Every major scientific discovery was first disputed by the authorities. Galileo Galilei is a fitting example. Today it is about Climate Change/Global Warming and the scientists who deny that it is caused by mankind. This can be clearly seen in the film The Great Globl Warming Swindle by Martin Durkins, which disputes global warming. (Clip at the bottom of post.)

All witnesses in the film relate only to the CO2 caused by man as a factor in the Climate Change. Professor Tim Ball, right at the beginning of the film, does not deny Global Warming, he just does not believe that it is caused by human produced CO2.

The burning of fossil fuel is simply releasing the CO2 which has been bound by plants of hundreds of million of years ago. Now those guys are scientist and I am not, still I got one question. How can a diminishing source of Photosynthesis (1), Forests and Phytoplankton (2), fight against more CO2 in the air in order to keep the balance? Not once in the film are other Greenhouse gases (3), such as Methane (4), mentioned. There is no doubt that more Methane is release into the atmosphere because of the increased livestock on earth, since everybody wants meat and dairy products every day. And a growing world population want the same luxury. This demands more landscape for agriculture and the result is that more forests are destroyed. All the while the Forests, together with the Phytoplankton in the oceans are the main resources for the Photosynthesis on earth. No one has to be a rocket scientist to understand, that an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Photosynthesis is liable to disturb a delicate balance in the atmosphere.

The scientists also relate only to the time after the last Ice Age (5). If they go that far at all, most diagrams shown are only about the last hundreds of years. This is humane, but nature measures time in a completely different scale. The history of our planet (6) is measured in millions and millions of years. Which is beyond the scope of a scientist, who gives the excuse for the politicians to do the wrong things. And the wrong is done if our politicians are neglecting the possibility of a Climate Change or the severity of it. In the film the Climate Change warners are accused of commercializing their cause, otherwise they would be out of a job. This might be so, and I personally believe it to be true in some cases, but the same holds true to the other camp as well. Who tells me that the Climate Change deniers are not only in it for the money or prestige?

Furthermore the film purtorts that Global Warming hysteria is just about hindering Africa to develope. To also become a 1. World continent, with all the negative repercussions. Perhaps some environmentalists go that far, for sure we, at Nesseq, do not agree with this. As we always assert, only economic development is the human way of reducing world population. The Economic-Demographic Paradox (7) must be applied. Every other way of reducing world population to a healthy, sustainable level would mean to take into account that millions and millions of people will have to die. This is unacceptable. The question is not whether the so called 3. World should develop or not but rather how far to develop? Perhaps the level of the 2.World would be sufficient as the first step. This should’nt be too hard a condition since this means already a huge step forward for millions of people. The justice is that the 2.World is the pivotal point between 1. and 3. World. And this is the real place were the 1.World has to descend to in order to be sustainable.

As Professor Tim Ball implied, Climate Change is perhaps not caused by mankind, still it might be happening as a natural cycle and the next Ice Age or, the opposit, a heated up period is possible shouldn’t humanity get prepared for the worst-case scenario. To fail to do so could mean that our scientists and politicians are irresponsible. Another movie, which also contest the Climate Change is called Not Evil Just Wrong (Clip 2.). All those people should ask themselfs, that if they are wrong and Climate Change is happening, if they are not evil?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K6Ax-AvKTQ

1.  Photosynthesis

2. Phytoplankton

3. Greenhouse Gases

4. Methane

5. Ice Age

6. History of Earth

7. Demographic-Economic Paradox

The picture was taken from Wikipedia.org and shows a Phytoplankton Bloom in the North Sea.

The fear-mongering, that ecological politics will cost us jobs is not valid. The jobs will change with the products but still people have to the the work. There is also a fundamental fault in the thinking of Mr. Perry, and Michele Bachmann as well. It is not true, that cheap energy is creating jobs. I can’t show any graphics, but common sense tells me, that if energy is cheap it is more profitable to let a machine do the job, instead of an expensive worker. If the energy price rise, the price for human beings becomes more competitive and jobs are created!

Every politicians must be aware that the industry is always adapting to new situation and that certain industries do not exist anymore. The USA and Europe had once a pretty strong steel and steam engines industries. Karl Marx reported in the 19. century about the textile industry in Manchester (1), which does not exist anymore. Textile today is produced in cheap wage countries. With the decline of this economic branch jobs were killed. But on the other hand, with the new products, new jobs were created. The question today is how to create new jobs in a society in transition?

