Now that’s a discussion!
On blogs and listserves, in living rooms and classrooms around the country today, people are talking about, debating, and yes, critiquing our new short film.
We made The Story of Cap & Trade to encourage a real discussion about how to solve the enormous climate challenges we face. If there was ever an issue that merited broad, even heated public debate, this is it. I’d far rather people argue about cap and trade and other policy options than ignore them or silently go along with the crowd, even when our guts tell us the solution on the table is inadequate.
We’re at a defining moment here. Defining in terms of planetary survival. Defining in terms of the kind of democratic governance we have in this country.
In doing my research for The Story of Cap & Trade, I heard many longtime trusted friends tell me “I know cap and trade isn’t enough, but it is the best we can get in this political climate” or “we can’t get something stronger past business.”
Excuse me, but who is running this country? The people or the coal companies? You and me or Goldman Sachs? Remember 1 person, 1 vote?
The entire planetary ecosystem and the lives of billions of people are at stake, and we’re accepting the conventional wisdom that we can’t get a real solution past big business? That it’s too late? That the train has left the station?
Interestingly, the U.S. Climate Task Force and Future 500 just released the results of a new poll by Hart Research that found Americans favor a carbon tax over cap and trade by a margin of two to one. The poll found support for a tax over cap and trade in all age and income brackets. It also found support for cap and trade was lower among those who paid the most attention to climate issues.
Dr. Elaine Kamarck, a former senior policy advisor to Al Gore and current Co-chair of the Climate Task Force explained that:
“This poll reveals that only two percent of voters hold very positive view of cap and trade – the system at the core of the current Senate bill. But it’s not too late to salvage the situation. With both the U.N. and the Senate delaying major climate debates until next year, policymakers now have time to make a serious course correction in the emissions debate.”
If there is public support for a strong law to cap and tax carbon pollution, why are our leaders advancing weaker and riskier schemes that rely on the market to solve the problem?
It’s business as usual.
Now, I’m not against business. In fact, I am thrilled by the environmental and social innovations of many businesses today and I am a firm believer that businesses have to be part of the solution as we transition to a sustainable and just economy.
But let’s admit it, some companies just aren’t hip to that program. Some are more about protecting the bottom line than then planet.
If there was ever a time to draw a line in the sand, to say we’re not compromising our future and the planet to protect business as usual, this is that moment.
Enough of accepting ‘better than terrible.’
The stronger the demands for real solutions – solutions that achieve ecological sustainability and do so fairly – the easier it will be for those in the political process to inch in that direction too. Let’s continue this discussion, welcome the voices of those most impacted by climate change, invite in businesses that are serious about sustainability and encourage our leaders to lead.
This is a defining moment.
RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
As loud as I can, I say AMEN!
(I really just wanted to draw attention to myself by being the first one to comment. Sound familiar? Sorry, I’m being catty. Heh.)
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Congratulations Annie! But, please! PLEASE!!! Who is the web-link a spanish version of video ‘The Story of Cap and Trade’? ¿And latinamaerican people?
Regards.
Ramón
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
OUTSTANDING! I will pass this along to all. Thank you for your fine work.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
ok so, what if i say the huge support for carbon tax comes from propaganda, and if democrats were endorsing carbon tax, the skunks among us would maybe rile up the public to support ‘the much better option, cap & trade’?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 am
I saw the Story of Stuff long ago and loved it but just realized now that you also blog. Yay!
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:06 am
I HIGHLY recommend that everyone also watch THE CENTURY OF THE SELF!
It is a 4 part documentary about the psychology and shaping of the masses to be passive consumer/citizens
The Century of the Self
The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339
AND THEN
I recommend everyone start learning more about and studying the TRIVIUM and QUADRIVIUM which is the original 7 liberal arts which included such important things such as Logic and Rhetoric.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 am
Dear Annie,
PLEASE keep speaking as loudly and clearly as you are, no matter what.
I need you to keep talking and I support you.
Please keep taking a stand that humans have intelligence, and that the boys can grow out of fiendishly playing monopoly with the resources of future generations.
Also PLEASE IMMEDIATELY START YOUR NEXT FILM about the counterintuitive consequences of exponential population growth on a finite planet. Almost nobody is ending this insanity. We’ve been using oil to quadruple the planet’s food productivity and now the oil is at peak. We are in population overshoot with no signs of slowing. Without fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticized the planet can only sustain one to two billion people. It is not okay with me that humans go extinct just from being blind and greedy. We are a biology experiment of mother earth. She’s evolved an organism that has the potential to make conscious choices. She would like her experiment to succeed. But we got smart before we got intelligent. Your work helps us get intelligent fast. Please keep going.
