Film Project: Energy and Ethics
2GreenEnergy co-founder George Alger and I are in the process of making a five-minute video on “Ethics and Energy” to be entered in a contest later in the year. As we currently contemplate the project, the video will feature me giving a talk on the subject, supported by various “B-roll” clips and stills.
I rate myself “decent though far from excellent” at this type of public speaking. I’m certainly not good enough to deliver it extemporaneously without a bunch of flubs and omissions. So I just wrote a script for myself that I thought I’d share.
I need a more powerful opening – and closing. But here are the guts:
Human civilization is at a unique point in its history. Let me frame this with a few facts, at least according to what our scientists tell us:
Life on this planet is about 4 billion years old
Homo sapiens, as a species, is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 years old
What we call “civilization,” i.e., people living together in permanent settings, began about 9,000 years ago
In a period of 100 years beginning in 1950, the world’s population will quintuple, from 2 billion to 10 billion, at the same time that the per capita energy consumption will go through the roof. Humankind will experience a huge increase in energy consumption in a minutely small period of time.
This energy gluttony is causing the depletion of natural resources – including some of the fossil fuels, like oil, that have been left to us from the distant past. Not only are we running out of some of those resources, but, in consuming them at this rate, we’re rapidly ruining the only planet we have. We’re polluting our oceans and our skies, we’re poisoning our food with chemicals to keep up with demand, and our sea levels are rising due to climate change. We’re converting the Amazon rain forest into farm land, largely for raising beef cattle, at the rate of 1.5 acres per second. In the time it will take you to watch this video, we will have lost an area the size of about three golf courses.
So, when I say that we’re in a “unique position,” what I really mean to say is that, for the first time in human history, we’ve begun to live in ways, largely in terms of energy consumption, that are literally unsustainable. What does this mean? “Sustainability” has all types of connotations: it’s green, it’s clean, it’s eco-friendly. Maybe, I’d like to think, it’s cool. But literally, something that is unsustainable is something that cannot be continued. And that’s what we have here. Humankind will not be behaving this way in a few decades, even if it wants to, as it will encounter mass starvation, skyrocketing rates of disease, desertification of farm land, and tens of millions of “climate refugees,” i.e., people fleeing from floods, and so forth.
So I’m suggesting that we have a huge ethical issue here, and that it has several different dimensions:
First, individuals need to take personal responsibility for the way they’re behaving, in terms of the familiar phrase: reduce, re-use, and recycle. This has vast implications, of which here’s a simple example: eating. If the whole world ate like the Chinese, where meat is used sparingly, almost like a decoration, the world could comfortably support about 15 billion people. But if the whole world ate like Americans, the food supply would only support about 2 billion.
Obviously, our eating habits are only one example. Think about the way we drive. In the United States, generally, everyone with a driver’s license owns a 4000 pound car that has a single 150-pound occupant over 70% of the time it’s on the road. This is grossly unaffordable, both financially and ecologically. And, as I say, this WILL change.
The other major ethical issue is that we’re deliberately lied to about all this. Most of the people watching this video are either totally unaware of what I’m saying or think I’m some sort of communist hell-bent on destroying capitalism. And, by the way, no, I’m not. I ran a business with clients all over the world that at one point employed over 200 people.
The problem is that there are hugely powerful forces that are spending fortunes trying to convince you that there’s nothing wrong with business as usual. Just keep on working, buying, consuming, and discarding whatever’s left over. Drill, baby, drill. Your image of yourself DEMANDS that big car. Global warming is a hoax.
Speaking of human-caused global warming, a theory that’s supported by over 98% of the climate scientists who study it, here’s an ad – a billboard – funded by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank, whose members include most of the big players in energy, agribusiness, and the other mega-corporations that want to make sure that, as a consumer, you do not flinch. As you can see, the concept is to equate the mentality of a mass murderer with that of someone who’s concerned about climate change.
