Quick Conversation with Senior Energy Analyst Glenn Doty
In response to my posts on geoengineering and climate change mitigation more generally, Glenn Doty writes:
There are many mitigation strategies that we agree will clearly pass the “cost effectiveness” test – insofar that investing in them will result in a net lower cost / net greater potential lifestyle for the planet. Wind power, solar power, geothermal power, efficiency upgrades, etc… all easily pass that test, while electric cars, algae products, ocean current recovery, orbital solar energy and high altitude wind energy, etc.. all clearly don’t.
You mention mitigation strategies that will result in a greater potential lifestyle for the planet. Sadly, there are very few transactions made on this Earth each year that are rooted in improving people’s lives. I hate to sound cynical (there’s enough of that around here) but this idea of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) doesn’t really exist too far outside of John Stuart Mill. I suppose I could include the not-for-profit world, but even there, we see much more focus on corporate PR than there is on actual philanthropy.
In practice, what we have is a singular motive behind almost all investments: profit. If such investments happen to be beneficial for humankind also, so much the better, but think of how few of them are. Consider fast food, SUVs, and most of the soon-to-be-obsolete crap we’re programmed to buy. Consider that for-profit pharma and healthcare doesn’t want cures; they want customers with symptoms.
Here’s the story with agribusiness: there are four parameters by which modern agriculture could make decisions on what food stuffs will be brought to our tables: a) uniformity of size and shape (for inexpensive processing), b) crop yield per acre, c) shelf life, and d) flavor profile and nutrition content (which turn out to be essentially the same thing in terms of biochemistry). According to The Splendid Table, in practice, the industry works feverishly on the first three and pays virtually zero to the last of the four.
In banking we have Wells Fargo ripping off millions of its customers. In auto, we have the VW diesel scandal. Not an abundance of concern for the greater potential lifestyle for the planet there, it seems. Btw, I was thrilled to see that the CEO of Audi was arrested yesterday.
Closer to home, we have an energy industry that aggressively obstructs the development of renewables in its quest to pull the last molecule of crude out of the ground.
To my sadness and actual surprise, algal biofuels didn’t make it. I was in love with the huge energy density and the ridiculously low-cost conditions (worthless land, non-potable water) with which algae can be grown, but science wasn’t able to make that work.
One of the few points on which we disagree is electric transportation. If we still have a civilization here in 50 years, I’m quite sure that liquid fuels will be a very small part of it.
In any case, thanks very much for your wonderful contributions over the years; I’ve learned a ton from you and your fine family.
Craig,
Without wishing to sound churlish, or critical of your admiration for your friends or moral condemnation of the follies and flaws of human society. (heaven protect us form those wicked souls seeking a profit !)
But,….If I may have the temerity on behalf of all of us here under our bridge,to ask, what, if anything, of any practical value all this philosophic and political advocacy has been achieved by well meaning folk like Glenn or yourself to advance environmental projects or Clean(er) technology lately ?
As I get older, I’ve noticed a disturbing tendency among my contemporaries to become a generation of curmudgeons. More defined by what we’re ‘against’ than what we’re ‘for’.
Rejoicing at the downfall of some corporate executive caught up in a regulatory fiddle or “happily” salivating at the idea of shooting dead an intruder whom broke into your home(except being against gun ownership, you’d probably have to race out and borrow one from a neighbour you’d only that morning been admonishing for his NRA membership :)) , is all very well but how does it help the environment ?
Okay, I agree the President has his faults. But so what ? How does endless hand wringing about his many flaws help the environment or the development clean technology ?
The dream of an Obama-esque nirvana is over. It never return because the general public realized it was mostly just hype. Worse, the public became aware advocacy from ” Climate alarmists” hid a deeper and darker political agenda.
In almost every nation where “green parties” sprang up, they quickly morph’ed into old fashioned leftist radicals using environmentalism to drive a dishonest hidden agenda.
During the height of the global warming fervor, (2006-2016) the general public were authoritatively informed by “scientists” and impressive sounding advocates of the dire and immediate effects of desertification, rising sea levels, Pacific Islands disappearing, peak oil, the apocalypse and Armageddon occurring if not today, certainly next week !
When none of the events occurred, and the popularity for exciting environmental apocalyptic movies faded, the public became disillusioned.
Petroleum products didn’t disappear, in fact, they became cheaper and more plentiful, the sea levels haven’t risen discernibly, desertification has in fact receded slightly, and no Pacific Islands have disappeared beneath the waves (some have even grown slightly).