With gratitude,
Clinton Callahan
http://www.iamabridge.info
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
As with “Stuff”, “Cap & Trade” presents a compelling argument in a simple, effective way. And, it would have been even more compelling if it had hit the two key leverage points for changing or getting rid of C&T: the power of big business & polluters to lobby Congress, and the need for individuals to take action to combat this lobbying power.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Annie Leonard has done a wonderful thing with the Story of Cap and Trade. For too long, we have all been told that only a market model will get us out of this mess we are in. But a market model permits, even empowers, an economic model of growth and globalisation, the very system that is destroying the earth’s resources at such an alarming rate. Thank you Annie and team for your courage and insight.
Meanwhile we in Canada will continue to fight “Canada’s Mordor” – the tar sands of Northern Alberta, which are leaving a terrible ecological footprint for future generations.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Cap and Trade is no a capitalist Idea. It is a combination of two horrible ideaologues; communism and facism. Capitalism is either Gov or Big Business putting a large amount of money on the table for the winner of whomever came up with the most productive, profittable process capable in the market place and then sharing with that person in the profits it generate. Let America’s drive for profit solve this problem.
God Bless America!!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
i love you annie leonard
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Never is too late to solve a conflict, we only have to face it, draw conclusions and feel sure to make them.
Let us remember that the union is strength, every vote counts. Fear doesn’t solve anything, We must take our courage and strength to confront the current problem of climate change.
We all are aware, we have to act immediately and without fear.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I’m with you Annie! I strongly believe that our elected officials must get the message that there are lots and lots of people who want stronger legislation. Hopefully this will keep any of their compromises from swinging too far to the right as the final bill is negotiated. You can bet that the powerful BAU interests won’t let up one bit!
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Buddhist Advice for Climate Negotiators
I’ve been thinking about the upcoming Copenhagen United Nations climate change conference because this year I’ve been living on a tiny coral island in the Atlantic Ocean. Here in Barbados, everywhere I look with my geologist’s gaze I see evidence of past climate change. In the daily newspapers I read reports that record the nation’s worries about the effects of climate change on livelihoods. The future of all living beings on Barbados depends on productive conversations in Copenhagen.
Barbados is a coral island that rose roughly 1200 feet above sea level in the last one million years—in other words, Barbados is a geological infant. Still, it has much to teach us. I’m reminded of a verse from Pablo Neruda’s poem “Keeping Quiet”:
“If we were not so single-minded
about keeping our lives moving,
and for once could do nothing,
perhaps a huge silence
might interrupt this sadness
of never understanding ourselves
and of threatening ourselves with death.
Perhaps the earth can teach us
As when everything seems dead
And later proves to be alive.”[1]
Though some sediments form a nucleus of the island, most of the exposed land consists of coral rock, known to geologists as limestone, lithified from broken debris of ancient reefs. The island is unique in the Caribbean. Unlike the Bahamas that consist largely of windblown sand cemented together by the action of rainwater, or other Caribbean islands so vividly volcanic, Barbados today is comprised of nothing more than subaerial coralline remnants of dead communities and submarine fringes of currently living colonies of organisms—corals. Tiny animals called polyps, each coral encloses itself in a stony cup of limestone that it secretes. As they grow, the polyps divide to form colonies that grow together and manifest as a reef. Over thousands of years, coral reefs respond to fluctuations in sea level and water temperature.
Abiding on this island I traverse slopes telling me that where I now walk, ocean waves once lapped. Hillsides shaped like treads and risers of a coralline staircase, coastal terraces in geological parlance, mark ancient shorelines. These old coastal features some distance above the modern coastline indicate that with changing climate and consequent sea level fluctuations some colonial organisms have become extinct while others have succeeded them. As a Jewish Buddhist geologist—or jubugeoscientist as I’ve come to think of myself lately—I think of these ancient reefs as paleo-Sanghas, communities that lived and died together.
In thinking about Buddhist responses to climate change, I’ve come to believe that Buddhist scientists must emphasize compassion and the ethical conduct components of the eightfold path—wise speech, wise action, wise livelihood. Though we scientists lead with our heads, I believe that we must add our hearts to our enterprise. From my observations of impermanent coral communities, my head knows that the living communities of Barbados will be vulnerable to sea level fluctuations. But as I behold the Barbadian’s Earth, I realize that scientist-negotiators in Copenhagen must bring to conversations not only scientific wisdom; they must bring scientific heart.