Now personally, let’s go back to ethics. What are we to make of multi-billionaires who want to make a few more billion dollars at the expense of the health and safety of the other seven billion people living on this planet – not to mention our grandchildren to come? What kind of human being runs ads to convince people to live in a way that is clearly destroying the planet? The word “evil” is not one that I throw around carelessly, but I honestly don’t know what else to call this behavior.
So what to do? I guess the first thing is to come up to speed on the truth surrounding energy. Go to energyfactcheck.org, a website whose purpose is to separate the truth from the lies associated with renewable energy. Btw, these viewpoints that I’ve expressed here are my own, and they are not necessarily shared by the people who run that website; I just happen to think that it does a good job in debunking a great deal of the myths associated with the energy debate.
Also, if you’re interested in a ton of free content on this subject, including a free newsletter, I would suggest you go to 2GreenEnergy.com.
We’ll see how this goes. It’s always fun to work on film projects with George. Btw, here’s a public service announcement he made recently on water conservation that you may enjoy. It too is in a contest, so if you like it, you may wish to vote for it.
Your basic premise is wrong. The world is not running out of energy.
Our atmosphere has indeed already run out of the capacity to absorb any more greenhouse gases but that is a very different issue. There are several alternatives to fossil fuels and other combustible fuels as energy sources, some of which are in fact cheaper than fossil fuels. The idea that we need to “solve” the problem by using less energy is incorrect. It serves the interests of those who make money from the sales of (and business generated by) fossil fuels (including our governments) by implying that we should accept higher prices for their products and by changing our life styles to match the limitations imposed by the use of combustible fuels.
The offenders are not just the people in the fossil fuel industry. Our governments, universities, NGO’s and pundits like yourself are negligent in failing to adequately explain how we could use alternatives like nuclear power, deep geothermal energy, solar energy or stored energy (my favourite!) to replace the use of fossil fuels, especially for static applications such as the energy for buildings. Is that an ethical problem or it is just plain incompetence?
You state many questionable items but when I look at the amount of energy consumed in the US vs most other countries it would seem to make sense that we educate ourselfs on how to use energy more wisely. You state that there are many choices on non fossil fuel sources but while also saying that our atmosphere is full.Why, knowing that the atmosphere is full do we continue to use fossil fuels?? Can you suggest a plan that would help us transition to non co2 producing energy?? Or do you think that the current entrenched energy providers are somehow making that difficult. And if the process is not complely renewable isn’t conservation a good idea ?? I ride a bike 3500 miles a year and eat alot of vegies just so you will know where Im coming from..
Barry As noted I like the approach based on storage, although the other approaches may be more suitable in other countries. The October issue of http://sustainability-journal.ca explains in considerable detail (and with real examples) how storage would make it possible to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels for heating/cooling/DHW in our buildings, and by dealing with those needs we would in the process also eliminate the use of fossil fuels for generating electricity in Canada. The latter is not hard to accomplish in Canada because our primary power source is hydro. Almost the entire population lives in a narrow latitude belt so we all share the same seasonal temperature variations, which also makes it easier to employ a standard storage model.
The problem is that the export of fossil fuels accounts for a very large part of Canada’s international trade. Our governments have therefore chosen to turn a blind eye to the damage being done to the world’s environment rather than risk losing that revenue. For them it is certainly an ethical issue. For most individuals the choices are confused because the media have done a really mediocre job of explaining the choices that are available.
Craig, I know it is a real ego builder to pretend you are Edward R. Morrow and the world is enthralled with you reading the evening news. But, that isn’t true in the 21 st century. Craig, you need a different technique, much less lecturing by you and much more video demonstrating the facts you are trying to present. Even a hokey production I worked on as a camera operator which started as a briefing for a 8 man crew of a space ship before takeoff as a basic outline of the segments of the presentation to follow; then the various segments with the “Commander” providing commentary. Every-body likes Science Fiction and that can demonstrate important concepts in “Science Fact” the “Space Flight” can provide a sentence or two of redirection between the segments of factual concern. And no “B-Roll clips or stills of other lecturers they must be actual videos of the actions demonstrated (Such as Hurricane waves flooding seaside resorts for ocean levels rising and such)In broadcasting we call what you did before “Talking Heads” and that is like televising a radio call-in talk show. Just BORING ! Awaken it and we may actually listen. (I was a TV broadcast Studio Engineer.)
