+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
Heroes

See it here: exclusive English translation of powerful viral Chinese documentary 'Under the Dome'

Investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend. Read the English translation here.

Retired investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend.

We at Upworthy felt it was so important to share the documentary with non-Mandarin speakers that we commissioned exclusive translations of the first and last 10 minutes of the documentary.


To fill in the middle, however, we called on Upworthy Head of Product Mike Su, who grew up in Taiwan and speaks fluent Mandarin, to provide a summarized play-by-play.

(Update 7/11/2016: The original documentary has since added complete English-language captioning, and that version now appears below.)

You can watch the documentary (with captions) in its entirety here or scroll down to read our time-stamped highlights:

[10:02-12:30]

The first 10 minutes of the documentary segue into a short animation that breaks down the science behind how harmful "PM2.5" is. PM2.5 means particulate matter (aka pollution!) that is 2.5 micrometers and smaller. People in China have been told that exposure to pollution helps the body adapt to it. But this is scientifically untrue.

Jing's animation shows PM2.5 and its gang of toxins as playing a video game to get into the body, slipping through each layer of defense the body puts up and why they are insufficient to stop the almighty PM2.5.

Exposing the human body to PM2.5 does not help it adapt. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 will ultimately compromise your immune system, and at worst, the particles will enter directly into the bloodstream, which can be fatal.

Scariest. Animation. Evar.

[12:30]


Here Jing shows a chart displaying the close correlation between death rates and elevated PM2.5 levels. The most vulnerable members of the community are children and parents.

[13:20]

Parents allowed Jing to photograph their children who were born with respiratory problems. Just a few months into their young lives, they had already contracted pneumonia. It is suspected that this is the result of not properly protecting them when heavy haze (made up of the dreaded PM2.5) rolled in.

The parents tell Jing that doctors explained to them that they cannot officially tie the pneumonia and respiratory problems to the haze just yet. But! What they can say is that in January 2013, during a period of particularly heavy haze, 27 cities in China reported 10%-150% increases in emergency room visits for children and the elderly.

[13:47]

Around the time that Jing gave birth to her daughter, she found herself speaking to other mothers, asking whether it's true that exposing children to pollution helps them adapt. She introduces a clip of a University of Southern California professor who rebuts that theory.

Dr. Avol points to the massive amounts of evidence showing that children breathing clean air grow faster than children in polluted areas, and that poor lung function early in life is a predictor of poor lung function later in life. In other words, says Dr. Avol, "[When you do] something about the air while the child is still growing, you can make a change in that child's life."

[15:00]

It's heartbreaking, but Jing explains coming to the realization that she cannot protect her child forever. She cannot prevent her daughter from breathing.

[15:30]

(If you're squeamish, scroll past this next image, OK?)

A lung cancer patient allows Jing to tape her having surgery. The patient doesn't smoke, is generally healthy, and is in her 50s. The doctors take out giant freaking chunks of black stuff anyway.


Gross.

[17:00]

A doctor says he cannot officially pin the cancer on pollution, but based on his experience he strongly suspects it to be the cause. But, Jing says, it makes her wonder ... she knows lung cancer needs years to develop, not just the past few years. So she requests aerial pictures of China from NASA for the past 10 years. And holy crap, has China been polluted.

2005

2011

[18:00]

An expert shows the intense pollution that's been spread across China since at least 2004. Jing says she's puzzled because she doesn't remember bad haze being a thing back then.

But then the expert sends her this picture from the Beijing airport and asks her what she sees.

She thinks to herself, "That's haze, right?" It seems so obvious.

But then the expert shows her the newspaper headline from that day. It reads, "Fog causes record delays at Beijing airport" ... and it hits her like a ton of bricks.

She says she immediately felt guilty as a reporter. When she was covering pollution stories, she only thought of pollution as what happens when you see factory smokestacks blowing pollutants in the air, not when you're living in a metropolitan place like Beijing.

"At the time, I was no longer a reporter, but an eyewitness," Jing says.

[19:00]

But what about pollution while Jing was growing up? People in China all grew up on coal stoves to stay warm, so why didn't they all have cancer?

Her friend showed her a survey from 1976-1981 that proved the correlation between coal pollution and death. But this report remained internal.

[21:11]

Here Jing shows a series of pictures of each season. And what she has to say is so powerful that I'm going to literally translate here:

"A person, any living thing should live as such:

When spring comes, the doors are left open, welcoming the cool breeze, the smell of fresh flowers, the colors of spring. Sometimes when you encounter fresh rain, or fog, you find it hard to resist the temptation to breathe deeply and feel the crisp air and refreshing moisture enter your lungs.

In the fall, you want to just find a loved one, and do nothing but laze around all day under the clear autumn sunlight.

Come winter time, you want to run outside and watch your kid stick their tongue out to catch the falling snow, and you'd tell them about the wonder of nature and life.

But today, every day I wake up, first thing I do is look at the Air Quality Index app on my phone. Use it to arrange my day. I wear my mask shopping, buying groceries, meeting with friends. I use tape to cover every window frame. When I take my kid out to get vaccines, I get scared when she so much as giggles for fear she's breathing in more pollution.











Honestly, I am not afraid of dying. I just don't want to live this way anymore.


So whenever someone asks me, 'Why are you doing all of this anyway?' I tell them this is personal beef between me and the haze. I want to know where it's coming from. I want to get to the bottom of this."


Wow.

[23:00-25:00]

Jing turns her attention to finding out where all the pollution comes from. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority comes from human activity. PM2.5 has existed since the dawn of time, but it has accelerated as a result of human activity.