Now that various nations are threatening to walk out jointly from the upcoming negotiations Copenhagen, I have an alternative suggestion for negotiators: do not speak; live together and practice karuna and metta meditation for the twelve days of the conference. By the end of that period, perhaps negotiators will feel connected enough to one another and the home countries they represent so that true giving will be possible. In preparation for such a retreat I’d send a piece of Barbados limestone for the altar.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Excellent digest about the scam of carbon cap-and-trade–balanced by a dim-witted promotion for “renewables.” Wind and solar technology have been around since Noah (and before). There’s a good reason we moved from wind and horses hundreds of years ago: they provide no capacity value–specific amounts of energy on demand. Consequently, trying to integrate such unreliable, undispatchable, highly volatile energy sources with conventional generation that is everything they are not, would be incredibly unproductive, making everyone and everything work much harder just to stay in place. Imagine the chaos–in terms of productivity–if all our gas pumps were wind “powered;” no one could know how long it would take to fill the tank and the long lines awaiting service would stretch for miles.
Try applying a little physics, a sense of history, and a large measure of common sense before recommending silly energy technologies that cannot dent a grape in the scheme of things. At the very least, use the same critical thinking skills that enabled your portrayal of cap-and-trade schemes to the inquiry about whether the energy du jour of renewables makes just as much sense.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Cap & Trade was obviously a scam from the start, but the bigger scam is AGW and the alleged effects of man-made CO2. Wearing machine-made clothes? Machine-made dwelling? You owe a bunch of “carbon credits”.
Oh, BTW, you are a carbon-based life form that emits carbon dioxide. Shame on you, earth destroyer.
You want to tax me for generating CO2 and causing global warming. If perchance the earth is cooling, will you pay me to generate carbon dioxide?
Finally, what is the temperature outside your house right now? Is that too warm or too cold? What temperature should we strive for?
You want to call the shots, so lead the way and set an example by living naked in the hollow log I have down in the woods behind my house, and grub for things to eat. Let me know what effect that has and maybe then we can have a reality-based discussion. Until then, shut up and drink some more Kool-Aid, and while you’re at it, take off that polyester, carbon-based shirt and replace it with a hair shirt.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Jon Boone,
Heard of batteries? Idiot.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Hi,
Interesting video however one should not necessarily believe everything one hears and sees … especially in this video. Unfortunately for the Cap and Trade promoters, this video makes a lot of unsubstantiated comments that people who are uneducated about this, which is 99% of people, will believe. Whoever put this video together, made their statement in such a way that could not be discussed or debated … and likely because they really don’t have the knowledge to back up their fear mongering. They are as bad as some of the people that they claim are taking advantage of people’s fears.
Nothing is perfect, however one cannot paint all cap and trade efforts with the same paint brush. Most efforts that I know about will help the environment. Will some companies benefit financially? Yes, … definitely, but some of those are the same companies that are spending, investing and risking thousands an even millions of dollars to get the cap and trade system up and running. As long as there are companies out there putting stuff like this out there, the solutions will take longer to achieve. This was not funded by an individual. The animation alone took weeks, if not months to complete. A professional film company and actor was hired to get this very slick production on to the internet. This cost someone or some company a ton of money.
“Money” makes the world go round. Problems are created while money is made and solutions are effected in the same way. No one is going to spend it without some feeling that they might get a return on it. Without these people that she speaks about, government would not have the incentive to move. Our politicians and bureaucrats are too happy to sit on their warm chairs and take no risk while they pay lip service to everyone’s complaints, needs and desires. It is only when money backed groups, companies and individuals, who will take a risk, come to them and convince them that they will be seen in a better light … or not, that they will do anything.
If the producers and backers of this film gave people in the know a chance to explain how so much of what she says is inaccurate, they would not take such a “black and white” position.
This is a well thought out and produced video. VERY PROFESSIONAL! I suspect that there is some of that “BIG” money behind this statement with ulterior motives. There!!! Now I have made a statement about them which they can debate or defend.
The easiest thing to do is criticize. The toughest thing is to find solutions.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Further to the above comment:
Who are the people behind this web site??? I went to their “Contact” link. Guess what … there is no “Annie Leonard” (the person in the video), to contact. Obviously an actor … a very good one.
They are starting to get a lot of press with their productions. This is a very well thouight out web site. There has to be a lot of money behind it. It appears very innocent but I do think that Annie is a “Symbol” She looks a lot like the loving mother, and wife of Raymond from the show “Everybody Loves Raymond”. Great casting!
