I did extensive homework. I encourage you to as well, and I ultimately concluded that\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Parenthetical): I thought a lot about what I could write here, and I realized that there\u2019s nothing that I can say that would get through\u2026 to anyone. This topic has become so politicized (like everything in 2022!) that everyone has already taken a side, and everyone already thinks they know the answers, which I find strange because I\u2019m an expert in this field and I don\u2019t know all of the answers. All I can do is wonder where everyone got their answers from? From extensive scientific research, or\u2026? Did whoever propagated the message that people have accepted as the conventional thinking have a vested financial or political interest in you believing that message? Because, as you know, there are people whose intention is not necessarily what\u2019s best for the environment and is instead to profit off society\u2019s belief structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I can assure you that I am not making any money exploiting people\u2019s beliefs. Instead, I am pursuing what I believe is right for the environment. I made that commitment to give my life to address climate change, even if that means that I have to work very hard (for much less pay than I would make in other professions) to try to educate people and, these days, convince them to do what\u2019s right for our planet, rather than what\u2019s right for the people who are profiting off of society believing a particular message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019re still reading, thank you! As for my story, I concluded that electric vehicles are similar to wind turbines and solar panels. In other words, electric vehicles will advance and improve, and some consumers will adopt them. And all of that IS a good thing because there ARE applications where electric vehicles can reduce lifecycle carbon emissions. Similarly, the grid WILL continue to become more renewable and cleaner. And THAT\u2019S a good thing, because electric vehicles are inherently tied to the grid, and whether we\u2019re using that electricity to power our vehicles or in residential, commercial, or industrial settings, cleaner electricity is a good thing. Another major benefit of the investments in electric vehicles is that improved battery technology can be used in hybrid vehicles, which is a GREAT thing because hybrids are much more affordable than pure electric vehicles, they don\u2019t have a limited range, and they don\u2019t require any infrastructure changes \u2013 all of which ensure more rapid consumer adoption. Rapid deployment, consumer acceptance, and maximizing the bang-for-our-buck are the keys to immediately addressing climate change. Maybe I should have started with that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In terms of maximizing bang-for-buck, if you calculate the lifecycle CO2<\/sub> reduction per incremental cost relative to a conventional vehicle, hybrids would be the clear winner. Similarly, if the materials in batteries are difficult and expensive to dig out of the Earth, then you could calculate a lifecycle CO2<\/sub> reduction per pound of battery materials, and again, hybrids would be the best option. Some have said that \u201cthe best use of a battery is in a hybrid\u201d and that is incredibly well said and accurate! Hybrids are immediately implementable, have a higher consumer acceptance potential because they are cheaper and their range isn\u2019t limited, and maximize bang-for-buck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I concluded, in 2007, that, no, there was no research topic for me as a mechanical engineer and that there was no grand challenge related to electric vehicles. I also concluded that we will always have engines. Always. And because of that, I decided what I would pursue for my PhD. I knew I was going to spend my life trying to help the environment, and I knew engines would be around for my lifetime and beyond, so I knew I needed to find a way to make engines cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable. That\u2019s what I would spend my career studying. That was my grand challenge: make engines sustainable!<\/p>\n\n\n\n The exciting thing to me is: 15 years ago, I committed my life to solving this problem, and I believe, we (\u201cwe\u201d being the transportation research community) have found a solution! We now have renewable fuels available in the marketplace. We can refill our engine-powered vehicles on renewable fuels instead of fossil fuels, TODAY! Those renewable fuels reduce lifecycle CO2<\/sub> emissions by a significant amount (30% or higher depending on the fuel), and if e-fuels and biofuels can be given the same level of attention and incentives that we\u2019re giving other sustainable options, then we would have the resources to find ways to reduce the carbon intensity even further (eventually becoming completely net-carbon neutral)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, in 2022, I think back on my conclusions from 2007 that led me here. And I realize, my conclusions from 2007 are even more true today. Electric vehicles will have some market share in the future. And that\u2019s great, especially if the grid gets more renewable, which it will, which is great! But, we will ALWAYS have engines, and we need to make the use of engines more sustainable. Period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though these conclusions are still true today, some people have not