Jeremy Rifkin is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and the author of seventeen bestselling books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy, the workforce, society, and the environment. Rifkin holds a degree in economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a degree in international affairs from Tufts University.
In the video below Rifkin talks about what he thinks we can do to create a more empathetic and sustainable society:
“Neoliberalism not merely as an economic system, but also as a mode of education in which market values supplant civic values, and the obligations of citizenship are reduced to the practice of consuming, the accumulation of capital, and the endless disposing of goods and people rendered as redundant and excess.” -- Henry A. GirouxJeremy Rifkin is also the founder and chairperson of the Third Industrial Revolution Global CEO Business Roundtable, comprised of more than 100 of the world’s leading renewable energy companies, construction companies, architectural firms, real estate companies, IT companies, power and utility companies, and transport and logistics companies.
Rifkin’s global economic development team is working with cities, regions, and national governments to develop master plans to transition their economies into post-carbon Third Industrial Revolution infrastructures.
In 2009, Rifkin and his team developed Third Industrial Revolution master plans for the cities of San Antonio, Texas and Rome, Italy, to transition their economies into the first post carbon urban areas in the world.
Rifkin was also instrumental in founding the Green Hydrogen Coalition. The GHC consists of 13 environmental and political organizations (including Greenpeace and MoveOn.Org) that are committed to building a renewable hydrogen-based economy.
Posts
10 comments:
You left this part out... In the U.S., Rifkin was instrumental in founding the Green Hydrogen Coalition. The GHC consists of 13 environmental and political organizations (including Greenpeace and MoveOn.Org) that are committed to building a renewable hydrogen based economy.
Now we know what side of the bread he has buttered...
does that make him wrong? typical right-wing tactic, talk about who his friends are instead of what they present. Old hat.
Did you notice that he was trained at one of the best schools for business and economics? Not exactly the luddite hippie type huh.
But I bet you are smarter than him as well....
ps-added your blub to the post.. thanks!
Hydrogen’s Dirty Details: Here
The coalition favors the use of wind and solar energy to power the reactions that extract hydrogen from substances like water.
WOW! Talk about your designer "bottled water" energy product. First you have to overcome the cost of producing wind energy and then ADD the cost of producing hydrogen with it...
Did you notice that he was trained at one of the best schools for business and economics? Not exactly the luddite hippie type huh.
But I bet you are smarter than him as well....
I am an engineer... so please forgive me for taking into consideration little "details" like "physics".
Not sure what you are talking about?
Energy production has costs, ok. I agree. Don’t know what bottled water has to do with hydrogen production though?
Energy includes physics, um, ok. I knew that as well.
I'm not qualified to know if Hydrogen energy production is easy or a good idea. I posted a link above that criticizes that technology. But I know that I’m not against energy production or technology – especially if it is more ecologically sustainable.
Hydrogen technology is wonderful. It has a high energy density and doesn't pollute when used. But once you've already extracated the energy from the wind and converted it into electricity, why would you want to pay another energy conversion inefficiency tax by turning it into hydrogen unless you had no use for that electrical energy at that precise moment and needed to store it in a more convenient form?
And if I can make hydrogen just as easily from carbon or nuclear sources at 1/20th the cost of making it from wind or solar, why wouldn't I make it THAT way (black-hydrogen vice green) instead? It would jump-start the whole hydrogen-power economy and bring all those economies of scale associated with hydrogen production and fuel cell usage down immediately, instead of twenty years from now.
But the Left doesn't want to see hydrogen replace gasoline. Why? Because it's the energy "Holy Grail"... immaculate and non-polluting. And so long as there's a Holy Grail, they can make false promises about "green" futures and pooh-pooh coal and oil and nuclear as "dirty" and "bad" and tax them heavily.
Only guess what, the "green" future NEVER comes because the "dirty" energy sources will ALWAYS be cheaper and there will always be other "causes" to spend "tax" money derived from "evil/bad" rich capitalists on.
It's what philosopher Isaiah Berlin termed "the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
Today's choices for the "great goods" were "cheap" and "green"... but green will never come until cheap is entirely gone.
"Green economy" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "expensive cheapness".
Yul...'expensive cheapness'
Like Apple products?
Post a Comment