There is a page for “donations” to their cause. Be careful where you spend your dollars.
The more I check this site out, the more I ask … Is this a web site created to make money through the willy nilly pandering of opinions that may do more harm than good? I wish I knew. I am a sceptic. I cannot see any benfit to knocking the system in general. I would like to see more “fact specific” information otherwise I will not buy in!
To all: Please get informed before supporting this web site and the creators. They are from California, a state which is a leader in Green House Gas reduction initiatives. Is there a link there or have they just dicovered a medium to use to generate donations?
I wonder how long they wil leave my blog up.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Just wanted to say I think the story of cap and trade is a really brilliant piece of work.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
When someone invents a battery that can enable intermittent, volatile technologies at industrial scales, he or she will be far richer than Bill Gates. Do invest quickly. But the physics of such technology is not promising–and hasn’t been since Edison’s time (he, as some may know, invested a fortune in this inquiry, coming up a cropper). One continuously hears media birth announcements for such a gizmo; rarely do we read their obituaries.
Individuals who want boutique wind and solar operations to assuage their carbon sins can pay heavily for residential scale batteries. The whole contraption would take about 20 years to offset the capital costs–far longer than the equipment would last. This seems hardly a solution for the masses, who nonetheless expect their electricity to be reliable, affordable, and secure. Perhaps their expectations can be assuaged with New Age incantations and relentless television commercials urging people to “Believe in the Wind” (Vestas). And don’t we all love those wind paeans from General Electric, which bought Enron’s windplants at a fire sale when that benighted company went belly up (surely, historians at this site will know that, in 2001, Enron had the nation’s largest stock of wind projects; Ken Lay was, well, so concerned about the environment, wasn’t he?).
Belief in “renewables”has about the same level of evidentiary support as that expected by a sophomore level class in literary criticism, where uniformed opinions rule. The only historically proven renewable, hydro, is incredibly destructive to sensitive habitats. Of course, the penchant for wood resulted in the removal of about 90% of the nation’s forests. Nothing seems cognitively more dissonant than thinking that massive windplants, which are so land intensive and energy feckless, are “green.” Doublespeak? Doublethink?
Where is George Orwell when we really need him?
December 7th, 2009 at 3:11 am
hi Annie,
This is absolutely masterful, and not a moment too soon!
Thank you so much for boiling it down in such a clear and entertaining manner. Really from the heart too. My faith in humanity is somewhat restored
December 7th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Hi, Our organization along with the Taiwan Green Party and Taiwanwatch (loosely affiliated with World Watch) just held a press conference today to show The Story of Cap and Trade with Hanji (complex Chinese) subtitling (we are the same coalition that did the same with Story of Stuff). Good turnout from the media and our EPA is already in denial about it being designed by Wall Street for Wall Street — thanks for the ammunition!
Robin at wildatheart.org.tw
December 9th, 2009 at 3:48 am
Annie you tell the story of the ” Cap & Trade” myth so succinctly, so convincingly and so eloquently. You are wonderful – when are you coming to Australia?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Everyone needs to understand that CO2 is not a major factor in creating climate change. Please read my comment under ” Climate and Consumption”. However, I do agree with the notion that all “Cap and Trade ” does is create revenue for “Wall Street” Green baggers ( A term I like to use to describe those who use the global warming debate to generate money due to there greed). It is inevitable when you look back in history at past tax policies, whenever you tax business, that tax is passed along to the consumer. It happens every time, and it never fails. The only one who wins in this circumstance are the greedy politicians and there cohorts who lust after power and money. Let’s all take a step back and think with our heads and not our hearts. Its easy to fall head over heels in love with a cause without examining the origin of the debate and the facts, especially for compassionate people who only want the best for others.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Awesome job with this video, Annie! It clearly lays out the issues around cap and trade in an engaging way. Thanks for putting it together.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Brilliant video. And I’ve often referred people to The Story of Stuff.
The next learning module for the people of Earth should be, IMO, the fact that there’s a rich variety of suppressed or ignored clean energy inventions, many of which can be low-cost and relatively low-tech. It’s time for an end to knee-jerk dismissals of those potential solutions.
Your talent could help groups such as the New Energy Movement unleash the brilliance of outside-the-box thinkers.
Thank you for your excellence in portraying and illustrating common sense.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
The best ever explanation. I had to put a link to the video from my website. The site will serve as live video streaming activities and shall be fully working in spring.
This will be one of the main topics and I’m going to press people to translate it into few Asian languages.