To wait, as Mr. Perry suggest, for science to prove Climate Change is futile. The problem with science is, that it is in itself a  kind of believe. Until a couple of weeks ago it was scientific dogma, that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Now they found out in the CERN facility in Switzerland, that Neutrinos (2)  do travel faster than light. And all the physicists are at a loss how that can be. Was Albert Einstein wrong? It is one of the principles of science, that a theory is only valid as long as there is not another theory, which explains it better than the old theory. This mean, that even scientists admits, that their knowledge is only tentative. Another, more down to earth example is smoking tobacco. Every medical doctor will tell you, that smoking is not healthy and it causes cancer. This fact is not really true, since a lot of people do smoke and die of other diseases. Both my parents were heavy smokers and both died of other, unrelated, diseases. Does that mean, I can’t trust medicine? The problem is solved, if we look at it as it is. Medicine as a science does not tell us, that smoking causes diseases. It just tells us, that the probability to get sick from smoking is much higher, than if one abstains from this filthy habit. The conclusion for any responsible politician, is to take the possibility of a Climate Change very, very serious. and it does not help to, as Mr. Perry did, accuse scientists of forging their findings in order to prove that the Climate Change is happening. If the Climate is really changing, then the scientific prove might have been a little late, because only a changed climate is the proof. If the climate is not changing, at least we did not take any chances, according to the old saying; Better be careful than sorry!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2OHAuvoUkQ

 For further reading:

1. Manchester Capitalism

2. Speed of Light

Image of Mr. Perry used under the provisions of Fair Use. From thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com

After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 (4), with about 250.000 dead, when the first aid was done and the second step set in, a Cholera epidemic broke out. I am not a scientist, but common sense tells me, that the mobile infrastructure was not adequate. Millions of people survived the total destruction and had to be taken care of. The prevailing idea is to emulate the fixed infrastructure for a area without devastation. This centralized concept is outdated. In a area recovering from, either a natural catastrophe or war only small and decentralized mobile units can ease the immediate plight and will prevent epidemics. If the centralized system is corrupted, the whole system grinds to a halt. This can’t happen to Mobile Totem’s. Every unit should serve about five thousand people. If one unit fails, the impact on the whole system is minimal. And it is not very likely, that all units will stop working at the same time. Another very important advantage of the Mobile Totem, the biomass (feces) is automatically sterilized in the process and the highest hygienic standards can be ensured!

Both infrastructure’s are expensive. And the decentralized one even more so. But the advantage of the TOTEM System, that it can be build successively In order to cut the cost, the Totem will be build locally. It is not necessary to bring all the stuff needed from the outside. In the Totem the useless cars can be salvaged and the alternator will be used to produce energy. It must be kept in mind, that it should only secure the survival, so the energy demand is small. After the situation has settled the Totems remain. After all the people built it with their own hands and with their own material. This means lots of stable jobs! The seed to shared local wealth can build that way!

It is necessary to build working models in regular times. Like right now! And it will get worse in the future, when there will be more catastrophes. We really don’t get ready for it, now that the pressure is not overwhelming.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb854zXy2IQ

For further reading:

1. Arctic Ice

2. Pakistan Flood 2010

3. Pakistan Flood 2011

4.  Haiti Earthquake 2010

If the goods demand less energy in general and will hold longer less will need to produced. Less people are needed in the production. This means that unemployment will grow and this is exactly the crux. New jobs must be created, this is undisputed. But why leave it to politicians and to business to decide about jobs. It is up to us, the common people, to help our self’s. We are so used to the government and bosses taking care of us, that we forgot our own powers. We just have to do what has already been done in the past, not so long ago. People did organize themselves and founded Co-operatives (2) and thus created jobs. Perhaps the concept sounds old fashioned and out of date, but it worked once quite successful and it can work again. Especially in times of economic uncertainties to rely on the proven and not on experiments might be just the right thing to do. Even in the heart land of capitalism, the USA, co-operatives existed and still exist.

The principle difference to the classical capitalist concept, one investor – big investment and the idea of the co-operative, many investors – little investment is fundamental. The investment for the individual is small and so is the profit and this is exactly the point. The co-operatives should rely more on investing less in technology and let people work!