Meanwhile, two huge industries have grown largely as a result of enormous taxpayer and consumer subsidies.
The wind and solar industries became popular, yet no one, certainly not the passionate advocates who believe it’s okay for giant corporations to make huge profits building wind farms as well as weapons etc ever inquired into the environmental problems inherent in these technologies. These are the same folk who hate oil companies, but applaud natural gas while blocking pipelines !
The problem has never been the science, but politically/ideologically driven political advocacy.
In all this confusion and hypocrisy, the general public decided they’d had enough and just moved on.
Where does that leave clean tech entrepreneurs ?
The public no longer care about huge disruptive schemes to “save the planet” ! However, the will still listen and support practical, economic clean technology if presented in a non-confrontational, non-political method.
On the weekend I took a group of guests to witness a large electric ride on mower (these machines are really big, more like a combine harvester than a mower). Each of my guests was a potential client. Over the two days, I demonstrated the vehicles, i spent only a modest amount of time on the environmental benefits.
These may be small victories, but I believe each person who sees the vehicles in action, including the staff and operators, gains more confidence in adopting EV technology.
Like I say, If I were and American, I would get President trump and his family on on of these vehicles ! Think of the impact value.
Persuasion, is better than confrontation, example is better than advocacy.
For many years I’ve driven an EV in Britain. I’ve always been gratified how many people ask me about my LERR and leave with a more accepting attitude. Our Tesla Courtesy cars make a statement, and subtly send a message.
We can make a difference. The general public will trust environmentalists, if they can be confident of the message.
Those who voted for the President may accept taxpayer funding to develop mitigate coal emission, or reform and reduce delays to overly onerous advanced nuclear power.
Does it really matter what environmentally beneficial technology gets adopted, as long as environmentally beneficial technology gets adopted ?
But remember, the public will no longer believe all the hype. Be prepared to repeatedly answer even the most awkward questions, openly, honestly and patiently. Ignoring or refusing to engage, will reduce credibility.
Craig,
The question is cost effectiveness. Yes, Tesla is still pushing cars at loss-leader prices with tons of subsidies… but the net good done by a purchaser of an EV compared to the net cost in purchasing the EV (rather than purchasing an efficient hybrid-electric ICEV)… It is an extremely inefficient use of resources that could otherwise be used for more cost effective mitigation strategies or saved to be spent in more cost effective accommodation strategies.
Every item of that nature where the less cost effective choice is preferentially advantaged vs a more cost effective choice will result in a net erosion of maximum potential lifestyle.
I’m saying that efficiency technology, recycling, wind, solar, geothermal,whitening, mass transportation systems, incentives for telecommuting, nuclear power, and aforestation are low hanging fruit…
Sea walls, attempting to transplant wildlife diversity, urban farming, small wind, run-of-the-river hydropower, dredging, desalination and water purification, CO2 recycling, etc… are examples of “higher hanging fruit”…
EV’s, synthetic meat, molten salt energy storage, CAES, enhanced geothermal energy and solar energy in non-optimal regions, underground building and development, raising citywide elevations, developing and using citywide geothermal heat storage/pump network, skyscraper level public swamp chillers, cloud covering Greenland/arctic region around Greenland, etc… are all higher-still hanging fruit.
It just gets more elaborate, and more expensive, from there.
But due to the accumulative nature of the problem, the more we spend on the less cost effective “higher hanging fruit”, the less resources are directed at more cost effective solutions, which could have ultimately resulted in a higher net quality of life for future generations.
We should spend on the low hanging fruit first – some of which is accommodation, not mitigation. Then we should direct our attention towards the less cost effective stuff, once the lower hanging fruit has been plucked.
The free market will do what it will do. That’s fine. But policy – specifically with respect to subsidies and incentive packages – should be more logically assigned.
Glenn,
Let’s see if I understand you correctly, we shouldn’t bother with smaller practical environmental measures and clean technology in which we can participate as individuals, instead rely upon awaiting the benefits of gigantic grand projects employing massive disruptive, but unproven, technology imposed by governments ?
(I hope I didn’t misrepresent you, but that does seem to be what you’re saying).
OBVIOUSLY you misrepresented him. You are SO dishonest. I could put this discussion in front of 1000 objective readers, and not a single one would have made that comment.
Craig,
Don’t worry about me.
🙂
I’ve long since given up reading the endless nonsense written by your absurd troll.
I just try to ignore him and engage you. It means an unfortunate amount of scrolling, but there it is.