60% of PM2.5 in China comes from burning coal and oil. As nations like Germany and England industrialized, they faced dire consequences from the pollution they produced. Eventually, the United States and Japan faced similar crises. And today, developing countries such as India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are all wrestling with it.

China, with its massive scale and rapid development, has created massive consumption of oil and coal. Worse still, the combination of burning BOTH oil and coal has created unprecedented levels of toxicity.

[25:00-28:00]

If the whole world has to burn coal, Jing asks, why is China's particular pollution problem special? It turns out China has burned AS MUCH COAL AS THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.

The last time a nation burned this much coal, it was England. Here Jing goes through the history of the prosperity England enjoyed as it industrialized on the back of its coal consumption. But, she reminds her audience, the English paid a heavy, heavy price for doing so. In 1952, a short 63 years ago, a confluence of events created London's Great Smog, which ultimately killed 12,000 people and sickened about 100,000 others. The images of England from that time are not unlike China today.

[27:46]

After the crisis in 1952, Jing explains, Western countries cut back on their coal consumption significantly and were able to begin improving the air. But this happened just as China began the gradual process of opening itself up again. China had closed itself off for so long and had become so poor, it desperately needed something to catapult itself back into the global economy. China chose coal.

Where is all this coal being used? The vast majority is in Hebei province, a leading producer of steel in China.

Jing went to visit Tangshan, a large industrial city in Hebei, in October of last year. She went first with representatives from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and tried to get some drone footage to catch illegal activity ... but the haze was too heavy to get an actual view:

So they resorted to making some surprise visits. What they got on tape was shocking, to say the least:

Seriously, those flames are just straight-up burning, with fumes trapped under the ceiling.

[31:00]

After Jing got all this footage and evidence of illegal activity, none of these factories faced any discipline whatsoever. When she asked the MEP representative why, he referred her to their boss. She sits down with him for an interview where she asks him why nothing was done.

The reason he gives her? The factories have gotten too big to fail. He asks her if she could make the decision to shut them down and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, essentially destroying the economy of the entire province in the process.

[33:00]

While this was happening in northern China, Jing would often talk to her friend in the south who would claim to be relatively unscathed from the crisis. But Jing quickly points out that while the south didn't have to deal with coal, per se, if you look at a map of all of the steel plants (red), power plants (green), and concrete plants (blue) in the eastern coastal region of China, you see a different story. In Jiangsu province, for example, there's a power plant every 30 km.

[33:42]

Then she shows this map of which factories were emitting pollution above the legal limit.


Yiiiiiiiiiikes.

[34:00]

What are some other consequences of this massive coal consumption? What happens when you use up all of the cleaner coal? You burn the cheap stuff. And what does that cheap stuff, known as "lignite," look like? Check this out:


Getting coal in your stocking is bad enough. Imagine if you got a lump of this crap.

Lignite doesn't look anything like coal. But the real problem with it is that it burns so inefficiently that almost 50% of it burns up into ashes without producing any usable energy.

So what's the big deal with crappy coal? Well, in 2013, a factory opened in Harbin. On its first day of operation, the PM2.5 index hit 1,000.

This was a scene from Harbin that day:



At the time, there were no limits and no regulations. Factories just burned that crappy coal and set the fumes into the air. The 12 million people of Harbin were blanketed in haze, like a big concrete ceiling locking them in.

[35:39]

Jing points out that China isn't alone in using lignite. Germany is also a big user of it. The big difference is that coal, unlike lignite, can be cleaned. England washes 95% of its coal, while in China, less than half of the coal burned is washed, which produces all kinds of inefficient crap (to use a technical term). And it's killing people.

A lot of the coal in China is burned by individuals. In Beijing, the PM2.5 index is 25 times higher during the winter because of coal burning. She talks about a woman suffering from lung cancer who was coughing up blood. The woman was so weak she could not even shoo the flies that flew around her. So she asked people to put fly paper on her stomach.

Here Jing shares a photo of a man standing with pictures of all the family members he's lost to lung cancer:

And a photo showing that many houses simply have nobody left to live in them:

Cobwebs. Cobwebs everywhere.

We often hear that China is a developing country and protecting the environment is a luxury it can't afford right now. But those in China who are the most vulnerable are the poor and voiceless, and they need the rest of the country to stand up for them and protect them.

[37:00]

She then speaks with some experts who tell her that if China can reduce its coal consumption or clean its coal, that will massively reduce its pollution problem. If China simply properly enforced EXISTING standards, there would be a massive 60% drop in carbon emissions. The respect of the laws and regulations always comes down to execution.

[39:00]

If the coal pollution is taken care of, what else is exacerbating the problem? Oil.

The vast majority of oil usage is in automobiles. In 2010, Beijing added 800,000 cars in a SINGLE YEAR. So it makes sense that Beijing's #1 pollutant is emissions from automobiles.

Is it simply a matter of lots of cars equals lots of pollution? Not necessarily, Jing says. Tokyo has just as many cars but doesn't suffer from the same pollution. That's because Tokyo has great public transportation and only 6% of people drive. Compare that to 40% of people in Beijing ... and sitting in that traffic makes the 405 in L.A. look like the autobahn.

[41:30]

Chai Jing and her family agreed to only drive their car in a limited number of situations. Her husband commutes to work on his bike. But this is what the bike lane in their neighborhood looks like:

She makes a good point here, though: This is not an issue about Chinese people being particularly law-breaking — this is an issue of enforcement. Human nature is all pretty similar, she says; it's just whether the actions have consequences.

Next, she shows a picture of London before and after it regulated parking:

The left is before regulations, the middle is after introducing metered parking with penalties, and the image on the right? That's when they increased fees.