It’s saves energy and makes a lot of people happy because they got a job! It does not mean, that this principle should replace the classical capitalist concept. It is rather meant as a supplement, as a addition to the Diversity. Of course it should be that also capitalist-minded people will invest in co-operatives. As mentioned, the investment is small and should not be a problem for wealthy people. Nevertheless, such an investment should also be interesting for wealthy. The goal is not to make financial profit but to strengthen society and it will enable us to meet the challenge of the Climate Change.

The first co-operative could be a Vegan restaurant (3) in in your neighborhood. Again we do not preach against an occasional steak, but if one is serious about fighting the Climate Change it would be advisable to eat more vegan food. The restaurant should be open for everyone, but members of the co-op will get a deduction in price. Ideally the members would regard the restaurant as a sort of canteen. If it is used frequently a lot of energy is being saved. One would not have to go to buy food, prepare it and cook it and then to quarrel with your partner who does the washing and who gets the garbage down. As I said a lot of energy could be saved. It does not mean, that people should not cook for them self, but sometimes a good meal in the canteen will be more convenient. The second co-operative could be a farming enterprise or to produce Ultra Light City Vehicles (4) and run with them a taxi company and a car rental.

The idea is to build enough co-operatives to lay the ground work for a truly ecological neighborhood.  This would create a lot of jobs and would help the environment as well!

 httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0

For further reading:

1. Planned Obsolescence

2. Co-operatives

3. Vegan Diet and Climate Change

4. Ultra Light City Vehicles

Photos used according to the Fair Use provisions.

1. Wikipedia.

2. Tuvie.com

The author is not questioning the traditional infrastructure and the car in itself. It seems that Mr. Fuerth is dwelling on cosmetics and is not offering in long-term solutions. The proposed measures talk about the need to modernize infrastructure and to change present cars to electric cars. Although, some paragraphs previously the author talked about chaos which might reign the world if the climate really should change. In areas where the conditions are chaotic due to floods, earthquakes, storms, etc., the centralized infrastructure will not suffice. Roads for car traffic and the sewage system are to a big part destroyed. We talk here about a temporary state, after a disaster the situation calms down and some sort of normality is regained. Should the climate actually be changing, then a disaster can turn into a permanent state.

The failure of such influential people as Prof. Fuerth to provide an unbiased view of all the possibilities and to come up with a viable alternative to the dominant concept of how we conduct our lives will ultimately lead to a catastrophe. Fuerth’s paper should be a strategy for the political level, and yet it is not, since it is not outside our the dominant idea of how our lifestyle is or should be. No alternative life style is mentioned.

Our idea of a standard of living decides our quality of life. If our standard of living is based on a credit we take from future generations and it is foreseeable that, beside a Climate Change, we can’t provide a growing world population with the same standard of living as the First World than our quality of living might become strongly disturbed. That is the weakness in the argument of the theorists, such as Leon Fruerth, Thomas Friedmann and, YES!, Al Gore. Although Al Gore is another case, since he was a professional politician for decades and he was also the vice-president of the United States for eight years. He should be more pragmatic but, alas, he did not succeed to present a viable alternative to the present state of mind. Not as a Vice President and ever since. Therefore all the money needed for a conventional infrastructure is actually wasted money. Not to mention the damage done to nature.

It is difficult to build an alternative where a infrastructure already exists, although it would be quite possible. But where an infrastructure does not exist yet, as in large parts of the Third World, it is essential to apply a decentralized concept. If the powers to be would adopt the concept of the TOTEM System the neighborhoods even in the First World could be detached from the infrastructure and a lot of energy could be saved. But until this will happen, many more papers will be written and unless we are struck by catastrophes nothing new will be done. Still people like Prof. Fuerth have special responsibility, they have to think in completely new ways to find either a solution to Climate Change or how to get prepared for a worst-case scenario.

It is also comforting to know, that machines made for the military purposes are heavy duty machinery and can be used for every conceivable purpose. The advantage of an airship to a conventional airplane is that an airship does not need as much energy to cover the same distance. It takes longer but less energy is needed. While the airplane is flying and needs a certain speed to stay in the air, the airship floats, thanks to the Helium and has only to be propelled forward.

A further advantage is, that the airship is not as dependent on a infrastructure. An airship needs only an empty field, while the airplane needs a whole airport. Helicopters also don’t need infrastructure, they can lift off and land vertically and the machines can also hover on a certain spot. But only for a certain time. Also their fly and cargo range is quiet limited. Unlike an airship, which could stay in the air for as long as three and more weeks and could transport more goods than an airplane or an helicopter. Hence, goods can be transported to remote areas without a infrastructure. Planes can only drop the goods from the air on parachutes.