You have some good points here. The issue is budget. I’d love nothing more than to make a professional-grade film like “Crude” or “Fuel,” but I can’t afford it: the personnel, the travel, the equipment, the time.
I think the write-up is excellent. However, I strongly believe that with changing climate and changing realities, the attitude and needs of people will also change. The need for alternate energy sources will definitely be met by the coming generations, since they will not have much options left for them. I also believe that the Creator also planned something for these changing times.
What do you believe the Creator plans?
Craid Sheilds responds to Ajaz…as to what the creator has in store for us. The same thinf the BIG HE has always has for us, more self deception, biological infingements and more empowered rights give to those who live by monodimensinal standards and cant….see the forest from the TREEs…We are in our usual ho-hum stage of futility tryng to hang on to a dead horse trodding down a worn trail so deep even a blind horse can find its way home by the rote-ruts alone. People’s awareness enmass is not driven by any real thought [self doubt], to say it begins and ends internally manifested motivations, as a “bio-mover” where the brain functions on all sense, not just the binary memeory…in other words… to feel the human stuggle that is within.
If we can not feel the real needs of this world there are only the supperficical WANTS of our legal agenda….the seeling of human fear to OBEY and not questtion the voluminous waste of the world governement[s] alone. Are we tuned to this? NO, not in the least because we want someone besides our selves as individuals working togeter, to solve our problems. Soory, peopel, its not going to happen in our life time. Why. Because we are blind to the very fact we have been decieved way to long by our educated pundits who HAVE to seel fear to be who and what they are to sustain what we then a a knowledge.
It is not a true knowing that goes with human feeling or any real direct knowing that isw not on or in the fast lane. So, we are in a catch 22 of BINARY disconcern. OR, try this…until it [taurus-feces] hits the great fan of unmoved complacent disreguard for our palnet…we, the big US are going no-where very fast. We talk alot, and we will repeat this mono-speak until the cows come home…Are they comming home? So…as Craig said…”what will the creator bring”….how about more of the same old same old, we are in a trap we made over 2500 years ago. We are made sure by false agreement [the great con of man] then and now. We steal the lie [edict] and then lie [agree] to steal even more. What is a thinker? Who are the Empaths? FEEL IT, KNOW IT and we will be moved by IT. The mover. We are in the last years [days] of the great wake-up call…are we not?
Hello Craig,
You have put very good efforts in putting together the script. But for a 5 min video the script looks too large to me.
We should speak less and let the videos and clippings show talk more “A Picture Worth Million Words”.
Anther thing I would do is since the topic is Energy and Ethics and whole world is going to watch it, I would not talk/compare the habits of country specifi people and name them out. They may feel bad.
Also if we would like to give message to people from varied background (cluture, language, education), I would keep the sentences very small and simple.
Also we shoudl touch upon the present and near future which people can easily see, feel around them and act upon it. Who is interested in what sicentists have said or predicted and what is past. Most of the things scientists have said are either their own opinions or more subjective. We should talk more about simple soultions to some very simple problems which are easy to implement and having high on impact. You have already toched upon one is eating less meat and moving toward more veg food, Driving habits.
While creating videos I think we need not really travel places and find many people, we can find out problems from surrounding and provide soultions to them. And you can act in your videos. As you understand the subject and your script better than any one, I am sure you can do much better job. Finally “You are the message”.
We need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives. If you change that objective to a fundamentally different one in which you argue that the need is to reduce the amount of energy being consumed then you have lost the debate right there.
To actually displace the use of fossil fuels you need to take into account the facts that both the energy needs and the potential solutions are very different in differing geographic areas. I took pains to point out that the solution that I had proposed was appropriate for Canada, but other areas have different problems and different potential solutions. If you try to talk about universal solutions then the discussion is likely to degenerate into gibberish.