[42:27]

But car lovers have another question. If cars really drive the most pollution, why is it still so polluted in the middle of the night? Chai says she had the same question until officials gave her data that showed consistent spikes in pollution around midnight each night. Curious, she set out with a camera crew to get some answers.

As she joined the police in inspections, truck after 18-wheeler truck had stickers certifying approved levels of emissions filtering for diesel fuel, but none of them actually had the filters.



A single diesel truck with no filtering pollutes 500 times as much as trucks that meet regulatory standards. While diesel trucks account for only 17% of overall oil consumption, they produce about 70% of the pollution. And the exhaust from diesel pipes is even more toxic.

There are no greater victims here than the truck drivers themselves, who have among the highest rates of cancer. It seems cruel and unusual to go after the drivers for not having the filters, considering they used their hard-earned money to buy the trucks — trucks that have officially certified filtering stickers on them.

Jing concludes: Perhaps it's more reasonable to go after the car manufacturers.

[45:00]

Jing calls up one of these car manufacturers and presents her evidence that there are filter-certified stickers on trucks that don't have filters. He fumbles around without explanation until she finally gets him to outright admit that he's saying they put on the wrong stickers, and if someone wants the car, well, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

Industries always have their own excuses, Jing says, but if everyone knows this and we have the laws, why can't we go after them? She cites several laws and explains various technical loopholes that, unfortunately, allow this behavior to continue.

Her next step is figuring out which enforcing body should close the loopholes. And, again, each of the ministries passes the buck.

Everyone she talked to basically said, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

She interviews a guy from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and goes hard after him to get an explanation for why they don't prosecute people under these regulations.

He dances around the answer a bit, explaining that each group basically does its duty but the real enforcement falls in the middle. Jing is totally flabbergasted and tells him straight, "So all these years you guys have not used teeth at all in enforcing the law!" This is a Chinese phrase used to describe tough talk but no ability to follow through. His comeback? "Forget not using teeth. I don't want to even open my mouth for fear that people will see I don't have any teeth at all!"

Her face kinda says it all.

She then calls the truck manufacturer back, and he explains: "If the MEP were to enforce the laws, I guarantee you I'd meet regulations by tomorrow. But if they aren't coming after me, I would never meet requirements. Otherwise, if I were the only one meeting regulations, and the next guy is selling fraudulent cars, then I'd go out of business!" After that, when she asked the MEP if this was reasonable, he agreed.

Worse still, she says, they tested the quality of the diesel fuel at the truck stops. Chinese oil measured 25 times worse than European counterparts. Her friends sent her a complicated chart that basically said China's oil is routinely 3-4 times lower in quality. If China could bring it up even one level, it would drop emissions by 10%.

So what's the big deal with crappy oil? Fumes from evaporation. Evaporation? Is that a big deal? Well, her friend sent her this infrared video:

According to her, there's more pollution in Beijing from evaporated fumes than there is from car exhaust pipes. Worse still, the fumes are a big contributor of PM2.5 pollutants.

So why doesn't China raise its oil quality?

When Jing asked people in the oil industry, they told her it's because the government standards are so low that there's no incentive to improve.

When Jing went after the government, what answer did she get back? Over 67% of one of the standards committees is OIL INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES. One of the other committees is over 90%.

This is dizzying. No wonder things haven't gotten better. Nobody is taking responsibility, and there are so many loopholes in this thing.

[53:22]

Being the investigative reporter that she is, Jing went to China's director of oil standards, who, oh by the way, also used to be the chief engineer for the state-owned oil monopoly Sinopec:

Jing gets right to it and asks him why there are so many oil industry insiders setting the standards.

He claims that standards shouldn't be set by industry outsiders who don't understand the details.

Incredulous, she asks, "You're saying the Ministry of Environmental Protection doesn't understand?!" No, he says, he doesn't think they do.

Again, her face really says it all:

Who should set the standards? Jing tells him: "If you guys set the standards, and then when it comes time to talk about raising the quality, you guys say the national standards (that you set) are too low, and then you give all these excuses. People will no longer believe you."

She goes on to explain how other countries have transparent debate, thorough interaction between governing bodies and the oil industry, and bring these decisions to a vote. She wants to know if he would be open to that sort of a process. He claims to be.

Jing challenges him further — she asks if he would be more transparent with China's process. This is where he says something truly ridiculous: He thinks that the public already mistrusts the oil industry, so if he were to be more transparent, they would only see what they would want to see. So they're better off not having the discussion in the first place.

Why not go ahead and raise standards then? He claims there may be too many unknown ramifications and too much potential economic impact. He isn't ready to bear such responsibility.

Jing's reaction is spot-on:

Then she lists the incredible revenue and profits of Sinopec and asks him, "For such a large and profitable state-owned enterprise, why can't it step up to take more responsibility to society?"

(Are you sitting down?) He says: "Sinopec is big. Really big. Just like a person, it's very fat. Excessively fat."

(What does that even mean?!?!?!)

Jing concludes that all businesses optimize for their self-interests. That makes sense. That's the nature of industry, after all.

[56:25]

Jing was still curious about how other countries set their standards.

Environmental regulatory bodies set most countries' standards (although, yes, perhaps with input and conversation with industry).

So why are China's so heavily controlled by industry? Jing points to some historical reasons.

In the 1960s, gas was so rare that you'd see buses with giant bags of propane tied to the top:

When oil was first imported to China, the MEP didn't even exist, so standards were set by a subsidiary of Sinopec. Over the years, as things evolved, the heavy influence of Sinopec always remained.

But as the public awareness for environmental issues has grown, more and more pressure has been put on Sinopec and the MEP to raise standards. In the past couple of years, the mix has gotten better. Every country declares their values by which they strike that balance. Jing strikes a hopeful note, pointing out that the trends are starting to move in the right direction.