😉
Thanks. I’m glad my life’s work isn’t deliberately misrepresenting the ideas of people who care about our civilization; I’m betting you feel the same.
Indeed.
I was hoping we would carry forward on the topic that the troll interrupted.
You’ll note, in my very loose groupings of “height of hanging fruit”, that some accommodation efforts appear towards the “bottom of the tree”.
That, in my mind, has been the greatest rhetorical challenge. Most environmentalists gravitate towards “zero emissions” options, because of course they do. It is “100% clean”, or whatever… and that is what grabs their interest. But over the past ten years more good has been done from dispatch switching from coal to natural gas than has been done by wind, and wind has done ten times as much good as solar… Ergo, ten years ago the most proper environmental investment would have been subsidies for new ultra-high-efficiency CCNG power plants with scrubbed exhaust.
But not one environmentalist in the broad movement could accept such a thing. It’s a trap. The shiny objects get the most attention, but their cost is astronomical, so no matter how shiny, and no matter how much money floods the system, they just don’t make much of a dent in the ecological problem…
Hype and zeal become the unintentional biggest problems with the movement.
We had 8 years of DECLINING CO2 EMISSIONS, accompanied by 6 years of solid growth. That is a major win, but most environmentalists spent more time complaining about Obama rather than supporting him… That happened to a much greater level with Hillary, and instead we got Trump, who is absolutely doing everything possible to tear apart any and all environmental regulations and just help coal industries.
How then, do we change the rhetoric to become more in line with pragmatism? We won’t stop all of the heating, in some cases accommodation strategies make more sense than mitigation strategies… and most geoengineering strategies are largely just pipe dreams.
It’s the boring stuff that has been changing the world. Solar is finally coming into its own… so solar and wind may finally begin outpacing natural gas… but now I hear environmentalists talking about how solar is boring… and they’re fantasizing over the next “big thing”: (insert completely bogus internet nonsense here).
You’re absolutely correct with your “shiny object” metaphor, though there are plenty of environmentalists who get that. John Perlin, scholar in residence at UC Santa Barbara’s physics department and author of “Let It Shine! — The 6000 Year Story of Solar Energy” http://www.2greenenergy.com/2014/04/04/history-solar-energy/ tells me that visitors to the university’s massive solar array are often disappointed. “Is that all it is?” people would remark, wishing there could be lots of noise, pounding pistons, etc.
If we really wanted to concentrate on low-hanging fruit, we’d probably be focused almost exclusively on efficiency solutions. But we need to keep in mind that different businesses have different strengths, and thus there will always be efforts made to bring down the high hanging fruit. EVs may be a good example of this. Suppose you’re Nissan, and automaking is all you know and do. Why not build a LEAF?
Craig,
Again, I don’t have a problem with the free market… let the free market do what it does well.
I have a problem when we use our advocacy poorly. There’s nothing wrong with Nissan making a Leaf. Nor is there anything wrong with Tesla making a Model S, or a Model 3, or whatever.
There IS something wrong with us using our tax dollars hand-over-fist to unbalance the market to advantage the Leaf or the Model 3 compared to the Prius or the new Ioniq from Hyundai… or even the Elio – which should be the most exciting thing in green transportation right now.
If you combine the Federal and state subsidies for EV’s, you’ll often end up with numbers over $15,000… this is especially true when you consider benefits like allowing single person occupancy in HOV lanes (It’s likely that many people would pay upwards of $20,000 for a pass that would allow that for 5 years.)
But if you consider the net environmental good that is being done from, say… 200,000 Model S’s on the road, it’s practically nothing at all. It’s a longer exhaust pipe, but your switching from gasoline to natural gas and coal… and the emissions are not going to be that much improved per mile.
If instead, we took that same basic basket of subsides: ~200,000 cars * ~$15,000 per car = ~3 billion. And offered a simple baseline at 3.3 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles (30 mpg), and offered any car buyer $5000 for every gallon less that they consume in a non-plug-in car, and also added a tax of $2500 for every additional gallon beyond 3.3 per 100 miles… You’d spend about the same… but there would be FAR more hybrid cars sold vs non-hybrid cars.
Instead of the 3 billion being used to essentially offer no measurable improvement in environmental emissions, you’d see a reduction of ~100-300 million tons of CO2 over the following ten years… and that savings would compound every year. You’d get a savings of ~$10-$30/ton-CO2e rather than the several thousand dollars/ton-CO2e that we’re getting with the EV subsidies.