This point is very important in areas struck by natural catastrophes. An airship can hover over a certain area indefinitely. It just has to anchored. The headquarter of the relief force can be on the airships. From there the relief work can be organized would be much more orderly and efficient. Besides the military and relief use, an airship could also be used for intercontinental transportation of goods. It is understandable, that traveling people want to arrive as fast as possible at their destination and therefore airships are not made for this. In July 1936, the LZ 129 Hindenburg also completed a record Atlantic double crossing in five days, 19 hours and 51 minutes (3). It took regular ship 3-4 days to cross the Atlantic. If we were serious about saving energy, we would transport goods rather in airships and not in airplanes. If a unripe banana from South-America arrives a couple of days later in Europe makes no difference for the consumer. On the contrary, since the transport of the banana needs less energy than an airplane, the prices of the goods could be accordingly be lowered!

Actually it is a real pity, that people have no alternative to airplanes if they want to travel to another continent.The question is, whether people would be ready to travel in airships, which would resemble the transcontinental travel by trains not even hundred years ago. The interior of the Hindenburg gives a clue how it would be to travel in an airship (4). Would it be economical? Again, the calculation of the price of the present energy is too low, alternatives to the existing technology are not able to compete. It has to be clear, that the energy prices are low, because the follow-up costs in the future to fix the problems created today are not part of the calculation. The airship, could be a substitute in many areas of airtraffic. And it would be profitable, if the price for fossil energy would be more expensive, Ms. Bachmann! I only hope, that the good news about the revival of the airship will last into the future and will not end as a bubble, after the next elections 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm_d0P4cMcw

 Hindenburg Interiors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZD3yAXSNc

For further reading:

1. Airships and Climate Change

2. Lockheed Martin P-791

3. LZ 129 Hindenburg

4. Zeppelin Interior

Images used under Fair Use provision and has been taken from:

1. The Swash.com

2. Altfrankfurt.com

Despite all the doomsday scenarios, based on the Mayan calender (1) and what not, we all can rest assured that life will go on like always. Well, more or less, for someone it will better, for another it will be worse. Still the year 2012 will be fateful one, globally speaking. At the end of the coming year the president of the USA will be elected. I am not from the USA and I don’t claim to understand the internal politics and I do not have any preferences. Still I feel compelled to comment on something one of the Republican runners for candidate, Michele Bachmann (2), said, as shown on Youtube (clip 1). From an ecological point of view her speech was a terrifying experience.

It is fascinating to watch Ms. Bachmann as she delivered her speech very matter of factly. But she concentrated on only one aspect of a highly complex process, global climate. It seems that this is her basics for her energy policy. The sole topic of the speech was only the CO2 in the atmosphere of this planet. Ms. Bachmann implies, that this concentration is static, it does not change and therefore the Climate does not change. The conclusion, she draws from it, is that as America is richer than Saudi Arabia (clip 2) in oil, gas and coal. Therefore you can Drill, Baby, Drill away, as though there is no tomorrow. Drill here, Drill now! Without even considering possible damages as a result of such a policy. In order to make her point, She omitted every other factor which could have a influence on the Climate Change. Ms. Bachmann simply ignores even the possibility of a Climate Change. Such a stance is either pure ignorance or plain stupid. And I don’t know, what is worse, but it can’t be the basics for a policy from the past, where energy was cheap and could be wasted. Today, with a growing world population, energy is quickly becoming a precious commodity. This should be the basic understanding for a modern society.

After this little rant, I would like to debunk some points Ms. Bachmann makes on the first clip.

Energy and Economy.

Ms. Bachmann believes, that with more oil and gas available the energy prices will drop drastically and this would be the fuel, to kick-start the American economy and thus jobs would be created. She ignores the fact, that the transition from one energy form to another will also create jobs. Ms. Bachmann is old enough to remember, that some job of today did not exist in her youth. Now is the time to think about jobs for the future which do not exist yet. To rely on fossil fuel and not to change from fossil energy to the more Eco-friendly alternative energy might be considered irresponsible by future generations. The job of politics is to master the Now and to get prepared for Later. A looking back in Longing to cheap energy prices is not politics, Ms. Bachmann!

Carbon Dioxide Man Made or not?