[58:32]

Another shocking thing Jing didn't realize when she started her research was that harbors and waterways were completely unregulated:

Boats like this one use the worst-of-the-worst oil — completely unfiltered. In the worst places in the harbors, you can actually reach your hand into the water and scoop out pollutants. Yuck.

Even if you're not near waterways or airports, another threat exists: construction vehicles. Jing and her crew followed a billowing truck. The truck stopped by a gas station, if you could call it that:

Jing went in after the driver, and when they encountered the manager, he refused to produce any permits. They kept arguing with him, she explains, and he kept giving ridiculous excuses. She kept countering before finally declaring that they were with MEP officials, and therefore had the right to demand this of him.

He counters, "You have the obligation, but you don't have the right." Jing and her crew were so stunned, they had no comeback for him.

From coal to oil, there is massive consumption. The quality is low. China doesn't clean it. When Chinese citizens emit, she says, they don't have the proper controls in place. She doesn't understand why. But, she says, the manager's crazy response suddenly brought it home.

[1:02:00]

(Mike's note: This part of the documentary features a bunch of interview scenes in which Jing calls all these guys out. They're all mansplaining and trying to talk down to this "little girl" with their political talking points, and she basically cuts through all their B.S., catches them way off guard, and connects all the ludicrous dots of what they say. They have weird, embarrassed faces the whole time. It's a really fun segment.)

When Jing interviewed this guy, she asked him if he would dare do construction without the proper permit. "No way," he says.

"If you had no operating license or tax ID, would you dare operate?" She asks. "No way. No way," he answers.

"Then why do you proceed with emissions without the proper permitting from the MEP?" she asks.

"Um, well, we're working on it. We'll have it eventually."

In perhaps the crowning interview, she shows a bunch of scenes of the utterly disgusting crap outside and talks about the reeking odors before sitting down with another guy, who she asks about the horrendous odors from outside.

Gross.

His answer?

To which the audience is all LOLZ:

She then breaks down how much you can save by not getting up to standards on steel, coal, diesel, and imported oil:


The graphic shows that it costs 100 yuan per ton to produce steel that meets standards. It costs 156 yuan to wash coal and 20,000 yuan to get trucks that are actually filtered.

10 years ago, Jing says, she'd wonder what that smell was floating through the air ... now she knows it's the smell of money.

[1:05:08]

Everyone's talking about environmental protection, but who wants to destroy our economy?

This chart shows GDP growth in China since 1980.

Jing returned to the steel plants that she first visited 10 years ago and was shocked to find that piles of steel that had been there for a long time were rusty.

She asked a worker how business was. He pointed around and asked her whether she saw anyone coming in to pick up goods. Nope. These businesses are selling the lowest end of products and competing entirely on volume.

[1:05:51]

Here, Jing shows what goes into producing one ton of steel:

It requires 600 kg of coal and 3-6 tons of water. The process produces 1.53 kg of sulfur dioxide and 1 kg of soot. Yiiiiiiiikes.

The profit from that one ton of steel? It's not even enough to buy an egg from a street vendor.

Yet all of these industries are still massively subsidized by the government. One company was receiving 2 billion yuan (~$318 million USD) every other year. So these zombie businesses are voraciously consuming resources while creating massive risk for the economy. Still, they continue to expand.

[1:07:49]

Jing recently received a letter from a young girl asking for her help. The nearby plant was threatening to tear down her home in order to expand. Her dad refused and was beat up.

That girl? She's the little girl Jing interviewed 10 years ago (as seen in the first 10 minutes of the documentary) who had never seen stars or clouds.

Jing asked her how her health was. She said: "I don't have the time to care about my health right now. I just want me and my family to have a place to live." Luckily, when Jing checked back with her, the boss of the plant had gotten arrested. So that particular disaster was averted.

But these industries continue to expand and receive support. The reason? Growth. Simply put, when urbanization increases by just 1%, it justifies all the production.

But a Tsinghua University professor told her that cities in China have also reached a tipping point. She thought of to her personal life and the continued urbanization around her. That expansion must be continuing...

Her friend encouraged her to return home and take a look.

[1:09:57]

What she found when she returned to Shanxi was construction site after construction site, real estate ad after real estate ad, and lots of empty buildings.


She stayed in what was billed as a five-star hotel — in the presidential suite, no less. But when she arrived, she was greeted by a flashlight in the unlit garage and led throughout the hallways of an unlit hotel to her room. It was so deserted that the hotel did not even have power.

When she returned to Beijing and discussed this, she learned that Shanxi was a microcosm of what was going on around the country.

China has 1.3 billion people, but if you added up all of the occupancies of all of these buildings, it would equal 3.4 billion.

Jing speaks romantically about the positive impact urbanization has had in her own life — she was able to leave small-town Shanxi and come to Beijing to study and start a career. If it weren't for urbanization, she says, she'd probably still be in Shanxi flipping an abacus and eking out a life.

Cities gave us freedom and gave China 30 years of incredible prosperity. But if we don't change our model, she says, experts predict China will be consuming such large amounts of resources and producing so much pollution that it will run out of capacity to absorb the emissions before it runs out of the resources.

The haze is just getting started. Traffic is just getting started.

[1:14:49]

During the APEC summit (during which the government underwent massive efforts to clean the air), Jing's husband brought her to a place where, in his youth, his father often took him to go ice skating, swimming, and fishing.

He felt the beauty and elegance of this proud, historic city. They sat there soaking it in like young kids looking at the last piece of candy, she says, knowing that if they didn't eat it, it would melt ... but if they ate it, it would be no more. It's that mixed feeling of excitement, hesitation, and wistfulness.

