Nate Hagens reveals the three things top US politicians are focused on, and suggests how to approach the challenge. —
No 2713 Posted by fw, February 28, 2021—
1/ In my February 19, 2021 piece, I reposted a report co-authored by 17 scientists that documents, in considerable detail, the evidence of humanity’s existential plight. My repost is titled: Just how bad will future environmental conditions get? In a word, “ghastly!”. The title of the report that I reposted is “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future”, by Frontiers in Conservation Science, January 13, 2021.
2/ Included at the bottom of my February 19 repost is a link to a 90-minute video titled OMEGA – Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future . This 90-minute video brings together six experts, including two commentators, Bill Rees and Nate Hagens, for a ZOOM discussion of the January 13 report co-authored by the 17 scientists.
3/ Although the hosts of the 90-minute video refer to the event as a “discussion,” I found the format of the proceedings was more along the lines of a Q & A directed at the participants and the two commentators, Bill Rees and Nate Hagens, with very little discussion among the respondents themselves.
4/ During the 90-minute discussion, Nate Hagens was asked for his input 4 times. On February 22, I reposted the first of his 4 responses titled “In my analysis, I think we’re headed for a financial recalibration.” — Nate Hagens
5/ Reposted below is my transcript of Nate’s second, short response to the question: “What would you add to the discussion so far?”
6/ At the bottom of this post is the 90-minute embedded video of the full ZOOM discussion where you can watch Nate’s brief response to the second question, from 47:54 to 49:39.
TRANSCRIPT OF HAGENS’ REMARKS (47:54 to 49:39)
I think we’ve arrived at a point where many more people understand the problems, and now we have to look at solutions. But it’s like driving in a snowstorm – you don’t look at the car ahead of you, you’ve got to look at the brake lights of two or three cars ahead of you. And I think that’s what philanthropists and activists need to do because we cannot directly assault the superorganism in this way.
We’re not going to solve climate change by just switching to renewables – we’re going to just add more renewables to our [energy] system. I really learned last year – I got to speak to some of the highest level politicians in the United States, or their chiefs of staff. And they trust me, they know that I’m smart, and that I care.
But they don’t know that I care about other species. They don’t know that I know about energy or climate change or anything.
They only wanted to know about inequality and helping unemployment — systemic risks due to COVID.
And what I learned was they are focused on three things:
First of all politics. Does what we’re trying to do fit my political tribe?
Number two, urgency. Is it something that we can do right now? Thinking about years and decades – which is the thesis of the scientists looking at the natural world – aren’t on their radar.
Third, they need simple rather than complex solutions. Anything that’s correct but complex is too difficult.
So it is a real pickle. But that’s why I think it has to be choreographed with this [discussion paper] framework in mind, and then you get a lot of people working on it from different angles.
RELATED VIDEO –
Nate’s brief response begins at 47:54 and ends at 49:39
OMEGA – Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future, posted by Stanley Wu on You Tube, January 31, 2021 — The formal session will last an hour with an additional half hour for those who can stay. We hope you will join us for this thought-provoking discussion.
FAIR USE NOTICE – For details click here