She is right, 3% (3) of the earth’s atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide. Ms. Bachmann asks rhetorically, how man can produce CO2, if CO2 in the atmosphere is a constant 3%? Again you are right, man does not produce CO2. Man only burns fossil fuel and releases the inherent CO2. Although Ms. Bachmann only talks about the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere it should be clear, that this CO2 is not the only Carbon Dioxide on the planet. The oceans keep a certain amount of Carbon Dioxide bound, the plants and the soil as well. Ms. Bachmann mentions it in the clip. Coal, oil and gas were actually plants, which, for some reasons, got from the surface of the earth underneath it. Those plants have sequestered the CO2 of the atmosphere of hundreds of millions of years ago. And now this CO2 is released again into the atmosphere. All the while the two main sources for the Photosynthesis on earth are getting badly damaged, the Forest and the Phytoplankton (5) and this might reduce the photosynthesis. This should answer the question of Ms. Bachmann, how man can produce CO2. We don’t produce it, we simply release, presently bound, CO2 again by burning fossil fuel. An addition of CO2 or any other of the Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere might just tip the balance.

CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases.

Ms. Bachmann concentrates on CO2 and forgets that other gases are just as bad for the climate as Carbon Dioxyde. For instance Methane (6), and Soot (7) among other factors.This at least we can say with a great certainty, that Methane is produced by man. Livestock is a major producer of Methane. If man would eat less meat a lot of Methane wouldn’t be produced. This is an indisputable fact Ms. Bachmann! In nature such a mass of livestock wouldn’t be able to survive, nature would take care to keep a balance. And by burning fossil fuel soot is also produced, Ms. Bachmann!

Climate Change and Science

Ms. Bachmann claims, that there is no study to prove the role of Carbon Dioxide in a possible Climate Change. Alas! There is also no study to prove the opposite. After all, it is only a matter of believe. This is not a stance fit for any politician. Can the president of the USA base his/her politics on such assumptions? Alone the slim possibility that Climate Change is happening should

warrant a different stance. A more careful assessment of all possibilities should determine future politics. Since a Climate Change can’t be ruled out, it can’t be ignored, Ms. Bachmann!

Economy and Energy.

Just because the USA has such vast and untapped oil and gas reserves, the rest of the world is still confronted with a energy shortage, with accordingly high prices. Therefore the energy politics of Ms. Bachmann is no example for the rest of the world. An economical problem will arise. If the energy is cheaper in the USA compared to the rest of the world, the American products will be accordingly cheaper. Does Ms. Bachmann really believe, that the rest of the world will agree to such unfair competition? This might leave the USA in a isolation in a globalized world. America as an island will inevitably lose importance in the world. Is this what Ms. Bachmann really wants?

Ms Bachmann and God.

Ms. Bachmann claims, that God tells her what to do. I believe Ms. Bachmann talks to a different God than me, because my god tells me to take care of the Creation and to try to save it! This is enough said about religious differences!

Anyway, as already stated, I’m not an American citizen it is up to the people of the USA to decide, who will be the next president of the USA. I wish Ms. Bachmann good luck in the race.

*Remark on the second clip. In it Congress woman Bachmann mentions alternative energy as a supplement to fossil fuel. And not the other way round, as it should be from an ecological point of view.

Ms. Bachmann on Youtube - 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

Ms. Bachmann on Youtube - 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un-fH8y_LIw

*01.09.2011 Supplement. In clip 2 Ms. Bachmann mentiones, that alternative energy should complement fossil fuel. The question is, whether alternative energy could compete with the cheap fossil energy?  That’s the whole point of Ms. Bachmann, if we drill for oil and gas to keep the price of energy cheap, than there is no need for alternative energy. But Ms. Bachmann keeps the backdoor open, at least she mentions alternative energy. 

For further reading:

1. Mayan Calendar

2. Michele Bachmann

3. CO2 Content of Atmosphere

4. Acidic Oceans

5. Phytoplankton

6. Methane

7. Soot in Atmosphere

Picture of Michele Bachmann courtesy to Michele Bachmann for president in 2012.blogspot.com. It is used under the Fair Use provisions.

This spark ignites every once in while, but is soon burned out. It started this time with Thomas L. Friedmann and his op-ed the Earth is Full (1) in the New York Times June 7, 2011, in which he refers to a future society, were consumption is reduced and people will rather live a happy oriented life instead of a society with consumption in constant overdrive as to become a danger to nature and might be an important contributor to Climate Change. A little later I read an article, NYT, June 23, 2011 by Matthieu Ricard (2), who has been trained as a scientist but instead went to the Himalayas to a simple live of contemplation. He makes an interesting point in the article The Future Doesn’t Hurt. Most people on earth live in cities. There, in an artificial environment, the changes in the Climate and in Nature are not as evident as, for instance, in the Himalayas.