She shows a powerful, nostalgic sequence of people recalling the Beijing of old, the Beijing where they grew up:


Beautiful.

[1:15:53]

She asked an expert, "What would it take to maintain the blue skies we enjoyed during the APEC summit?" He said that relative to 2013, China would need to reduce sulfur dioxide by 47%, nitrogen oxides by 52%, and PM2.5 by 44% — basically, remove over 50% of the pollutants.

[1:17:30]

As dire as the situation in China seems, Jing turns to history to find hope. With all of its traffic and its geographical layout, she realizes that the Beijing of today is not dissimilar to the Los Angeles of old.

She shows a picture of a gag gift from back in the day that jokingly captures its former reality:

But, she points out, while the number of cars in L.A. has tripled since 1970, emissions have dropped by 75%.

Jing went to L.A. to find out how this was possible. She observed the lack of public transportation, much like Beijing, and the heavy reliance on cars. And, of course, the L.A. traffic:

But look at those clear skies!

Then she witnessed checkpoint inspections, much like back in China. All the trucks are required to install filters that reduce particle emissions by 99%.

Jing witnessed them catching a driver who did not have the filter installed — he was fined $1,000. She found out the driver takes home about $4,000 per month. He was fined a quarter of his income for not having the filter installed. If a driver has multiple offenses, the driver is not able to renew the truck's tags, eliminating his or her income. The miracle of law enforcement!

A California official tells her that 45% of the people want to be good citizens and comply, 45% do it because they don't want to get caught and fined, and 10% say: "I don't care. Catch me if you can."

She cites the high number of citations and fines for non-compliance:

Jing reiterates that human nature is the same everywhere. No matter where you go, there are going to be those who want to cut corners. But if proper enforcement can bring 90% of the people into line, there is hope. And just like they said at the car factories in China, if there's no enforcement, 90% of the cars coming off the factory line will be out of compliance.

[1:22:40]

Jing explains that back when the U.S. was raising emission standards, the old industry complained. Car manufacturers said it would destroy their business and threaten the economy. They sued the EPA and fought the change.

But! In the meantime, foreign manufacturers raised their hands and said they could meet those higher standards. Once the U.S. companies heard this, they quickly got in line with the changes, even though they ceded a large chunk of the market share along the way.

Jing went to the EPA and asked if it faced accusations and pressure for destroying domestic industries. The EPA rep's answer: "Environmental protection is not a burden, but an opportunity for innovation. If you're merely trying to protect your losses, you will not be able to innovate. Government's role is to set the standard and a level playing field. If you create competition, it will win the market."

[1:23:28]

Next, Jing asks, "If China is such a mass consumer of coal, how will we ever wean ourselves off it?"

People say it took London 40-50 years to recover from the Great Smog of '52. So will it take China as long? Jing says she points those people to this chart showing that ACTUALLY the most significant drop in pollution came immediately after the crisis:

She went to London to find out more.

With strict regulations and aggressive enforcement, London was able to turn a massive tragedy around.

Jing shows provocative footage of coal plants being blown up and destroyed, plants that once offered the same tens of thousands of jobs that the plants in China offer today.

The percentage of GDP that the coal industry was responsible for shrunk massively as well. She talks to officials who explain that 100 years ago, London was a place that had a million miners, compared to tens of thousands in China. An industry on its way out was replaced by new industries coming in. And in doing so, London reclaimed its blue skies.

[1:26:14]

Interestingly, on her trip to London, the most compelling artifact she found was a video made by the Gas Council called "Guilty Chimneys."

Amazing what a little competition will do.

In London, Jing was told that one of the keys to turning the corner is for the government to not subsidize those old, crumbling industries that are on their way out, but to instead invest in innovation in new opportunities and a competitive playing field that will create the next wave of jobs and industries.

Jing also wondered why China wasn't more aggressively pursuing natural gas as an energy source. In her research, she found that there's high potential for natural gas, but it's not being drilled for.

Curious, she asked an expert why that is. He explained that the largest natural gas producing country, the United States, has 6,300 natural gas and petroleum companies. China has only three, and 70% of production comes from one company. The U.S. has 160 natural gas pipeline companies. China, again, only has three, and 70% of natural gas production lives in, you guessed it, a single company: Sinapec.

If China opens those markets, it could create competition and flip the script.

[1:30:22]

As Jing reflects on her investigative process, she says that China's reform and opening back up after being choked off from the global economy for so long wasn't what she originally envisioned as a solution. She pictured it as a small bird hatching from an egg, immediately becoming a marvelous new life.

But through her research, she learned it's more like a cicada shedding its old skin, inching out bit by bit, and energy is the last bit of skin to shed, the last part being particularly difficult.

She says energy is an area that's been rife with corruption. She shows this chart of recently deposed corrupt officials in the energy sector:

That is ... a lot of corruption.

To change it, she says, requires a shift in how the government views the environment and potential energy opportunities, as well as the systemic changes needed to make a difference.

But the government can't turn this thing around all on its own.It relies on each and every one of us. Our choices. Our will.

[1:31:38]

Jing says she has learned the power of transparency and has been encouraged in recent years with the government's investment and transparency in reporting air quality indexes. But, she says, we should not waste that money.

She brings up a downloadable app that shows factories that are exceeding emissions standards and encourages people to report these by calling a hotline or calling them out on social media.

Last year, Jing joined some community meetings where they challenged officials to require these companies to self-report emissions levels. Finally, officials conceded and companies were required to self-report or face a fine. And citizens had the right to submit an information request to compel them to report.

Tides are shifting, momentum is building.

[1:33:40]

Jing then shares an animation that demonstrates what everyday citizens can do to live greener lives and report offensive behavior through hotlines, or even @-replying to the department directly.