accepted them (or don\u2019t want to admit it out loud; I\u2019m not sure which). As a result, even though I am doing my best to help society and the environment co-exist, and even though I came to the right conclusions about how my skillset could best be used to address climate change, I feel as though I\u2019m being punished for researching engines. I think that I\u2019m reasonably smart, reasonably capable, I work incredibly hard, and I have devoted my life to help address climate change. But the same politicians that claim to want solutions to climate change have cut almost all funding for engine research, which has significantly neutered my ability to have a positive impact on the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I didn\u2019t write all of this to be a martyr or for your pity. I didn\u2019t write all of this to offend anyone or cause any controversy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The reasons I wrote this are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thank you for reading my story. If you disagree with anything I said, I\u2019m happy to have a constructive<\/strong> and open-minded<\/strong> conversation about it. If you agree with what I said, then PLEASE help me spread the word about renewable fuels and hybrids, and please help me have a productive discussion about sustainable transportation technologies without the over-politicization and extremism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was…<\/p>\n\n\n\n by Ben Lawler<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n As an engineer, I was trained to identify problems, and find their solutions. In doing so, I learned the importance of first identifying the right problem to solve, and second, working to find its solution. Here\u2019s a corny engineering joke (not originally mine):<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the French Revolution, the revolting citizens led a priest, a nobleman, and an engineer to the guillotine. They asked the priest if he wanted to face up or down when he met his fate. The priest said he would like to face up so he would be looking toward the heavens. They raised the guillotine blade and released it. It dropped,\u2026 and then suddenly\u2026 stopped,\u2026 inches from his neck. The revolting citizens took it as divine intervention and released the priest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, the nobleman was brought to the guillotine and also decided to face up, hoping to have the same luck as the priest. They raised the blade and released it. It dropped, and then suddenly stopped. Again, the revolting citizens took it as divine intervention and released the nobleman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last was the engineer\u2019s turn. He too decided to lie facing up. As they raised the blade, the engineer said, “Oh, I see what your problem is right there…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The joke is, he solved the wrong problem\u2026 and\u2026 solving the wrong problem has consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a formal problem-solving process with different steps that vary somewhat depending on who\u2019s teaching the method. But in all cases, Step 1 is identifying and defining the problem. We can\u2019t start proposing solutions until we have identified the problem to solve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an engineering educator, I think about how to distill the problem-solving process so that I can best communicate the process to my students. I realized that there are two key factors to consider when identifying and defining the problem: first, you need to draw a box around the system in space<\/strong>, and second, you need to draw a box around the system in time<\/strong>. The spatial box, as engineers, we sometimes call either the \u201ccontrol volume\u201d or the \u201cfree body diagram\u201d, depending on the engineering problem you\u2019re solving, and they are used to define the boundary of the system that you\u2019re considering. When I say, \u201cdraw a box around the system in time<\/strong>\u201d, I mean, you need to define and identify the time-scale, or time duration, of the problem you\u2019re solving. To illustrate these concepts, let me use an example of a joke from the Daily Show from years ago. One of the correspondents was ironically arguing that climate change was a hoax based on new data that showed that the temperature in New York City over the past five months had been dropping, and they showed a graph similar to the one below and on the right. He said we should be talking about global cooling, instead of global warming. <\/p>\n\n\n Of course, John Stewart pointed out that the time-scale in the figure was not the right time-scale to consider (that was the joke). The temperature was only dropping due to the change of seasons. If we\u2019re talking about global climate change, we need to look at year-over-year data, not the data throughout the year. You could argue that the data throughout the year is actually\u2026 completely\u2026 MEANINGLESS. It\u2019s meaningless because the time-scale is not the right time-scale to consider. John Stewart went on to argue that not only is the time-scale mis-identified for this problem, but the control volume is also the wrong spatial boundary to consider when talking about global climate change (New York City). Global climate change is about global temperatures. The system boundary in space can ONLY be the globe. Any other system boundary will give the wrong