We as a society actually are paying in quite a bit towards helping the environment. But there’s never been an effort to make those payments efficient or cost effective, and so we have not made nearly as deep of a change as we otherwise could have.
Excellent point. My basic positions on electric transportation include:
There is a significant and growing group of people overbuild their solar arrays to accommodate their EVs
As coal ceases to be the go-to fuel for foreseen incremental power load, EVs make more sense environmentally (and this is happening more all the time)
The environment isn’t the only consideration; the externalities of gasoline include our $600 billion military budget and the mayhem we’re creating around the world, especially in the Middle East
The oil companies use their resources to blunt the growth of renewables; weaning ourselves of oil will make it increasingly difficult for this evil to continue
Craig and Glenn,
Good grief ! How what on earth did I do to deserve such an abusive outburst ?
For the second time Glenn stated he felt EV’s were not worth the effort, and instead suggested “low hanging fruit” is ” accommodation, not mitigation”. (I’m not exactly sure what that really means).
Glenn suggests “recycling, wind, solar, geothermal,whitening, mass transportation systems, incentives for telecommuting, nuclear power, and aforestation are low hanging fruit”
With the exception of recycling, (although that is an industry encountering unforeseen problems) none of these technologies are able to be achieved by individual adoption.
An individual can’t go out tomorrow and purchase or build a ‘mass transit system’, nor can I as an individual get involved in “geothermal,whitening” “Nuclear power” or significant “aforestation”.
All of the above require government involvement. Buying an EV doesn’t.
But, to be polite and anxious to provide an opportunity to be corrected if I misunderstood,or was in error, I invited Glenn to correct any misunderstanding.
It’s surprising, and disappointing to receive such patronizing and offensive replies.
Also, I must confess I’m a little miffed by your comment implying somehow you care more about the environment and “civilization” than me.
Simply because I don’t adhere to your political agenda, doesn’t mean I don’t care about the environment and “civilization” ! Pray tell, how is your contribution greater than mine ?
Last week I returned to Australia to help introduce 14 large scale electric lawn mowers, powered by solar generation. These will replace diesel powered units.
A small victory it’s true, but real and tangible. These units will provide clean technology while replacing dirty technology, each person who sees these units will (hopefully) come away with a good impression of EV technology and be more willing to listen to a broader environmental message.
As an environmentalist, I’m surprised such a development doesn’t interest you ?
More importantly, this equipment may influence people who are responsible for public policy or influence public opinion (Botanical gardens and golf courses are often frequented by people of influence).
Where exactly do you get off telling me, you are so superior ?
When was the last time you actually introduced, debated or reviewed any favorable, viable clean tech products or development projects (apart from skyscraper sized wind turbines) ?
It’s been a long time, Craig.
It’s kinda sad, because over the years you have attracted many people involved in clean tech or were working on environmental projects. They offered contributions concerning exciting new clean technologies (some admittedly more practical than others), but in recent times it seems they’ve all lost interest, not I suspect in advancing technology, but wearied by your obsession with ranting against the present administration, and refusal to take part on polite, rational and objective debate.
Arrogance, abuse, (especially calling people “trolls” ) intolerance with those who hold other opinions, is very poor advocacy. It reveals a retreat into a world of your own making, only listening to sycophants who reinforce your sense of belonging to a small exclusive club of the righteous.
It just makes it harder for those of us out here in the real world to gain support for Clean tech.
As a humorous aside, I suggested enlisting Donald Trump and his family to endorse clean tech golf equipment. I could hear you snorting with rage, yet think of the good it could do?
Now that would be effective advocacy ! Why ? Because it would tell everyone you care more about the environment than petty politics! It’s no good preaching to a small group of acolytes, it’s the unconvinced who need convincing.
(Hint) Abuse doesn’t work ! Trolls, like ‘deplorables’ also vote!
Craig,
I write the following after thinking about your phrase “my life’s work”, What exactly is your life’s work ?
What purpose do you still pursue ? What tangible accomplishments can you point to which evidence how your advocacy has actually made a difference ?
I don’t mean to be offensive, but from my observation, you have become increasingly narrow minded and unwilling to engage outside of your small coterie of acolytes. The election of the 45th President seems to have rendered you incapable of adapting and doing what is still possible.
Glenn calls me a “troll” for daring to defend the manufacture and adoption of electric vehicles. Glenn does so on the basis of an old (and in the case of Tesla easily disproved) myth concerning “long Tail Pipe” . He also objects to Tesla benefiting from government funded EV subsidies with equally dubious justification. (Good grief, Glenn’s idea of ideal future transport is the Elio ! ).