Jing shares a recent story of when she walked by a construction site in her neighborhood and noticed a giant pile of unsecured dirt.

She knew that as the wind blew, it would kick up particles in the air. So she approached the construction workers and spoke to the boss, and they immediately covered it up. From start to finish, just a few minutes.

The worker later told her that his boss saw she had a camera phone and feared getting exposed online, so he reacted quickly.

Chai Jing finishes her story on a really strong and bold note, rallying people into action. This truly is a remarkable piece of filmmaking by a remarkable woman.

via Visit Sweden (used with permission)

A Swedish woman taking things into her own hands.

True

Sweden has existed for over 1,000 years, but travelers across the globe are confused because other places, inspired by the country’s untouched beauty and joyously inclusive culture, have taken its name.

Seven other places in the world call themselves Sweden, so to distinguish itself from the name-alikes, the Kingdom of Sweden is taking a bold, historic step that no country has before. It’s become the first to apply to trademark its name with the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

Visit Sweden likens the country’s problem to a luxury brand that has to contend with dupes, knockoffs, or bootlegs that fall short of the glory of the genuine article.


“It’s flattering that other places want to be called Sweden, but let’s be honest, there should only be one. Our Sweden. The one with the Northern Lights, endless forests, and the world’s best flat-pack furniture,” says Susanne Andersson, CEO at Visit Sweden.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

By trademarking its name, Sweden will make things much less confusing for travelers worldwide. It’d be a shame for someone looking to visit Sweden’s majestic Lapland to mistakenly wind up in a place with no reindeer, Aurora Borealis, or cloudberries to be found.

The world-class research team at Visit Sweden knew it had to act when it realized that other destinations with the same name had tripped up travelers. People looking to vacation in Portland, Oregon, have accidentally wound up in Portland, Maine. Travelers yearning to experience the fall in Manchester, New Hampshire, have been deplaning in Manchester, England. “It happens more than you think!” the researchers admitted.


sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation The Northern Lights in Sweden. via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Jann Lipka/imagebank.sweden.se

The E.U. Intellectual Property Office must act swiftly and allow Sweden to trademark its name so that travelers worldwide don’t miss the opportunity to experience an utterly unique country known for its serene landscapes, commitment to deep relaxation and personal freedom.

No one should ever miss out on staying on one of Sweden’s 267,570 islands, more than any other country. The Swedish archipelagos offer luxurious glamping, peaceful hikes, tranquil solitude and awe-inspiring, pristine nature.

sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation A woman camping in the Swedish archipelago.via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Anders Klapp/imagebank.sweden.se


Sweden is a beautiful place to visit all year round, with bright summers, colorful falls, vibrant springs and dark, crisp winters. It is also a place to delight your tastebuds with a cuisine centered on healthy, locally sourced produce, with some preparation methods dating back to the Viking era.

The original Sweden is a place where one can relish Old World European history while also enjoying the modern pleasures of the most progressive countries in the world. Travelers can be whisked back into history by visiting the Naval Port of Karlskona, a well-preserved European naval town from 1680. Or, enjoy cutting-edge design, delicacies, art, music and culture in hip metropolitan destinations such as Stockholm or Sweden’s “coolest city,” Gothenburg.

Did we mention Sweden has an ABBA museum? Wait till the other 7 Swedens find out about that.

As you can see, Sweden is an incredibly unique destination that cannot be duplicated. It would be a tragedy for anyone intending to visit the original Sweden to mistakenly find themselves in a name-alike place that lacks its Scandinavian charm. You can do your part to stop the confusion by signing a petition to let Sweden trademark Sweden at Visit Sweden (the original).

sweden, visit sweden, swedish vacation A Swedish Midsommar celebration. via Visit Sweden, Photographer: Stefan Berg/Folio/imagebank.sweden.se

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

Sponsored

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

Education

Listen to famous Victorians having a ball recording their voices for the very first time

Getting drunk and speaking into a phonograph used to be prime entertainment.

AI generated image/Photo credit: Canva, Levin C. Handy/Wikipedia

It's so cool to listen to them ponder a future that would become our present.

The latter part of the Victorian era brought us the invention of photography, and along with it a more realistic—though not completely accurate—glimpse into what life of the time period looked like. And yet, the same can’t be said for what 19th century folks sounded like.

While technically the first recording of a human voice did happen in 1860 (very early on in the Victorian era), it wouldn’t be until the 1880s, when Thomas Edison perfected the technology with his new-and-improved wax cylinder phonograph, that voice recording would become more of a commonplace concept.

In a video created by Kings and Things, we are thrust back in time to when this device made its debut, and subsequently captured the voice of many Victorian era icons. During an evening soirée held in London, George Gouraud, an American employee of Edison, decided to delight his guests by inviting them to record their own personalized message to Edison.

This novel form of entertainment would always start the same way—Gouraud would first toast the guest before prompting them to speak. Needless to say, things would quite quickly turn into drunken fun.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

But there was also a bit of unintentional foreshadowing that came about. Composer Sir Arthur Sullivan, for example, all but predicted the kind of impact this technology would have on music.

"For myself I can only say that I am astonished and somewhat terrified at the results of this evening's experiments: astonished at the wonderful power you have developed, and terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put on record forever,” he said.

Gouraud would hold many demonstrations of the phonograph, both at his home in London and at other social events with elite guests, hoping to record the “voices of the great of all nations, to include alike someday the voices of the living and the dead” so that they might be available for future generations.

Getting that kind of extensive archive, however, wasn’t always easy. Even today, many of us get choked up at the thought of talking on the telephone. The nerves were understandably similar, if not worse, for Victorians not only interacting with a daunting device for the first time, but also the concept of their voice being immortalized.

