical economics offers a solution to the problem. The same law which protects private property from burglars must be extended to protect public property, such as air and water.

The problem with public property is that the reason it's public property is because there is no way to prevent others from using it. It's a simple fact, if you can't protect something(either by yourself or with the power of society), you can't keep it. This means the intense economic pressure we feel to maintain our private property values simply do not exist. A few people want to save the planet, but fewer still want to pay for it.

 

[arkirk]

You write as if you were clutching your coin purse and simply don't have anything to volunteer. That won't do. In the real world, there is no such thing as $10 dollars worth of stuff. There is just stuff and people with money...or without money. We need new models of economic theory based on measurable reality, not bullshit like private property. Your abode is private. You do not however have the right to turn it into a borrow pit. I worked in treatment plants, surrounded by a fence to keep out intruders. It was public property. The Pentagon is public property, but you certainly cannot use it. Just saying....WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR WAYS.

It is not a matter of buying sanitation as an adjunct of your operation. It is first a matter of assessing what we are calling sanitation and insuring it is as complete and sustainable as it can be. What I tried to point out is that the problem is huge and global and really not a matter of trading apples. Our environment is already severely injured. Neo-classical economics is just an excuse to continue injuring it.

 

[Bronzeage]

You write as if you were clutching your coin purse and simply don't have anything to volunteer. That won't do. In the real world, there is no such thing as $10 dollars worth of stuff. There is just stuff and people with money...or without money. We need new models of economic theory based on measurable reality, not bullshit like private property. Your abode is private. You do not however have the right to turn it into a borrow pit. I worked in treatment plants, surrounded by a fence to keep out intruders. It was public property. The Pentagon is public property, but you certainly cannot use it. Just saying....WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR WAYS.

It is not a matter of buying sanitation as an adjunct of your operation. It is first a matter of assessing what we are calling sanitation and insuring it is as complete and sustainable as it can be. What I tried to point out is that the problem is huge and global and really not a matter of trading apples. Our environment is already severely injured. Neo-classical economics is just an excuse to continue injuring it.

There is such a thing as $10 dollars worth of stuff. It has mass and occupies space, so there is no point in denying it's existence.

You seem to miss the point. Our economy is a social construct, defined by the laws we put in place. This is reality and any solutions to economic problems will be solved by laws which have real consequences for depriving people of wealth for one's own enrichment, not by pleading for people to be nicer.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is based on a major counterfactual assumption: that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics.

 

[arkirk]

The OP is based on a major counterfactual assumption: that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics.

No, my friend, I do not base my statement on the assumption that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics. Our actual economy is perhaps based more on the principles of a dog fight. It does strike me however that neo-classical economical arguments are used to justify terrible irresponsibility. I think mostly I am trying to point to the fact that our current set of requirements for good time seem to be so destructive of our environmnent that they need to change. This really is a matter of education and of desire on my part to live in a civil society. Our society is brutal and self destructive. All our technology seems to do is to accelerate our destruction of the environment. That is largely due to the fact that it is constrained by an educational process that is didactic and authoritarian. The authority comes from the financial class. The common man does not know enough about his environment to be fearful. On the other hand, even though the average member of the financial class also is rather uninformed of our environmental matters, he is fearful because he doesn't want his crimes against humanity to be undone, because that would be his undoing. If he knew more, he would see there is a way through our current problems that is the most humane and he would employ his wealth and power toward that end. On the other hand, if he rigidly applies almost ANY ECONOMIC SYSTEM that treats our environment as a sub system, he will continue harming our society. That's really pretty simple to grasp.

My point is that there are realities we must face and perhaps that is why Kantian logic must prevail over a paradoxical system of economy. In other words, the salesman's lies in the service of profit are immoral and inhumane in the end. We cannot vote reality into existence. That is what is wrong with religion and the modern pseudo religion of classical economics.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is based on a major counterfactual assumption: that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics.

No, my friend, I do not base my statement on the assumption that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics. ...

Misuse of intellectual tools is not the fault of the tools but the users.

 

[arkirk]

You write as if you were clutching your coin purse and simply don't have anything to volunteer. That won't do. In the real world, there is no such thing as $10 dollars worth of stuff. There is just stuff and people with money...or without money. We need new models of economic theory based on measurable reality, not bullshit like private property. Your abode is private. You do not however have the right to turn it into a borrow pit. I worked in treatment plants, surrounded by a fence to keep out intruders. It was public property. The Pentagon is public property, but you certainly cannot use it. Just saying....WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR WAYS.