On the June 7, 2011 Robert Bryce (3) published a piece called The Gas is Greener. He argues, that alternative Energy is more expensive than natural gas. This was answered by Sam Borgeson and Kevin Fingerman in the National Geographic website, July 5, 2011. The article Correcting Faulty Math on Renewable Energy (4) was posted by Daniel Kammen of World Bank. In it the authors try to refute Mr. Bryce.

Mr. Desmond Tutu was already a topic for a post in this website. On the June 21. 2011 he wrote on the Huffpost Religion about Our Glorious Diversity (6). Also Al Gore wrote in The Rolling Stone, June 22, 2011, about the Climate of Denial (6). He basically recommends, what we, at Nesseq, always advocate, get organized in order to be able to apply pressure on politics and economy.

As already mentioned, the spark of hope, seizing me burnt out pretty quick and left me in darkness. What can possibly come of all those eloquent articles? I also remembered that we come again to the time of the year, where the pundits and specialists meet somewhere in a fancy place, somewhere on earth to discuss Climate Change and Sustainable Development.

It seems to me, that the reason why we are not getting past the point of talking is, that a clear idea of where we want to get and how to do it is missing. All the afore mentioned articles have one thing in common, they express a certain fear and a hope, but no one talks about practical steps what could be done. OK, Mr. Friedman and Mr. Ricard talk about, that in the future we will all have to be content with owning less. But how this will affect the capitalist society is left out of the contemplations. To change a society without clear goals is dangerous. Chaos might reign!

It seems that a Ideology, which defines the goals and the way how to achieve the goal is in order. According to Wikipedia (7), a ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one’s goals, expectations, and actions. This is exactly what is needed in such times of uncertainty. What is important before such a ideology is formulated is, that the ecological ideology must be based on common sense. If the present ideology of capitalism, which is based on More, Faster, Higher, than the new ideas must be based on the opposite. Slower, Less and not as High as now. Some people will say, that it is not proven whether the Climate Change is caused by man or not and therefore we do not have to change our way of live. The reply to this assertion is a short one.

No one in his right mind can deny the possibility of a Climate Change. If it is caused by man, the solution is a simple one.

We have to change our way of live. If the Climate Change is part of a natural cycle, the challenge is much more serious. No one can tell how deep the oscillation of this cycle will go. Therefore it is our responsibility to get prepared for the very worst-case scenario. Capitalism is not able to adept to such possibilities and for the impending changes in society we need a ideology!

At last I want to express a deep seated fear, ideologies have the peculiarity of outliving history. It has to be clear that a ideology have only a tentative task. A historical situation must be changed and for this a ideology is needed. As soon as the problem is dissolved the ideology must be discarded. To fail to do so, and history is full of gruesome examples, the public has to suffer. It can only be hoped, that the time we need a ecological ideology will be short.

For further reading:

1. The Earth is Full

2. The Future Doesn’t Hurt. Yet.

3. The Gas Is Greener

4. Correcting Faulty Math on Renewable Energy

5. D. Tutu on Nesseq.com

6. Our Glorious Diversity

7. Ideology

Picture courtesy of Sam Mugraby

Thomas Paine – Common Sense

The insurances are taken as a precaution, to be prepared for a worst-case scenario. A preventive insurance is to put a lock at the entrance to your home. To make live difficult for the thief, to discourage him from entering your home. All in all, we all like to be secured for every eventuality. Even insurance companies have insurance policies with companies which only insure insurance companies. There are only a handful of such re-insurance companies (1) on earth. Here is what one of them, the Munich Re, has to say about the Climate Change and it’s ramifications for the insurance companies (Youtube).

Now most people are wary of insurance companies and might say, they only want our money and when they have to pay out the policies they are making difficulties. And you know what? You are right. But this is exactly the reason why we should take it very serious what the insurance companies have to say about the Climate Change. This is because insurance companies are only interested in their profits. Therefore if some occurrences become a liability and will lessen the profits, or will cause actual losses, the insurance companies will not issue policies covering such occurrences. The danger of a Climate Change is taken serious by those companies and the victims will be the people who can’t insure their property.