“It is curious to see how the most distinguished speakers behave when they find themselves in front of the photograph and speak into it,” Gouraud noted. Even the famously confident stage actor Sir Henry Irving apparently became "frightened out of his own voice.”

Eventually other “recordists” were brought on to replicate Gouraud’s work of demonstrating the phonograph. And one of them recorded one of the most well known and influential Victorians of them all, the founder of modern nursing herself—Florence Nightingale.

Here’s what the Lady with the Lamp had to say:

“When I am no longer even a memory, just a name, I hope my voice may perpetuate the great work of my life.”

Other notable recordings include politician William Gladstone and Queen Victoria herself—though her recording was replayed to the point of damaging the quality, and it’s hard to accurately detect whose voice it might belong to. It would be much, much later that any of the recordings could be replayed without any degradation.

This entire video is a great reminder that while we might not ever be able to truly time travel (although here’s hoping!) , that doesn't mean we won’t continue finding new ways to experience the past. It’s also interesting to think what folks a hundred years from now will think of the many, many questionable recordings of ourselves that will live on forever via the internet.

Check out more of Kings and Things' content here.

Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness explains one way the rich get richer.

Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots. The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.)

The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream. A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.

Author Terry Pratchett is no longer with us, but his writing lives on and is occasionally shared on his official social media accounts. Recently, his Twitter page shared the "Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" from Pratchett's 1993 book "Men At Arms." This boots theory explains that one reason the rich are able to get richer is because they are able to spend less money.

If that sounds confusing, read on:

Pratchett wrote:

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

In other words, people who have the money to spend a little more upfront often end up spending less in the long run. A $50 pair of boots that last five years essentially cost you $10 a year. But if you can only afford $10 upfront for a pair of boots that last six months, that's what you buy—and you end up paying twice as much over a five-year period.

There are so many areas in which this principle applies when you're poor. Buying in bulk saves you money over the long run, but you have to be able to afford the bulk cost up front. A reliable car that doesn't require regular repairs will cost more than a beater, but if the beater is all you can afford, that's what you're stuck with. You'll likely spend the same or more over time than if you'd bought a newer/higher quality car, but without the capital (or the credit rating) to begin with, you don't have much choice.

People who can afford larger down payments pay lower interest rates, saving them money both immediately and in the long run. People who can afford to buy more can spend more with credit cards, pay off the balances, build up good credit and qualify for lower interest rate loans.

There are lots of good financial decisions and strategies one can utilize if one has the ability to build up some cash. But if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can't.

Climbing the financial ladder requires getting to the bottom rung first. Those who started off anywhere on the ladder can make all kinds of pronouncements about how to climb it—good, sound advice that really does work if you're already on the ladder. But for people living in poverty, the bottom rung is just out of reach, and the walls you have to climb to get to it are slippery. It's expensive to be poor.

When people talk about how hard it is to climb out of poverty, this is a big part of what they mean. Ladder-climbing advice is useless if you can't actually get to the ladder. And yet, far too many people decry offering people assistance that might help them reach the ladder so they can start taking advantage of all that great financial advice. Why? Perhaps because they were born somewhere on the ladder—even if it was the bottom rung—and aren't aware that there are people for whom the ladder is out of reach. Or perhaps they're unaware of how expensive it is to be poor and how the costs of poverty keep people stuck in the pit. Hopefully, this theory will help more people understand and sympathize with the reality of being poor.

Money makes money, but having money also saves you money. The more money you have, the more wealth you're able to build not only because you have extra money to save, but also because you buy higher quality things that last, therefore spending less in the long run. (There's also the reality that the uber-wealthy will pay $5,000 for shoes they'll only wear a few times, but that's a whole other kind of boots story.)

Thanks, Terry Pratchett, for the simple explanation.


This story originally appeared two years ago.

Parents reveal 'must have' items to keep in your 'car kit'

Once you have a baby it doesn't take long for you to realize that you're no longer able to just quickly leave the house. There are a million and one things you have to toss into a bag before you can even grab the baby and head out the door. Eventually the diaper bag is down to a science where certain things just "live" in the bag after months of experience learning the most needed items.

But kids don't need diaper bags forever. They eventually eat without spitting up, no longer need a binky or their extra lovey to carry with them everywhere. So the bag gets a little smaller until you realize, bigger kids still need a bunch of crap that is infrequent enough that you can leave it in the car but frequent enough that you can't leave it at home. That's when you graduate from the diaper bag or toddler backpack to having a parenting "car kit."

A parenting car kit contains all the essentials that your child might need while in the car for road trips and trips around town. Since every kid and family are different most car kits will be different but there are a few common items that parents swear by on keeping handy. If you're a newer parent just heading into that in between age of not quite toddler but not quite preschooler, you may want to grab a pen to jot down some ideas if you don't already ave a car kit packed.

Start with the essentials

Depending on the type of car you have, you may want to use a tote bag, small duffle bag or a shallow plastic tote to keep everything contained. Since the kit's permanent home will be in your vehicle it should be in a container that is not in the way but is large enough to fit your needs. Aside from something to put the items in, the most common item to keep inside it is a first aid kit, which can be restocked as needed. Other parents on weighed in on what they felt like were important must haves to keep on hand.

brown duffel bag beside white and brown wooden chair Photo by Erol Ahmed on Unsplash

Car sickness and stomach bugs happen so it's better to be prepared

Vomit happens when you have kids, so several parents insist on keeping items in your car to make your life a little easier. One parent writes, "We use an ice cream bucket (and have a lid in case we have to use it). My kids get sick way too often, so we also keep an extra change of clothes for both, disinfecting wipes, Febreeze, soap to clean the bucket in a bathroom sink."