It is not a matter of buying sanitation as an adjunct of your operation. It is first a matter of assessing what we are calling sanitation and insuring it is as complete and sustainable as it can be. What I tried to point out is that the problem is huge and global and really not a matter of trading apples. Our environment is already severely injured. Neo-classical economics is just an excuse to continue injuring it.

There is such a thing as $10 dollars worth of stuff. It has mass and occupies space, so there is no point in denying it's existence.

You seem to miss the point. Our economy is a social construct, defined by the laws we put in place. This is reality and any solutions to economic problems will be solved by laws which have real consequences for depriving people of wealth for one's own enrichment, not by pleading for people to be nicer.

"Ten dollar worth of stuff" is a grossly variable quantity. Its mass varies with the time of day. It can be a week's work for someone or almost nothing. When you have $10, you can only get what you can convince someone to give you for it. It seems to never cross your mind that our currency is a fiction and that fiction has been grossly manipulated. What is not a fiction is the human ability to operate in the physical economy. The exchange of money is a part of the economy, It is symbolic. What men do to the world is reality. Money has been accepted as the medium of exchange, to facilitate necessary human activities. Its use to humanity declines when it ceases or slows in its rate of circulation. The same kind of volatility exists with such things as titles to property, When our symbolic conventions do not accurately track the physical reality we create through our commerce, it can be due to error, habituation of belief, or in our case (eg. the housing crash},fraud.

I am not pleading for us to be nicer so much as saying we have constructed a paradoxical system of trade, credit, and commerce that does not serve the survival of human life. We are all human after all. Our divorce from the physical reality of the conditions we are bringing about on the planet is a direct result of this miss match our symbolic representations of wealth and actual measurable conditions which must be addressed and instead are ignored. I am not suggesting we destroy our social institutions, but rather that we adjust them. As things stand today, our state of widespread understanding and our directions call to my mind the state of a rubic's cube that has been scrambled. Widespread education in the sciences would provide the material that fuels imagination in the field of economic. Economics needs to be studied and aligned with measurable parameters. We simply need to set about unscrambling it and making it whole, and doing so without malice.

People become so attached to their titles and what is "mine" they virtually go into a panic as the thought of something they have not considered before, they become defensive, combatttive, and menacing. A good example of what I am talking about can be found in the social convention of the Inquisition. That was another example of paradoxical (rroneous) beliefs driving men to do socially harmful things. Try not to become so attached to the status quo because it is not a static thing. I have suggested that it is necessary to change our ways of looking at things. Einstein suggested that we suffer when we lack imagination. I think there is a certain truth to that, but I would add we must not abandon humanistic principles in service of any other motivation. So pull a bill from your wallet and look at is...read what is written on it...In God We Trust...and realize that is a misdirection.

 

[arkirk]

No, my friend, I do not base my statement on the assumption that our modern economy resembles or is arranged around neo-classical economics. ...

Misuse of intellectual tools is not the fault of the tools but the users.

The rules of Chess are complete and it is a good game. Still, I think it is not a model for human commerce. It is a model for competition. It is not a model for cooperation. That is what is needed in the face of our the environmental conditions of today.

 

[Bronzeage]

Misuse of intellectual tools is not the fault of the tools but the users.

The rules of Chess are complete and it is a good game. Still, I think it is not a model for human commerce. It is a model for competition. It is not a model for cooperation. That is what is needed in the face of our the environmental conditions of today.

You are pleading for a change in human nature. This has never happened before and it is not likely to happen any time soon. If you want humans to change their behavior, you must convince them to see something as in their best interest. "Best interest" is as ephemeral as $10 worth of stuff and the process is much the same.

Unless you have the force of violence to coerce people into behaving as you wish them to behave, you will need better salesmanship to convince them to change their ways.

 

[arkirk]

The rules of Chess are complete and it is a good game. Still, I think it is not a model for human commerce. It is a model for competition. It is not a model for cooperation. That is what is needed in the face of our the environmental conditions of today.

You are pleading for a change in human nature. This has never happened before and it is not likely to happen any time soon. If you want humans to change their behavior, you must convince them to see something as in their best interest. "Best interest" is as ephemeral as $10 worth of stuff and the process is much the same.

Unless you have the force of violence to coerce people into behaving as you wish them to behave, you will need better salesmanship to convince them to change their ways.

