In case you missed this past week, one of the more interesting events was the extension of Cherry’s save-the-bees storyline for a second week. Yet not too surprising, given how the first week ended. The big climactic confrontation between Cherry (and her pro-bees coalition) versus the Sunny Soleil Society’s anti-bee position—as implemented through their proxy, Honest Ernest—culminated in a rather tawdry yelling match based on hyperbolic claims, rather than the issue at hand. Furthermore, there seemed to be no real incentive in trying to work out a practical compromise. Kind of like Congress, in other words. Mark’s appearance last week and his involvement this week helped ensure this situation devolved into a brief and less-than exciting fight. The whole point of Cherry’s storyline was to save the bees. But, as others have also pointed out, we didn’t get to see bees saved. We didn’t really get to see any ending at all. Why not? Was Rivera riffing on the Trail Tradition of Mark immediately jumping back home once the current danger has been resolved? If so, Rivera jumped the gun. But let’s jump to the hot topic of the day:
At least let’s give Jules Rivera some fist pumps for bringing Mark more into current environmental concerns (as opposed to just the usual poachers, animal kidnappers, and other small-time riffraff), even when she is heavy-handed about it. BTW, the title panel today is a good concept, though I think the burned tree letters look more like tuffs of wheat. Still, the overall effect is dramatic and clear enough.
It is understandable that, living in California, Rivera concentrates on forest fires, as opposed to bringing in additional areas of concern, such as the polar icecaps. I’m not here to be political or nitpick over the numbers. I am not a scientist, though I have watched some on TV. However, while the scientific consensus supports Mark’s overall position, they may not support some of his reasoning.
If I’m reading it correctly, EPA data (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) show energy production (electricity) and land utilization (farming, development) make up the largest economic contributors to climate change, followed by industry, transportation, and others. So, greedy corporations are not the biggest contributors, but are far from the smallest. In fact, I think governments around the world are the actual biggest contributors, as they pass the laws and policies under which virtually all economic production functions. When there are lax laws, there will be those who take advantage.
Ugh. Evil corporations and profits again.
Climate change is caused by the investments we have all made in fossil fuels. We aren’t building any new coal fired power plants but we will keep using the ones we have for a generation or more. Same goes for cars and gasoline. We invest in the best systems we have at the time, though they last a long time. Corporations simply make money facilitating our choices.
Is Tesla responsible for global warming??
Well, sure. By this logic, everything and everybody contributes to some degree, even animals. Teslas are made of metal, rubber, plastic, etc, all of which have to be manufactured, assembled, etc. They have to be recharged, thus using our electrical grid, which is provided by all of those nasty power plants. It all contributes. There are no free rides. The answer is not simply total abstinence, so much as finding better ways to convert harmful gasses down to levels that the planet can naturally scrub, as it has done up until recently. Conversion from fossil fuels continues and will get better. But it’s the cozy relationship between lawmakers and the business world that extends and delays more meaningful progress. Businesses are just macrocosms of ourselves. When cities stop enforcing traffic laws, what is the result?