Other parents suggested gallon Ziploc bags or the vomit bags in the back of airplane seats but instead of...borrowing them from an airline, someone suggests ordering them online, "We learned the hard way. You can order them on Amazon, they're not expensive, and they're worth every dime when you're not cleaning vomit out of your car vents with a toothbrush."

vomiting season 21 GIF by The BachelorGiphy

Don't forget the changing seasons and extra shoes and...more

One mom shares that she swaps out clothes depending on the season and is sure to keep a spare pair of shoes, "I have a toddler, I keep....Change of clothes, cheap flipflops for spare shoes, I rotate out summer/winter things (sunscreen/hat/bubbles/bathing suit/towel and winter hat/gloves/sweater/snowpants), books (Especially I-spy books), bandaid's, wet wipes, chalk, extra little cheap toys/entertainment encase stuck in traffic for a long time (have previously been stuck in traffic 4 hours because there was an accident on the hwy. I learned my lesson, bring things to entertain the child.), coloring book/crayons, extra blankets, inflatable ball to play pass with, toilet paper, fold out potty."

Schitts Creek Comedy GIF by CBCGiphy

Picture it, the theme is wet wipes

If you were curious if parents thought you needed wet wipes, you can't stop worrying because they do. They say you need all of the wet wipes or baby wipes. "Baby wipes, no matter how old they are. Towel, hair brush, 1st aid kit, spare clothes for all of us, pocket knife, coloring books, crayons, regular books, and a gallon ziplock filled with old party favor extras in case of emergency," one parent says.

Another parent writes, "My youngest is 10 and our eldest is 25. Is still always have baby wipes. Super convenient!" While someone else shares, "Mine are 3 and 5 year old boys. I have a pack of wipes (you ALWAYS need wipes), change of clothes for both kids, emergency portable potty, and two empty metal water bottles (because we often go on spontaneous adventures and we sometimes buy drinks that they want to split)."

Happy Wipes GIF by Huggies BrandGiphy

Or you can opt out

Not all parents are interested in keeping extra things in their car for "just in case." Just like all car kits are individual to each family, so is the need for one. Some kids are excellent in cars, never getting car sick or having accidents, while others require more, with one parent saying, "I’m baffled by this 'parent kit' stuff. Like my kid is 9 and we’ve survived a lot without most of this stuff."

Several parents share that they prefer not having additional things in their car and it has worked out fine while others explain that they didn't think to keep things in their car and other parents saved them in a pinch from their own car kits.

"These had never crossed my mind before. And then, when he was 2, my son suddenly threw up as I was carrying him into a restaurant and this random mom was immediately at my side with vomit bags and wipes. That woman is still my hero and I now always have an extra vomit bag in the car at a minimum," one person says.

Parenting is such an individual thing that heavily depends on your child's personality and physical needs. But if you do have a car kit or want to make one, it might just be you who is coming to the rescue of a flustered mom still learning what her child needs available while in the car.

Carl Sagan's keynote address at the 5th Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU.

Carl Sagan, the legendary astrophysicist and science communicator, was best known for his incredible ability to express complicated concepts in a way that the everyday person could understand. He did so most notably as host of PBS’s groundbreaking “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" from 1980 to 1981.

Sagan was also a brilliant futurist who was way ahead of his time. In 1961, he predicted that the clouds of Venus might be home to life, an idea that has gained traction over the past few years. He also predicted many of America's current problems in 1995 and correctly claimed that one day AI would be used for psychotherapy back in the '70s.

He was also ahead of his time when sounding the alarm about Climate Change, evidenced by a 1990 speech he gave at the 5th Emerging Issues Forum. In the keynote address, he said that America should treat the climate crisis as seriously as it did the Cold War. Sagan’s speech was delivered a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which concluded the icy, 5-decade conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

For some context, in 1990, only 30% of Americans were worried about global warming or the greenhouse effect. Today, 54% describe climate change as a “major threat” to the country’s well-being.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

“The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars,” Sagan says, adding that with that amount of money, one could own everything in the country, minus the land.

“How certain was it that the Russians were going to invade? Was it 100% certain? Guess not since they never invaded. What if it was only, let’s say 10% certain? What would advocates of big military buildup have said? We must be prudent. It’s not enough to count on only the most likely circumstance," Sagan continues.

“I ask my friends who are comfortable with that argument, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t that same argument apply to Global Warming? You don’t think it’s 100% likely? Fine. You are entitled to think that. If it’s only a small probability of it happening since the consequences are so serious, don’t you have to make some serious investment to prevent it or mitigate it? I think there’s a double standard of argument working and I don’t think we should permit it.”



Sagan would then list the steps we can take to mitigate the effects of climate change, including eliminating CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), increasing fuel efficiency in cars and trucks, seeking out new alternative energy sources, dealing with the global population crisis and planting trees. "A tree is an engine for taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and it does it. It’s not the only thing a tree does, but that is one of the things that trees are good for and it's especially relevant to this issue,” Sagan says.

Sagan’s solutions are the same ones we discuss today, although fears of a global population crisis have waned over the years.

Sagan concluded his address by comparing the dangers of global warming to those faced by the U.S. during the Cold War and making an argument that many support today: fighting climate change is also good economic policy.

"So, what I say to those who complain that it is too uncertain–beyond pointing out the standards that were applied to the Cold War ought to be applied here–I say look, every one of these steps makes good sense, makes good economic sense,” Sagan says. “And think of all of the industries that are implied by what I have just said, especially alternative energy sources. There is money to be made in developing a technology which will appropriately address greenhouse warming."

You can watch the entire address here:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com