That is just your mantram. In case you haven't noticed some people have been making BIG CHANGES IN OUR GOVERNMENT LATELY....removing from us good Americans all sorts of constitutional rights. They have demonstated it is possible to grossly change our practices. The problem is that these changes being forced upon us are all in the wrong direction. "Best interest" can mean less poisoned, or less abused, or less endangered. Take your choice. It has a meaning and you know it. You know having S10 it is in your best interest to get as much as you can for it.

Anyway, why would you assume it is MY JOB to sell anything to anybody. It probably would be in the best interest of you and your progeny to consider cooperating in efforts to keep your society afloat. I am just saying to you that we are poisoning our future and the fact we are doing it needs to be addressed if we care to survive a little longer on this planet. If that doesn't concern you, go build the biggest coal plant you can and enjoy. The poisoning will continue then. Your "everything's okay, I'm doing fine" argument is simply myopic. Don't just resort to that type of push-back. It is the nature of the human being to, once he realizes something works really better, to adopt the new idea and become hooked on that idea till its consequences and feedback almost kill him, then begin casting about for the next miracle policy or practice. That probably has some historical basis. But history is an unfolding phenomenon and should not be cyclical.

This is supposed to be the information age. Humans are capable of making all kinds of changes when they clearly recognize it is in their BEST INTEREST even if it costs more than $10.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is just your mantram. In case you haven't noticed some people have been making BIG CHANGES IN OUR GOVERNMENT LATELY....removing from us good Americans all sorts of constitutional rights. They have demonstated it is possible to grossly change our practices. The problem is that these changes being forced upon us are all in the wrong direction. "Best interest" can mean less poisoned, or less abused, or less endangered. Take your choice. It has a meaning and you know it. You know having S10 it is in your best interest to get as much as you can for it.

Anyway, why would you assume it is MY JOB to sell anything to anybody. It probably would be in the best interest of you and your progeny to consider cooperating in efforts to keep your society afloat. I am just saying to you that we are poisoning our future and the fact we are doing it needs to be addressed if we care to survive a little longer on this planet. If that doesn't concern you, go build the biggest coal plant you can and enjoy. The poisoning will continue then. Your "everything's okay, I'm doing fine" argument is simply myopic. Don't just resort to that type of push-back. It is the nature of the human being to, once he realizes something works really better, to adopt the new idea and become hooked on that idea till its consequences and feedback almost kill him, then begin casting about for the next miracle policy or practice. That probably has some historical basis. But history is an unfolding phenomenon and should not be cyclical.

This is supposed to be the information age. Humans are capable of making all kinds of changes when they clearly recognize it is in their BEST INTEREST even if it costs more than $10.

I don't know what your job might be, but you are the one who brought all this up. If you are undone by a simple question of "Why should I?" perhaps you could rethink the argument. I don't recall saying, "everything's okay, I'm doing fine".

I understand the problems of pollution and waste. There was a time in my life when I was paid to worry about how to legally handle and dispose of the stuff. If you want to sell me on your ideas, please give me a little more than a patronizing description of my vision.

A Jeremiad is not a plan for the future. It's an indictment of the past.

 

[untermensche]

You are pleading for a change in human nature. This has never happened before and it is not likely to happen any time soon. If you want humans to change their behavior, you must convince them to see something as in their best interest. "Best interest" is as ephemeral as $10 worth of stuff and the process is much the same.

Unless you have the force of violence to coerce people into behaving as you wish them to behave, you will need better salesmanship to convince them to change their ways.

What is human nature besides being adaptable to many circumstances?

Create circumstances where greed can run amok and it will.

Create circumstances where greed is kept in line and carefully checked then it will remain but have less expression.

We are in charge. We can make whatever conditions we want.

Right now we let extreme greed go unchecked in far too many areas. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

Of course this is because the most wealthy make the rules for themselves, with the government they have bought, to the detriment of most.

 

[Bronzeage]

You are pleading for a change in human nature. This has never happened before and it is not likely to happen any time soon. If you want humans to change their behavior, you must convince them to see something as in their best interest. "Best interest" is as ephemeral as $10 worth of stuff and the process is much the same.

Unless you have the force of violence to coerce people into behaving as you wish them to behave, you will need better salesmanship to convince them to change their ways.

What is human nature besides being adaptable to many circumstances?

Create circumstances where greed can run amok and it will.

Create circumstances where greed is kept in line and carefully checked then it will remain but have less expression.

We are in charge. We can make whatever conditions we want.

