![\"earth](\"https:\/\/energyrealist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/earth-apollo-8.jpg\" "\\"earth")
<\/p>\nLike the man said, “in my house my wife makes all the little decisions and I make the big ones. \u00a0My wife decides which suburb to live, what sort of house we buy, the type of car we drive, where the children go to school and all that little stuff. \u00a0I worry about China and the WTO, nuclear disarmament, how to stop global warming and the other big stuff.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Time to worry about the big stuff. Global warming, loss of forests, desertification, species extinction, coral reef bleaching, too little water, too much water, overpopulation, starvation, war, famine, Armageddon.<\/p>\n
What can one do?\u00a0 First, understand what is going on, then form an opinion and finally take action<\/span><\/strong>.\u00a0 Simple\u2026<\/p>\n To understand<\/span><\/strong> one has either to sort and interpret a vast amount of information or take a condensed version as the \u201ctruth\u201d.\u00a0 For instance, the National Geographic \u201cEnergy for tomorrow\u201d (May\/June 2009)<\/a> is a good, digestible compendium of information. However, the ads by Royal Dutch Shell on the inside and outside covers raise the realist’s antennae. To be sure, the content of the booklet is factual and not influenced by outside pressure – yet – those ads do distract.<\/p>\n The Economist, in a lengthy section in Business in America \u201cSurviving the slump\u201d (May 30, 2009) addresses global warming, carbon tax and alternative energy in a section titled \u201cA green revolution<\/a>“. The section on the US\u00a0cap-and-trade bill (as it stood in May 2009) is required reading. The fact that the bill will \u201cgive away 85% of the permits to pollute\u201d illustrates the gap between good intentions and political\/business reality. The Economist rarely pulls its punches, and seems a very balanced source of news. But, remember that it is a publication unashamedly on the side of capitalism, business and free trade.<\/p>\n Of the many sites and the conflicting information available, the realist can offer only one guideline; follow the money, who stands to profit from the information?\u00a0 With that slim guideline, here are some additional sites, giving very different perspectives:<\/p>\n and here are a couple of the many sites casting doubt on the above:<\/p>\n On the “we must do something now” side:<\/p>\n Governments, at all levels, from the town recycling program to the UN provide immense amounts of data.<\/p>\n The Obama\/Biden plan<\/a> lays out the current US administration thinking on energy. Compared to previous policy it is a vast improvement. [The realist’s comments on the key points are in square brackets.]<\/p>\n To reiterate; the approach to energy by this administration is so much clearer and realistic than before that it seems mean to criticize it.\u00a0 It is a great step in the right direction, but needs to go much further, much quicker.<\/p>\n Just a couple more words on getting educated \u2013 nothing is simple! Solar energy, for example, should be a no-brainer. But it is not. Here is another discussion: \u201cWhy Not the Sun? Advantages of and Problems with Solar Energy<\/a>\u201d (Released December 2008)\u201d.<\/p>\n Then form an opinion<\/span><\/strong>.\u00a0 That is up to you.\u00a0 For what it’s worth, the realist’s opinion is:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"energy-coalplant-615\"](\"https:\/\/energyrealist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/energy-coalplant-615-300x214.jpg\" "\\"energy-coalplant-615\\"")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"