impression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anytime that the time-scale or spatial boundaries have been mis-identified, you\u2019re looking at the wrong data, which can be very misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This concept of mis-identified control volumes is not new\u2026 and it\u2019s not specific to engineering. In the old days, a magician was called an \u201cillusionist\u201d because they drew the audience\u2019s attention to an intentionally narrow control volume, while, off-screen (so to speak), a sleight of hand was performed. And, voila! There was their illusion. If the audience knew to see the whole stage as the control volume,\u2026 and if they could see all of the details,\u2026 there would be no fooling them. There would be no illusion\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hopefully that was helpful to illustrate the importance of drawing the right spatial and time-based boundaries when identifying, defining, and solving a problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, I want you to think about global climate change and I want to ask you if we have properly identified and defined the right problem to solve, and are we proposing solutions that would solve the right problem?<\/p>\n\n\n\n So here is my question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Should we care about CO2<\/sub> emissions,\u2026 OR\u2026 should we care about the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level?<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s a subtle distinction, but an important one. CO2<\/sub> emissions and the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level can be related, but they don\u2019t have to be. CO2<\/sub> emissions MAY cause the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level to increase, but they may not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ll come back to that, but first, let\u2019s define these terms. The term \u201cCO2<\/sub> emissions\u201d refers to objects or activities that release CO2<\/sub> into the atmosphere. They are the sources of CO2<\/sub>. Some examples include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, there are objects or activities that absorb CO2<\/sub> from the atmosphere \u2013 the sinks of CO2<\/sub>. Mostly, I\u2019m referring to photosynthesis by plant life, where plants \u201cinhale\u201d CO2<\/sub> (so to speak) and \u201cexhale\u201d O2<\/sub> (the inverse of human respiration!), but there are other examples of CO2<\/sub> sinks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201catmospheric CO2<\/sub> level\u201d is the net effect of all of the sources and sinks of CO2<\/sub>. When examining a control volume in engineering problem-solving, we look at what happens inside the control volume, yes, but we also look at all of the flows across the boundaries and sum up the positives and negatives to determine the net effect on the control volume. If we\u2019re examining a free body diagram, we sum up the forces pushing to the right and subtract the forces pushing to the left to determine the net force and its direction, either right or left. It\u2019s a form of accounting, which engineers often apply to summing forces or torques and to mass, energy, and momentum conservations. But, when most people hear the word \u201caccounting\u201d, they think of money in a bank account. Actually,\u2026 that\u2019s not a bad analogy. The atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level can be thought of as a bank account, where there can be deposits and withdrawals, and you have a certain budget, but you can\u2019t exceed your budget. My question is: should we care about the deposits of CO2<\/sub>, or should we care about the level of CO2<\/sub> in our bank account?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deciding to care about CO2<\/sub> emissions somewhat implies that we should draw our control volume around the sources of CO2<\/sub>. Deciding to care about the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level implies the control volume is around the atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s a ridiculous example, intended to be a little silly, to point out the difference between CO2<\/sub> emissions and the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, and to give another example of the importance of defining the right time and spatial boundaries when problem-solving. If the answer to my question is that we decide to care about CO2<\/sub> emissions instead of the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, then we would look at all of the sources of CO2<\/sub> emissions around the globe, and we would find that, trees, at the end of the fall, drop their leaves and the leaves decompose and release a large amount of CO2<\/sub> emissions (this was my #3 from the list of CO2<\/sub> sources above). In fact, out of all of the sources of CO2<\/sub> emissions, trees dropping their leaves is the largest. If CO2<\/sub> emissions are what we decide to care about, we might draw our control volume around the tree and conclude that trees dropping their leaves is problematic. We might conclude that we need a way to stop trees from dropping their leaves… Since we can\u2019t pass regulations that ban trees from dropping their leaves, we might conclude that we should cut down trees to prevent them from dropping their leaves. That would be our only recourse to stop those CO2<\/sub> emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, deciding to care about CO2<\/sub> emissions led us to draw our spatial boundary