Confessions of an Environmentalist | 5-Minute Videos

Imagine you dedicated your life to environmentalism and all of its assumptions. Then imagine you realize those assumptions are all wrong. What would you do? Entrepreneur Brian Gitt tells his personal story and where it led him.

#environment #environmental #prageru

Script:

Just because you feel like you’re doing the right thing doesn’t mean you are. I have dedicated most of my life to protecting the environment. But I went about it the wrong way. I thought I was acting morally, protecting the well-being of people and the planet. In fact, I was harming both.

I believed solar and wind power were the future—our only hope of avoiding environmental catastrophe. Fossil fuels were the enemy, extracted from the earth by greedy companies plundering the land, polluting the air, and destroying ecosystems.

Keeping the wilderness as pristine as possible was my passion.

Ever since I was a teenager, I loved the outdoors. I led mountaineering expeditions in Alaska, spent months backpacking in the Rockies, and climbed the highest peaks in national parks. I only took jobs that I thought would protect the environment.

I started a company that built composting systems for cities and businesses.

I served as executive director of an organization that championed green construction policies.

And then I became CEO of a consulting firm that worked on making homes more energy efficient.

At that time, the Obama administration had earmarked billions of dollars in federal funding to create jobs in the energy sector, and my company won multi-year contracts valued at over $60 million.

I thought I was making a real difference in the world. I was surrounded by smart, successful, ambitious people who shared my beliefs and my heartfelt desire to change things. And my company had lots of money and lots of government support.

There was only one problem: our project to build more energy-efficient homes was an utter failure.

Making home energy improvements was much too expensive for middle-class families—even with generous government subsidies. Wealthy families, by contrast, loved the program. They got subsidies they didn’t need and the environmental cred they craved. In reality, though, we weren’t achieving much of anything—except wasting taxpayer money.

That’s not how the government saw it. The government celebrated the project as a big win.

It was a great photo op for politicians. But I knew the program didn’t deliver the jobs and energy savings we had promised.

Maybe I should have accepted the props and kept doing what I was doing.

But I couldn’t.

I began re-examining everything I had believed about energy and the environment.

It didn’t take me long to realize that I had been living in a fantasy world: perfectly fine for making me feel good about myself and my mission, but perfectly useless for making real environmental change.

The more research I did, the more I realized that my project was just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

We’re wasting trillions of dollars on the false hope that wind and solar power are going to replace fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas. Yet over the last 20 years, the world’s dependence on these fuels has declined by only three percentage points—from 87% to 84%.

That’s a pathetic return on our “investment.”

If we’re serious about confronting climate change, protecting the environment, and helping people climb out of energy poverty around the world, we need to stop chasing fantasies. Instead, it’s time to honestly examine all the costs and all the benefits of every energy source—wind, solar, oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Greenhouse gas emissions are a concern but not the only thing we need to consider when discussing energy and the environment. Here are five principles to help us evaluate the best energy options to protect both people and the planet.

One. Reliability: A reliable energy source provides power 24/7/365. States and countries that have doubled down on renewable sources face energy rationing and power blackouts.

Two. Affordability: The cost of energy affects the cost of everything else. If energy isn’t affordable, ordinary people can’t heat and cool their homes, and businesses can’t make the products we want and need.

[dresendrei]

I am on my last year of my bachelor's degree in renewable energy, and I have come to the same conclusion as this gentleman. I was chasing solar and wind unicorns when I first began on my bachelor. I gradually realized that total reliance on renewables is next to impossible. This man is correct in stating that we should consider both renewable and non-renewable energy when expanding the energy sector. We shouldn't be tunnel visioned on emissions alone. There are many factors to consider, and simple solutions are rare.

[shumann]

Thank you for breaking out of your box and asking questions. Conservation needs to be taught as well. Buying a car every two years, or upgrading your phone every year, always getting the newest tech only adds to the waste and environmental problems we have today. Keep your car until it dies. Keeping your electronic devices as long as they work is a way everyone can contribute. Great Video! Thank you for sharing,

[bretnicholson]

“Realistic and practical”. What a concept!

[jl]

Well said. I work in the energy sector, and this is a great synopsis of real-life energy challenges. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "There are no perfect solutions--only trade-offs."

[michaellowe]

There are 2 inputs into the cost of anything: labor and energy. If renewable energy were cheaper, we would already be using it, and no subsidies would be needed. The very fact that it requires subsidies to get people to use it means that it takes more resources to produce.

[russtang]

The real problem is environmentalists are more interested in feeling like they’re doing good than they are in actually doing good

[Kpar]

Thank you, Brian for coming out in public like this. It takes genuine courage to admit you were mistaken, and to risk the wrath of your former colleagues, who still cannot accept they have been conned.

[drsudz]

The old saying is, "If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you have no brain." My life has followed the same path as yours, Brian.

[danielclawson]

BRAVO! An honest, thoughtful person from the environmental side of the equation! Most of those folks are all too happy to take the $$$ and run... (like the IPCC and the UN)

[josephgaviota]

4:46 The more land we need to generate power, *_*the more wildlife habitat we lose.*_* A 1, 000MW Nuclear power plant would need approximate 1 sq mile; Solar farms need 75x more land to produce the same energy; wind need 360x more land(!).
Jaw dropping.

[shannonhawkins]

If only our illustrious leaders would listen to the wisdom of this Scientist.

[PatrickFerryCoach]

That was a perfect summary of all the perspectives and scientist interviews I've heard. Meaning people who care more about improving results vs care about ideology and politics

[TheWaxworker]

Environmentalism -- The protection and purification of the environment - - is a good thing. But to do this effectively we have to rely on rational, objective science. Brian's presentation is a good explanation of how we need to keep everything in perspective and be practical about the ways to go about improving the environment for everyone.

[JustinRCampbell]

Yes! It is much more complicated than people realize

[JohnDoe-qwgc]

You are to be commended for your ability to self-reflect and honestly evaluate an issue. The problem with the energy debate is that half of the developed world is delusional. If you expect "climate change deniers" to open their eyes, you gotta start with yourself and understand that you've been lied to about the capabilities of wind and solar.

[willelliott]

It takes character to admit that you were wrong when that cause previously paid your bills.

[drzman]

Let's hope that those fixated on wind and solar as the only solution wake up before there is a lot of economic devastation. You can't fix much of anything when you are poor, cold, and hungry. Prosperity and solving environmental problems go hand-in-hand. Lose the prosperity and you can forget about all else, except trying to stay alive.

[travisjazzbo]

Its so obvious and always has been. The only nuclear scares seem to be extreme human negligence and at least in one case, building the nuclear facility where it was susceptible to a natural disasters.

[violinhunter]

The cost of producing electric vehicles (and their batteries) and windmills and solar panels includes the cost of using fossil fuels to produce all that junk. The same can be said about recycling paper and plastics. Without subsidies, the "programs" don't work. That's enough reason to think twice about them.

[ericlestick]

I've never liked the idea of enriching myself at my neighbor's expense.
Maybe the guilt was too much for this guy as well.