Congratulation Annie! This is top notch.
January 10th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“The Story of Stuff” = brilliantly crafted visuals, grounded in facts, identifies issue clearly and offers appropriate solutions
“Story of Cap & Trade” = brilliantly crafted visuals, good intentions, but inaccurate critique of cap-and-trade that is based on flawed assumptions.
I have worked on climate change policy for years and used to be a proponent of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade. But after studying the issue in depth and spending time on Capitol Hill, I am convinced that cap-and-trade is the more appropriate policy tool. The biggest flaw in a carbon tax and direct EPA regulation is the ease at which future legislators (in the case of a carbon tax) and Presidential administrations (in the case of the EPA route) can adjust or water down the policies that need to be in place for the long-term, thereby undermining the integrity of the policy.
In the case of a carbon tax, there is no absolute cap on emissions. Economists simply make a best guess of what tax level is required to achieve the desired level of emission reductions each year. This would make it incredibly easy for members of Congress to provide a carbon tax exemption, tax credit, or direct subsidy to a well-connected or struggling industry that would completely negate the effect of the carbon price (we can all see it now: a “temporary” carbon tax exemption to the near bankrupt big three automakers, what an easy political sell!).
The EPA regulatory method (through the Clean Air Act) would be even more subject to manipulation. Since the EPA is an executive branch agency, whoever is President at any given time can strong-arm the agency into developing and enforcing rules however the President sees fit. We need GHG reductions to be consistent all the way to 2050 at a minimum; we cannot subject our policies to the whims of the four-year political cycle.
Many of the issues regarding cap-and-trade that are discussed in the video are true. Almost all of them (e.g., free permits for well connected industries, carbon price volatility from financial industry) will certainly reduce the efficiency of the system, thereby increasing the overall costs to the American economy relative to a perfectly designed cap-and-trade system. But the key attribute of cap-and-trade is that an absolute cap is set for each year to 2050, and there are only enough permits created to cover the cap. This means the legitimacy of the cap is maintained regardless of how much Congress or the executive branch tries to sneak in benefits for key political supporters. Offsets are the one element of the policy that could undermine the cap, but the bills that are being seriously considered in Congress generally limit the use of offsets to the point where this shouldn’t be the deciding factor. And even with the potential cost inefficiencies of cap-and-trade, the ability of the market to find the cheapest marginal abatement costs in the economy still make the system much less expensive than EPA regulation.
Of course, Congress can always decide to change the cap or abandon the policy altogether, but the latter is true of all potential policies. And a drastic change in the fundamentals of a policy is much more difficult to get past the American public compared to an adjustment of the carbon tax or certain industries or lax enforcement of rules at EPA.
I love the idealism in the “Story of Cap-and-Trade,” but idealism is much more appropriate for the “Story of Stuff” (where the main solution is individual responsibility rather than a national policy).
January 12th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Susy Greenberg’s comments here seem wise but are not. The flaw in her argument is the utter ubiquity of carbon dioxide. Any methodology to account for its comings and going is bound to be, at best, problematic. And who would really do the accounting? In general, the same people with either a financial or ideological stake in the outcome (including the US Government). Cap and trade in Europe has become a labyrinth of cynical exploitation, carrying all the way to China and India, with the upshot that carbon emissions there continue to increase (Germany’s CO2 emissions exceeds that of the US).
The cap-and-trade scheme she argues for is really political legerdemain, not economic reality. If the marble under the constantly moving shell were truly discreet, such as, say, nitrous oxide or mercury, then, well, maybe such a game might be winnable. With CO2, however, we might as well be trying to contain pixie dust.
And so, while I admit that any cartoon, with time limits, can only caricature reality, the “Story of Cap-and-Trade” is much closer to the truth than Greenberg’s fantasy.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Love the video. It’s very effective at pointing out and explaining some flaws of cap & trade. Thank you for putting it so simply. I will use and remember this in my work. Good job and thanks!
February 11th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
it is so knowledgeful.ilike this. thank you for the the story of stuff project video.it was so cool……
February 11th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Ok, so i had to watch tis viedeo for two of my classes, and at first i was like… UGH! anothger confusing viedeo to take notes on. But as i was watching it i thought, wow this woman realy knows her “STUFF” (tee-hee) My mind was totaly blow after seeing this, it inspired me to do something. (I’n not sure what it inspired me to do yet) Anyway, I loooooovvvvveeeeeee this viedeo, i think that everyone should see it and that it should be on tv. This woman (sorry your name escapes me) is totaly doing the rigjt thing. If your reading this or yor someone of power or something, show this to the government, they can’t ignore this forever. We need to do something, and we are the generations to do it! THank you,thank you, thank yuou for making this viedeo, i will never look at plastic and man made stuff the same way again. I hope i see this somewhere other than the net soon. WOW I am sooooooo amaized. WOW.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Where is my comment?