around a tree and if we only consider the time-scale of the fall (again, this time-scale was implied by deciding to care about CO2<\/sub> emissions), we eventually arrive at the wrong conclusion. It\u2019s been said that coming to the wrong conclusion has consequences. In this case, if we base our actions on the wrong conclusion, then we would cut down trees, which would be bad for global climate change. As you\u2019ve been told, a tree is a great way to store carbon\u2026 or is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If instead of deciding to care about CO2<\/sub> emissions, we decide to care about the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, and, if we are careful about defining the right space and time boundaries, then we would realize, yes, trees drop their leaves in the fall, but they grow back in the spring and re-absorb that CO2<\/sub>. If we look at the cycle of a tree over the year, the dropping and regrowing of leaves, you could argue, is net-neutral \u2013 it cancels each other out. One process is simply the inverse of the other. But, the net effect of a single tree over the course of a year is that it stores carbon when the trunk thickens or when it grows new branches or roots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So clearly, looking at the time-scale of only one season (the fall) was highly misleading, just like the Daily Show example. Then, what is the right time-scale to consider for a tree? In the previous paragraph, I wrote, \u201cif we look at the cycle of a tree over the year\u201d. That statement implied that a year is the right time-scale to consider for a tree, just like the Daily Show example where year-over-year data would be more meaningful than seasonal data. But be careful! A tree has a lifespan, just like humans and,\u2026 well,\u2026 every other living thing. Even in ideal conditions, a tree will die of old age eventually, and when it dies, it releases all of the carbon that it stored over its lifecycle back into the environment. So, yes, a tree can store carbon, but only temporarily. I would argue, no, a year is not the right time-scale to consider for a tree because it misled us to think that a tree stores carbon, when it really only stores carbon temporarily and eventually gives that carbon back to the environment at the end of its lifecycle. You\u2019ve been told that a tree is a great way to store carbon, and that\u2019s not true, at least not indefinitely. I should have also mentioned, as an educator, the biggest role that I feel I have these days is dispelling misinformation. If you really think about it, an educator and misinformation have opposite goals and intentions. So here is one piece of misinformation dispelled \u2013 No, a tree is not a great way to store carbon because it only stores carbon temporarily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ok, but did we mis-identify the control volume spatially? Rather than drawing our control volume around a single tree, what if we drew our box around the whole forest. Side note: one of the most common mistakes that I see when grading students\u2019 work is that they draw their control volume too narrowly. Have we just committed the same mistake? (-10 points). Remember the audience at the magic show \u2013 by drawing our control volume too narrowly, we\u2019re unintentionally fooling ourselves with an illusion. If we consider the whole forest instead of a single tree, now, when one tree dies of old age, it creates a hole in the canopy that lets sunlight reach the forest floor and allows new growth. Eventually, a new younger tree will fill the hole and re-absorb the carbon from the environment that the previous tree left behind. So, by drawing our box around the whole forest and considering a longer time-scale, we see that the death of an old tree and the growth of a new one, the dropping of leaves in the fall and the new growth in the spring, is all net-neutral and the forest DOES store a lot of carbon\u2026 INDEFINITELY\u2026 \u2026 \u2026 until we cut it down. The only way a forest will give up its stored carbon is if something causes the forest to shrink its footprint (think of, human deforestation), and the only way that we can use forests (forests! not trees!) to store carbon (carbon that they previously stored) is by allowing them, and maybe even helping them, to re-grow and re-take-back their footprint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It may sound like a subtle, stupid distinction to say that, no, a tree is not a great mechanism to store carbon, but yes, a forest is a fantastic mechanism. You might think my distinction between CO2<\/sub> emissions and the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level is subtle and stupid\u2026. But I disagree. I don\u2019t think these details are subtle, or stupid. I think these distinctions makes all the difference in the world (pun intended!