Right now we let extreme greed go unchecked in far too many areas. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

Of course this is because the most wealthy make the rules for themselves, with the government they have bought, to the detriment of most.

You are pretty much on the mark, except about "the most wealthy make the rules for themselves." The wealthy get away with things like that because we let them. It's just as easy to be cynical and think there is no point in trying to change the system, as it is to whine about the current state of affairs, but not propose a meaningful change, or work for one.

 

[arkirk]

What is human nature besides being adaptable to many circumstances?

Create circumstances where greed can run amok and it will.

Create circumstances where greed is kept in line and carefully checked then it will remain but have less expression.

We are in charge. We can make whatever conditions we want.

Right now we let extreme greed go unchecked in far too many areas. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

Of course this is because the most wealthy make the rules for themselves, with the government they have bought, to the detriment of most.

You are pretty much on the mark, except about "the most wealthy make the rules for themselves." The wealthy get away with things like that because we let them. It's just as easy to be cynical and think there is no point in trying to change the system, as it is to whine about the current state of affairs, but not propose a meaningful change, or work for one.

I might add to what Untermensche has said here that there is no cosmic guarantee that "human nature" is the cause of our irresponsible political and economic behavior. It is indeed instead the actions and mentorage of a relatively few people with their money interrupting the discourse needed to deal with our problems effectively. Most humans I know are actually kindly and willing to cooperate for the common good. Do you deny we are living in a totally unsustainable manner? I am not Jerimiah and the information I bring here is not a threat, nor is it a call to violent action. It is instead simply a statement of the problem as I see it. You seem to feel we cannot change without bloodshed. I do understand there are some humans who would rather die than give up a growing unfair advantage and still maintain visions of expansive growth to their wealth to the end. There are far more people who will not support this course, once they know enough about it. The wealthy do make rules for themselves and by extension for you. It is up to you to look these over and assess how harmful these rules might be and push back in that direction. There really is no point in your disdain for the messenger.

The only logical outcome of agendas like those of the Koch Brothers is more global warming, more starving, more fiooding of coastal cities, more drought, more pollution, more of these insipid and misguided wars, and more displacement. That is not just some opinion I have. That's what our top climate scientists are telling us, so don't put that on me. We really don't have a couple of decades to spare so the Kochs can double their money. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at this late date, I still am forced to ask when we are going to start working of solutions? You never go there and seem to think we won't need answers till after we all are gone from this earth. Is that your position....that human nature will not allow us to change? We have already changed many times in our history. We will again. It is not my fault I don't have all the details at hand for you.

 

[Bronzeage]

You are pretty much on the mark, except about "the most wealthy make the rules for themselves." The wealthy get away with things like that because we let them. It's just as easy to be cynical and think there is no point in trying to change the system, as it is to whine about the current state of affairs, but not propose a meaningful change, or work for one.

I might add to what Untermensche has said here that there is no cosmic guarantee that "human nature" is the cause of our irresponsible political and economic behavior. It is indeed instead the actions and mentorage of a relatively few people with their money interrupting the discourse needed to deal with our problems effectively. Most humans I know are actually kindly and willing to cooperate for the common good. Do you deny we are living in a totally unsustainable manner? I am not Jerimiah and the information I bring here is not a threat, nor is it a call to violent action. It is instead simply a statement of the problem as I see it. You seem to feel we cannot change without bloodshed. I do understand there are some humans who would rather die than give up a growing unfair advantage and still maintain visions of expansive growth to their wealth to the end. There are far more people who will not support this course, once they know enough about it. The wealthy do make rules for themselves and by extension for you. It is up to you to look these over and assess how harmful these rules might be and push back in that direction. There really is no point in your disdain for the messenger.

The only logical outcome of agendas like those of the Koch Brothers is more global warming, more starving, more fiooding of coastal cities, more drought, more pollution, more of these insipid and misguided wars, and more displacement. That is not just some opinion I have. That's what our top climate scientists are telling us, so don't put that on me. We really don't have a couple of decades to spare so the Kochs can double their money. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at this late date, I still am forced to ask when we are going to start working of solutions? You never go there and seem to think we won't need answers till after we all are gone from this earth. Is that your position....that human nature will not allow us to change? We have already changed many times in our history. We will again. It is not my fault I don't have all the details at hand for you.

If human nature does not dictate our behavior, what on Earth does? Is there a cosmic hand which pulls the marionette's strings. That's probably not a popular idea around here, but some think it is quite valid.