Now, I know after reading your opinions over all these years, you don’t agree with any of these positions, yet you fail to take issue with either when advanced but Glenn (or only mildly) !
Curiously, you upbraid me for defending your own stated beliefs ! What’s happened to you? Are you that desperate for political/ideological acolytes you can no longer bear robust debate ? Have you really closed ranks into a little and impotent group, living in the world of yesterday no longer able to contemplate reality? Are you that afraid of hearing information that shatters your cozy world?
I say this out of genuine concern. Once you were the catalyst for an exciting and dynamic exchange of ideas, no matter the source. You used to be objective and curious, what happened ?
A little while ago, I sat beside an industrialist on a long flight. The political views of this indvidual would have made Charles Koch look mild and slightly pink by comparison !
Yet in the course of a few hours I manage to interest him in acquiring a substantial number of specialist electric vehicles. (It took several more weeks to close the deal). I even persuaded him to let his son and heir attend a few clean tech business conferences.
I don’t give a damn what armchair pundits like your friend Glenn sneers, this is ‘front-line’ environmentalism.
Nothing can be achieved by calling opponents “Trolls ” or feeling smugly superior. Do you imagine I would have stayed in business all these years promoting difficult, but environmentally superior technology, if I insisted on selling political philosophy with clean tech ?
Had I lectured my potetnial client on his lack of moral awareness and berated him on green ideology, do you really think it would have been appreciated ?
When asked suspiciously and warily, “Do you think this sort of thing will save the planet ? ” I laugh and reply, ” Nope,probably not, but it saves money does a better job, and since you raise the green thing, it can’t hurt PR wise” ! I then talk about tax benefits etc.
Now I’ll confess, clean technology isn’t my main business, but it is a business and needs to follow normal business discipline.
Over the years, I’ve invested considerable time and money to advancing clean technology, therefore it’s a disappointment when I see advocates, like yourself, making compromises to further a political agenda at the expense of practical environmentalism.
You write: “I don’t mean to be offensive, but what exactly is your life’s work? What tangible accomplishments can you point to?”
LOL. Who could possibly be offended by such a question?
In truth, I don’t know. Sure, my books have been required reading in college environmental studies classes (two of the four were #1 best sellers in their respective categories on Amazon), I’ve brought together sources of investment capital with cleantech startups, I’ve delivered marketing services to clients in cleantech all over the globe, I’ve mentored environmentally-minded interns from four continents, I’ve given dozens of talks and spoken on 60+ radio and TV shows, but again, what’s tangible? Again, I don’t know.
One thing I’m reasonably sure of is that you have manners from hell. But why? What’s up with you? Can’t you make more of your life than mindlessly attacking essentially every I’ve written for the last eight years? You must be at least somewhat ashamed of yourself.
Seriously, let’s put all this behind us. What if I give you some money with the only proviso that you’ll agree to go plant some trees, or take care of some old people, or feed hungry pigeons in some park somewhere, or find something nice to do? Deal?
Craig,
Thank you for your reply.
By your own words you define yourself as essentially an advocate for certain causes and political beliefs.
There’s nothing wrong with being an advocate, advocates are important, but as an advocate, you must expect, (and indeed welcome) dissent from those who share some of your beliefs, but don’t share the partisan direction you are taking.
My criticisms are intended to bring you back to the essence of your original mission.
I don’t count myself as a professional advocate, more of an amateur observer. I’m restrained by my the ethics of my profession to openly take part in political or partisan debate.
As for your supercilious offer to “give some money to plant trees,take care of some old people, or feed hungry pigeons”, I’m afraid that seems as poorly thought out as most of your advocacy these days !
As an ardent environmentalist, you should be aware “feeding pigeons is actually cruelly harmful to the health of the birds and is illegal in many cities. (although I’ll confess I’m also fond of these tough little urban inhabitants ).
As a family, we already sponsor two substantial residential care facilities for the elderly (especially veterans). In addition we built, maintain and operate local Electric Bus services, employing local labour, in two locations. These services are free for passengers and largely used by the elderly or disadvantaged, helping to reduce isolation.
As for trees, I think my arboreal efforts, while not as extensive as I would like, are nothing to be ashamed about, just part of a nearly 30 year effort into better land management extending over nearly 7000 acres.