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes, you may be able to gloss over the details, but sometimes, you need to consider them. Again, that\u2019s one of most common mistakes that I see by students \u2013 not considering the right level of detail for the problem. Sometimes students get bogged down in details that don\u2019t matter, and sometimes they gloss over important details. I\u2019m sorry to say that I don\u2019t have any advice here. As far as I can tell, it\u2019s a skill that comes with experience, but even experienced people need to be careful to ensure that they are considering the right level of detail for the problem at hand. Notice that the word \u201cdetails\u201d appeared earlier in this text when referring to the audience being fooled by the illusions of a magician. If the audience could see the details, there would be no illusion. If you aren\u2019t considering the right level of details for the problem, then you\u2019re fooling yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019re building to eventually applying the engineering problem-solving process to global climate change, but there is one more thing that I should be absolutely explicit about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When asking, \u201cshould we care\u201d about CO2<\/sub> emissions or the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, it is implied that we should care about whichever factor global climate change truly cares about. Meaning, which one is the driver behind climate change?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you need an explanation about the greenhouse gas effect, please feel free to pause here and Google\/Wikipedia until you feel comfortable proceeding. And please don\u2019t feel embarrassed if you need to. Everyone has a different knowledge base and there\u2019s no shame in knowing what you know and admitting what you don\u2019t know. Alternatively, there SHOULD be a lot of shame when someone pretends to know something that they don\u2019t know, and a lot of issues arise when that happens….<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ok,\u2026 thinking about the greenhouse gas effect, I hope you\u2019ll agree that the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level is the driver behind climate change and therefore is the issue that we should care about and work to solve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Problem identified<\/u><\/strong>: the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level is too high and increasing rapidly. We would like to lower the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, or at least stop it from continuing to increase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we want to solve the problem that the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level is too high, what are the important details to consider? Currently, regulations look at the sources of CO2<\/sub> emissions, but earlier I said, \u201cCO2<\/sub> emissions MAY cause the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level to increase, but they may not.\u201d What did that mean? Let\u2019s explore by going back to the bank account analogy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s pretend that you withdraw $1000 from your bank account to buy a new smart phone. But, when you get to the store, you find a cheaper model for $800. So, you buy the cheaper phone and put the $200 back into your bank account. That\u2019s great that you get to put $200 back into your account, BUT, it doesn\u2019t mean your wealth (net worth) increased. You didn\u2019t just get a raise \u2013 sorry. When you do your taxes at the end of the year, you won\u2019t declare the $200 as income and pay taxes on it. Why not? Because, you simply withdrew the $200 from your account, and then put it back later. It was net-neutral. One process was the inverse of the other. But your wealth didn\u2019t increase by $200.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For your wealth to increase, you need to track where the dollar came from. If it was a dollar that you already had, then it doesn\u2019t increase your wealth. But if it was a dollar that came from an external source, then it counts as income and your wealth increases (but you have to pay taxes on it \u2013 again, sorry!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the case of the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level, when we emit a CO2<\/sub> molecule, the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level increases ONLY IF that carbon atom came from a stored source. However, if the carbon atom came originally from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level DOES NOT increase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s an example using #1 from the list of sources of CO2<\/sub> emissions above. When a person, take myself for example, exhales, I emit CO2<\/sub> emissions. Did I just increase the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level will ONLY increase if the carbon atom came from a stored source. So where do the carbon atoms that I exhale come from? Well, I just ate an apple, and that apple had sugar in it. You could argue that the sugar was a stored source of carbon, but don\u2019t forget about time-scales. The apple would have rotted if I didn\u2019t eat it. So no, the apple doesn\u2019t store carbon for long enough to matter. My body is converting the sugar in the apple to CO2<\/sub> molecules that I exhale (don\u2019t ask me how \u2013 I\u2019m not a biologist). The sugar in the apple was absorbed from the atmosphere when the tree grew the fruit (through photosynthesis). So, no, my exhaling does not increase the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level because that carbon atom came from the atmosphere originally. I simply returned it to the atmosphere where it came from, just like the $200.