Violence is always an alternative. We can't lose sight of that reality. In the late 19th and early 20th century, it became plain that the US could become a very violent place if it continued on it's current path. Enlightened people saw this was not really in their best interests and we saw laws enacted which reined in monopolistic corporations and fostered the formation of labor unions. There is one thing poor people always have to their advantage and that is sheer numbers. The wealthy of this land know that better than anyone.

As for "when we are going to start working of solutions?", I'm waiting for a proposal.

 

[laughing dog]

Misuse of intellectual tools is not the fault of the tools but the users.

The rules of Chess are complete and it is a good game. Still, I think it is not a model for human commerce. It is a model for competition. It is not a model for cooperation. That is what is needed in the face of our the environmental conditions of today.

Human commerce is a model of competition. But there is nothing in neoclassical economics that prevents it from extending to "co-operation".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because you don't like the message doesn't mean there isn't a valid message.

 

[arkirk]

I might add to what Untermensche has said here that there is no cosmic guarantee that "human nature" is the cause of our irresponsible political and economic behavior. It is indeed instead the actions and mentorage of a relatively few people with their money interrupting the discourse needed to deal with our problems effectively. Most humans I know are actually kindly and willing to cooperate for the common good. Do you deny we are living in a totally unsustainable manner? I am not Jerimiah and the information I bring here is not a threat, nor is it a call to violent action. It is instead simply a statement of the problem as I see it. You seem to feel we cannot change without bloodshed. I do understand there are some humans who would rather die than give up a growing unfair advantage and still maintain visions of expansive growth to their wealth to the end. There are far more people who will not support this course, once they know enough about it. The wealthy do make rules for themselves and by extension for you. It is up to you to look these over and assess how harmful these rules might be and push back in that direction. There really is no point in your disdain for the messenger.

The only logical outcome of agendas like those of the Koch Brothers is more global warming, more starving, more fiooding of coastal cities, more drought, more pollution, more of these insipid and misguided wars, and more displacement. That is not just some opinion I have. That's what our top climate scientists are telling us, so don't put that on me. We really don't have a couple of decades to spare so the Kochs can double their money. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at this late date, I still am forced to ask when we are going to start working of solutions? You never go there and seem to think we won't need answers till after we all are gone from this earth. Is that your position....that human nature will not allow us to change? We have already changed many times in our history. We will again. It is not my fault I don't have all the details at hand for you.

If human nature does not dictate our behavior, what on Earth does? Is there a cosmic hand which pulls the marionette's strings. That's probably not a popular idea around here, but some think it is quite valid.

Violence is always an alternative. We can't lose sight of that reality. In the late 19th and early 20th century, it became plain that the US could become a very violent place if it continued on it's current path. Enlightened people saw this was not really in their best interests and we saw laws enacted which reined in monopolistic corporations and fostered the formation of labor unions. There is one thing poor people always have to their advantage and that is sheer numbers. The wealthy of this land know that better than anyone.

As for "when we are going to start working of solutions?", I'm waiting for a proposal.

So you think the monopolies are reigned in do you? So you think our unions were fostered by our government? Are you aware of the massacres of strikers at coal mines and at the Ford plant by U.S. troops early in the 20th century? Our government has a really checkered past and that checkering is still abundant and in fact on the increase today. You may believe what you do because you were taught that our government is lily pure in school. We are awash in political narratives without one whit of truth in them...ostensibly to enamor us of our homeland....but actually to empower all sorts of skullduggery. Those who have arrived at comfort, wealth and privilege in our society are always insecure. They sponsor these narratives to keep us happy and in line and out of the way of the pipeline. I can propose some actions that would help if our government was not totally at the service of the fossil fuel industry just for starters....turn down the XL pipeline....stop the mountaintop removal in West Virginia...spend more of our tax money on a smart national power grid...build more alternative power infrastructure...I could keep adding to this list till the cows come home....Any of these actions would affirm we are on track for attempting to contain global warming. Anything short of all of these things would indicate that our leadership intends to let the suffering continue for the sake of rich sponsors of our politicians. You have been taught to believe we are all responsible for the environmental destruction our society has wrought. We are not all responsible. The actual policies that have enabled the environmental destruction we are faced with is actually the policy decisions of a relative few people. Even this last election with the Republican sweep had less than a third of our electorate voting. Public perceptions are shaped and limited by media that is as beholden to the fossil fuel industry as our politicians..

I keep trying to tell you I do not have all the answers and all the proofs, but I can stick my moistened finger up and tell which way the wind is blowing. So can you if you try.