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Well, really a carbon tax would do much the same thing as cap and trade. Their effectiveness is both dependent on the amount of taxation and the carbon price and limit in cap and trade. So a carbon tax sets the price of carbon and the market determines the quantity, and cap and trade sets the quantity of carbon and the market determines the price. Same outcome, different policy approach. They could both be effective if implemented properly.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:18 am
You’re quite right, Annie.
I mean, come on. We, the rich countries were pretty selfish and dumb to let people who only want money to dictate our lives right now and in the years to come.
And yet, others around the world are struggling just to feed themselves… and suddenly their life is now even crappier than it was before, because turns out the droughts, floods etc, are so bad you have to work with substances that can kill you, far away from the home that gave you life and god-knows-how-many generations.
And until now, none of us has given a damn about it
If that sort of thinking, from these sort of people made this problem… how can the SAME OL’ THING fix it???!!!
It’s like your best has just died, and instead of grieving properly, you’re denying everything and taking booze and gambling, which only makes you FEEL better for so long before YOUR life turns into a trainwreck. Your friend won’t come back to life, you still haven’t accepted that she’s gone forever AND your entire life has gone down the drain just because you didn’t get over it properly.
So if we REALLY want to fix this and not turn it into a permanent Armageddon, we’ve got to stop being ‘me-me-me’s, pull our socks up and come up with something that will actually WORK and not make life WORSE.
And a job well done. Annie.
I’ll be tremendously looking forward to ‘The Story of Bottled Water’ and ‘The Story of Electronics’. Even though I know that the stuff that’s our bottled water is no better than tap water and we dump toxins which we don’t know even EXISTS, I’ll still listen, ’cause you just might shock me with what you have to say.
Don’t forget to help Haiti out People!
February 26th, 2010 at 7:47 am
To Marcel:
Actually, the “actor” Annie has been interviewed and published in Time magazine for the differences she is attempting to make through the internet. Check her out:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781,00.html
March 4th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The video was extremely incredible, and spoke the truth, unlike the other sites and videos who hide themselves. I stumbled upon the link while researching on why plastic bottles should be banned, but this is way better. Way to go Annie .
!
Selfish, selfish us.
[ I`m Canadien though. ]
March 4th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I’m not sure if I saw any hate comments, but if anyone does want to post one, go get a life, or a brain. Whatever has been featured in the video is truth, it’s revolutionary. We humans of this time are changing the form of Earth in a horrible way, and maybe you’re just too much of a coward to handle the truth.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
As someone following the carbon issues for my company (25 years exper, and a chemical/env. Eng). I am confused by the arguements on carbon cap versus tax. The are both ways to reduce carbon fuel use, and the arguements seem more political (eg, corporate conspriacy, who wins, who loses). Why does it always have to come to that, the “right” against the “left”.
The purpose of each is to reduce carbon emissions, and who will pay for each… the consumer (which is where almost all the energy demand comes from).
To my thinking a carbon tax without it going to alternative energy infrastructure would be a huge mistake…and my guess it would not go to that.
Cap and Trade will have winners and losers
What doesn’t ?
March 11th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
This is amazing. I am thirteen years old and want to be an environmentalist, I love this video.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:38 am
this is what the internet is about. Awesome post.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:49 am
hey
The climate change is cyclical Annie. You got the cap and trade down pat, but you buy into the change which is what Al Gore is going to make billions on and others like him. He is so darn proud of himself inventing the internet…what a scum bag.
Dont’be stupid.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:55 am
If you want to be an environmentalist try using vinegar to clean with. Use little laundry soap like in our H. E. clothes washers, sort your recycles from trash. Keep it simple, and don’t buy in to global warming, it is a hoax created by people who lie and want to make millions off of the gullable human beings of this planet. Remember KISS (keep it simple stupid) and don’t believe the lies of people who lie. Our government, wallstreet, bankers…..they lie. They want to tax grandma for going to the grocery store in her old car. It is a trick, lies, a scheme.
June 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Annie
Would it be practical to say that it is obvious we need to take care of our environment, but we would be foolish to let thieves control the information being given to the people? AND would I then have to assume the thieves are controlling the media and we only hear very little of the actual truth.