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ok, we talked about #1 on the list, which was human and animal respiration. We already talked about #3 on the list \u2013 trees dropping their leaves, which is net-neutral, but human deforestation takes all of the stored carbon in trees and releases it into the atmosphere. So what about #2 on the list of CO2<\/sub> emissions: combustion of any fuel containing carbon? Just like every source of CO2<\/sub> emissions, it depends on where the carbon atom came from. If it came from a stored source, then it will increase the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level. If it came from the atmosphere, and you\u2019re simply putting it back, then it won\u2019t increase the atmospheric CO2<\/sub> level. To be clear, a \u201cstored source\u201d of fuel containing carbon is specifically referring to fossil fuels. But \u201ccombustion of a fuel containing carbon\u201d is more general than \u201ccombustion of fossil fuels\u201d. You can burn wood pellets, bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, etc. There is a term called the \u201cfast-carbon cycle\u201d, which refers to the carbon atom recycling at a time-scale that won\u2019t negatively impact climate change, if you want to read more about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We talked about a lot of different things: guillotines, magicians, trees, smart phones, and apples. I would love to keep discussing with you about the implications of these concepts on regulations related to climate change and the economy\/market in the context of engineering problem-solving. But I worry that this is getting long (~3500 words up to this point \u2013 thanks for reading!), and I ran out of time. The semester started yesterday! So maybe it\u2019s best to wrap up for now, and say \u201cto be continued\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But before I leave you, let\u2019s summarize what we discussed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s pick up this discussion when we both have more time. Maybe over the summer. I\u2019d love to continue discussing with you about the details that we didn\u2019t have time to explore in this text. Because remember, the details matter. I also want to talk to you about the implications of these concepts on regulations. Some of the topics for the next conversation can be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before ending, I have to clarify one thing. Twice I said \u201chas consequences\u201d, but please don\u2019t misinterpret these as scare tactics. Please read them as me trying to be explicit about pitfalls and trying to encourage educational awareness. Just like misinformation, scare tactics have opposite intentions as an educator. Scare tactics use misinformation to inspire alarmism and hysteria so that people act in a manner that is not in their best interest. Scare tactics prey on people\u2019s insecurities and fears about what might happen if we don\u2019t take some extreme action. Conversely, an educator\u2019s job is to instill knowledge, and, once you have the knowledge, to instill confidence to not be afraid, confidence that you are well-equipped to solve this problem, and confidence to not jump to conclusions that are not in our best interest. It\u2019s about empowerment. This text is about education, instilling confidence, and empowerment. Empowerment of you! To take back control of solving this problem!<\/p>\n\n\n\n The goal of this text was to layout the facts and define the problem together so that we can start proposing solutions to solve the right problem. That way, we can use our resources (energy, money, time, etc.) to move forward together, in the right direction. Because, so far,\u2026 I\u2019m not seeing that happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this text isn\u2019t intended to be alarmist and it isn\u2019t about despair. If you\u2019re looking for someone to scare you unnecessarily into making rash decisions or indoctrinate you into having extreme viewpoints that you never thought you\u2019d have,\u2026 well\u2026, you have the news and social media for that. Instead, this text is about hope and unity. Hope that we can unify behind reasonable and rational viewpoints. Hope that we will do the right thing for our planet and the species living on it, and for our economy, so that we can ensure that all of our resources are used most efficiently.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (Part I Aug. 2022) This is the story of my own personal\/professional journey. It is not intended to offend anyone. In 2007, I was 21. I was a rising undergraduate senior and I had decided that I wanted to pursue a career in academia to try to help people become better educated, more empowered, and … Continue reading Backstory<\/span> \n
An Appeal for Rationalism:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
My story and perspective on where we are and where we need to go <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Part II – How to Problem-Solve Applied to Climate Change (Jan. 2023)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Introduction: Identifying the problem and defining boundaries<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cecas.clemson.edu\/acrf\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Temp-in-NYC.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\u201cI am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees for the trees have no tongues.\u201d \u2013 Dr. Seuss<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Devil is in the Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Smart Phones, Bank Accounts, and Apples<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Summarizing together<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Scare Tactics versus Empowerment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n