So thanks for the offer, but I’d rather see you invest your money (again like me) in supporting something tangible. Go out today and buy yourself a Tesla. (I’m assuming you already have sufficient solar and battery storage).
Invest your own money, and help manage a tangible “green business”. I’ve found being involved in financing and helping manage a clean tech business to be very grounding in learning lessons of reality while providing me with great satisfaction for over twenty years. Environmental, clean tech products are more than just Solar and Wind.
I would’ve thought what I meant by tangible is obvious. I used the example of our recent achievements replacing large diesel powered mowers with electric units. I consider this a small, but hard won victory for clean tech.
I was surprised you displayed no interest.
It’s technology you would have once considered interesting and even exciting, today you seem to have lost interest, cravenly deferring to the absurd nonsense from a small sycophantic on whom you rely for support in political issues.
You’re right when you suggest I do something nice ! Again, our definitions of nice seem to be at odds. I don’t regard harmless and ineffective symbolic gestures as “nice” , instead I would rather use my skills (and money ) to really make a difference, a tangible difference I can measure !
Craig, I’m always ready to receive money, but I would rather you invest your money in clean tech projects of real value. Tell me of your investments and we can have a real discussion. Deal ?
Here’s a start. I have no vested interest in this project, but have my team watching and studying this project for obvious reasons.
The project is the West Australian entity, “Power Ledger”.[ https://web.powerledger.io/%5D
Power Ledger describes it’s self and it’s mission as:
“Developed a series of world-leading blockchain energy applications, such as our P2P energy trading application that allows businesses, such as Utilities, to host trading on the Platform. Blockchain technology provides a transparent, auditable and automated market trading and clearing mechanism for the benefit of producers and consumers. Our technology enables the sale of surplus renewable energy generated at residential and commercial developments (including multi-unit/multi-tenanted) connected to existing electricity distribution networks, or within micro-grids. Power Ledger puts the power to manage the energy economy into the hands of consumers, while maintaining the value of existing distribution networks.
Power Ledger allows investors and asset owners of embedded renewable energy generating technologies to monetise surplus energy generation and maximise individual investments in renewable generating technologies”
Power Ledger provides the ability for energy consumers to participate in a new-energy marketplace, even those who cannot afford expensive upfront commitments in renewable energy generating capacity ”
In it’s short existence Power Ledger has raised more than $34 million in crypto-tokens.
Whether Power Ledger is ultimately a success or failure, Power Ledger’s team of enthusiastic young people are determined to make a difference. A practical difference.
These are the sort of people who are making a difference. These are the sort of developments you should be more aware of than individuals who believe a niche toy like the three wheel Elio, has the ability to solve the world’s transport needs !
I’m sorry if you feel I “have the manners from hell” , it wasn’t my intention to be offense when I asked ” what exactly is your life’s work? ”
Obviously I wasn’t clear enough, I felt it was clear I was asking ” is your life work as an advocate, simply preaching to an increasingly small group of fellow travelers ? Or reaching out to a wider audience of unconverted”.
In a way, I’m also an advocate for clean tech. Every time I finance, promote or sell clean technology I must convert the skeptical. I’m fortunate in that I’m able to measure my success or failure in a tangible manner.
Another difference between us is my ability to write from personal knowledge. When you talk of the US or World coal industry, you do so from the perspective of simply reading what others have written.
In contract, I am fortunate to have the time, money and resources to spend on an extensive personal “Odyssey” into the “belly of the beast”, which provided me with, if not a comprehensive knowledge, at least a greater degree of perspective to bring alive the human dimension of my research.
I share these experiences with you in the hopes your readership might expand beyond a small group of fellow travelers.
Unlike you, I don’t have the luxury of an Ivory Tower in which to “maintaining my outrage” at the iniquities of President Trump.
I have a responsibility to my investors, and employees to adapt, improvise and overcome in changing times.
I could see the writing on the wall and supported Brexit. I’m disappointed in the ineptitude of the Tory government in implementing Britain’s exit from Europe and lack of planning for replacement policies, but these things take time. I’m gratified that as an analyst (I’m over 70 so I wonder if that makes me a “senior analyst” 🙂 ), my investors and I were able to make a financial windfall from the result of the referendum.
I apologize for my brevity, but I only allowed 11 minutes to the composition of this reply.
What I really mean to say, is you shouldn’t feel upset by dissent or opposition when others (even me)engage you in debate, it’s really a compliment showing they’ve considered your advocacy worth reading and worthy of reply 🙂 .