This can’t be changed, profitability is the first priority of every company. And to rely on the generosity of the state to take care of the population is to be taken with a, big, grain of salt. First, the state does not do it as it should right now and, second, no one knows how bad the situation will be in the future. Also politics is neglecting the ecological aggravation, I know of contingency plans. What are we going to do when the ecological catastrophe will become reality?

The only viable insurance policy is, when people take matters in their own hands and start to do what has to be done. Let’s organize Loan Guaranty Funds in every city, let’s establish Communal Co-operatives, let’s build the TOTEM System everywhere. Let’s plant as much forests as possible, this is the best way to fight Climate Change!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmQs9ItjvNs&feature=related

1. Re – Insurance

It is difficult not to agree with Mr. Tutu and what he has written. He described the state of Diversity in a very elegant way. Our world, the whole universe is build on diversity. Let us start from the supposedly smallest parts of nature Atoms, which, as Physics tell us, are not anymore regarded as the smallest parts. There is a String theory and the M theory and what not. The next higher level would be the Molecules and the next higher, the microscopic level of existence. From there it reaches our level, which we can sensually experience. And from here we reach the stellar level with all it’s wonders. Modern physics is coming to the conviction that there is not just one universe but a Multi-verse. Where our universe is just one among many. That’s Diversity!

Each one of the levels of existence is a boundless diversity in itself. Boundless, because we do not know, what we don’t know. So the unknown must be taken into account in the Diversity. Like  one example of the wonders of diversity, of which I came across while writing this article, is described in National Geographic(3). The story is about a rodent in Eastern Africa. This species nibbles the bark of a certain tree and then smears the paste into their fur. This mash is toxic and thus protects the animal against enemies. This is the only example known to man, where a species seems to know how to use external poison to protect itself. The wonders of Diversity!

All different level of nature is,  itself, Diversity beyond human comprehension. How much more is it, when all levels are being added.

There is one area in live, where Diversity  not really welcome, in society. Here diversity is constantly under attack and the Uniformity is the goal. This trend to uniformity is, and always will be, a process, which is bound to fail. Any given situation is made up of many different and sometimes competing factors, everyone can agree to that. This state of transition is apparently frightening the public.

This is what Mr. Tutu has to say about it:

“That is the way of people in times especially of transition, of instability and insecurity, when there is turmoil and social upheaval, poverty and unemployment. Then people seek refuge in fundamentalisms of all kinds. They look for scapegoats, who are provided by those who are different in appearance, in behavior, in race and in thought.”

Exactly for this reason we, at Nesseq, demand Social Security for everyone. As soon as a person feels secure in society s/he will not be violent towards the other, the stranger. As soon as everyone will enjoy social security, everyone will also care for the ecological situation. This will also lead us, as a global population, to the Demographic-Economic Paradox (4), which states, that the more affluent people are the less children they have. This is one of the most important tasks in the near future, the soft reduction of the global population.

The seven billion people, who inhabit earth today, are already too many. Nine billion at the middle of the century will surly will be the turning point. More growth seems to be impossible after this point and it is clear, this  point will be reached at some point. Regulating world population is a matter of numbers. We have to become less!

The question is not, when will the Reduction happen, but rather how? Through laws and enforcement? Through catastrophe’s or by consensual understanding of the necessity?

A remark to the Diversity versus Uniformity, or rather the Monotony.

The fight for Uniformity in any given society, is bound to fail. Uniformity goes against Nature, against life and with every new generation new and unique problems arise. Which endanger Uniformity. Therefore the idea of the uniformity must be abandoned and be replaced by a diverse approach.

In a practical sense, it means that every neighborhood (the size of a medium village) has to become independent from the infrastructure. Thus a greater diversity is achieved. Not just in the infrastructure itself, but also in the daily life of the people. The neighborhoods in the cities have to be like self sufficient villages.  The City will be a cluster of independent neighborhoods. This will create more jobs in the neighborhood. The key is to make the alternative to the present infrastructure is to keep the investment down and to complete the task with Sweat Equity. It means, you pay with sweat and not with money. Whatever I can myself, I do not have to pay for. This will lead to a Social Diversity.

What Mr. Tutu failed to mentioned though was, that if human beings are disturbing natural diversity on earth the ecological ramifications could be disastrous for our very existence!

For further reading:

1. Desmond Tutu

2. Glorious Diversity

3. National Geographic

4. Demographic-Economic Paradox

Image by Wikipedia.org