​​
​​
IN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSALS ON THE PREVIOUS PAGES . . .
THE FOLLOWING EARLY/INITIAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS ON THIS PAGE
HAVE NOT YET REACHED A POINT OF BEING "PROPOSALS."
INSTEAD, THEY ARE BEING OFFERED TO (HONEST) CLIMATE ACTIVISTS ONLY,
TO GET THEIR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON WHETHER ANY OF THESE
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY, AND PERHAPS WORKED ON
​
The comments below are not proposals, suggestions, requests, or endorsements. Instead, they are merely "thought-pieces", offered to climate activists, in the hope that one or more of them might trigger some additional thinking about things that people working for the long-term good of our children and grandchildren might want to consider. Rather than encouraging any "climate activist" to begin endorsing or working on any of these "additional possibilities", any climate activist who reads any of these proposals is encouraged, instead, to help form, promote, or otherwise support one or more "Global Warming Strategy Councils", as actually PROPOSED, above, and to then work with (or wait for) any such council to reach a serious and considered decision on whether, how, and to what extent its members might be encouraged to begin doing one or more of these types of things.
The reason we are taking this position, is this: at least some of these "early thoughts" are likely to be deliberately twisted around, misrepresented, and labelled as actual and active "proposals", which can then be attacked and labelled as "radical" (and worse), by paid disrupters, internet trolls, Fox News opinionators, and others who, for whatever reason, do not want to have to face up to the facts, or the dangers and destruction, of climate change and rising oceans. Therefore, these "first-draft thought pieces" are NOT yet ready to be endorsed, fought over, or fought out. And, if any efforts to grab hold of and start trying to get publicity for any of these "early thoughts" misfire, because a few well-meaning but impatient climate activists (or, equally likely, some "paid disrupters" who are being paid, by climate deniers, to try to make any and all efforts to help slow down global warming look like the work and the province of leftist radicals) grab hold of them, and begin hitting people over the head with them before these types of "initial thoughts" can be analyzed and debated by skilled planners who are genuinely trying to do what is right and good, then any premature "mis-fires" could do more damage than good, by tarnishing and damaging any future efforts to discuss them in intelligent, insightful, and useful ways.
In case it might help, think of these "early thoughts" as small and vulnerable seedlings, which can be eaten and killed, by deer or other wild animals, before they have a chance to grow into actual trees, which would later be able to do far more good, for that wildlife.
And, here is yet another way to describe, and think about, these thought-pieces:
1. They are being put on this "isolated-by-itself" page, with this preface, even though we realize that they create known risks of being too-early and premature sharing, because every climate activist on this planet is trapped, and locked, in a grim, gruesome, horrible, and horrifying race against time, because global warming and climate disruptions are rapidly growing worse, and the oceans of the world are now being projected, by the most skilled and sophisticated computer models that have ever been created, to rise by 10-12 INCHES, during a span of ONLY 30 YEARS -- i.e., 2020 to 2050. And, therefore, if any one or more of these "early thoughts" can be developed, improved, refined, polished, packaged, or whatever else it will take, to "mature and improve" them into genuinely good, useful, helpful "actual proposals", then by all means, genuine and sincere climate activists should get started, now, in trying to do that work.
2. Despite Point 1, directly above, we do NOT want these (or any other) "early thoughts" to be twisted, distorted, and used by "climate deniers" and "paid disrupters" in ways that might cause them to damage, weigh down, clutter, entangle, and distract from the true and real "payload", cargo, and intent of this website, which absolutely MUST remain focused on the hard and provable macro-facts set forth herein, and the limited actual proposals described on the previous page. WE WANT "people in the middle" to focus upon, and begin to understand, and ask politicians and candidates about, the macro-facts, and the proposals herein. WE DO NOT WANT "paid disrupters," climate deniers, mouth-whores, internet trolls, and selfish and angry morons to attack us, and try to block what we are trying to do, by labelling us as radicals, and arguing that these "early thoughts" reveal who and what we "really" (in their opinion) are, and what we are "really" (in their opinion) trying to do.
The plain fact, and the absolute truth, is this: (1) we are trying our level best to find better ways to help slow down global warming; and, (ii) we already realize that these draft versions of "initial thoughts" will need a great deal of additional thought, abalysis, discussion, and debate, before they are ready for anyone to try to elevate them into "genuine and serious "proposals." In this form, in this website, they have no more weight, or seriousness, than some initial, tentative, spontaneous thought that someone might think up, try to put into words, and then describe out loud, for the first time ever, during a "brain-storming" session, so that others in the group (i.e., within a small and limited number of people, in a single room, who all have good reasons for being there, and for having a "brain-storming" session to try to help a company or group that they all are working for) can at least begin to consider the contents of that initial verbal first-draft, if they wish to do so.
So, our plan (or at least intent) is to simply decline, and if necessary refuse, to discuss any of these "early thoughts", with anyone who opposes our efforts to help protect, and at least try to pass on a decent, livable, and civilized world, not just for OUR children and grandchildern, but for THEIR children and grandchildren, as well. If anyone attacks us by trying to use any of these thought-pieces against us, we will decline to respond, and simply refuse to discuss or defend their merits, and point out that they have not yet matured or advanced into any actual proposals of any sort; and then, turn our attention back to the MACRO-facts of global warming, and to helping more people understand what science actually is, and how it works (better than the Republicans in Congress seem to understand it), and to the small and limited number of "actual proposals" that are listed on other, previous pages.
​​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #1. Perhaps climate activists might be able to think up some low-cost (or even fundraising) ways to generate, attract, and then sustain publicity, attention, and involvement, in ways that can get people thinking, other than just by gathering and marching in protests.
As just one example – to help people begin thinking about potentially clever marketing strategems might be able to help do this – any club or organization could, for example, invite its members to join a betting pool, in which they would buy one or more squares in a grid (comparable to "betting pools" for things like the NCAA basketball tournaments). And, the winner will be whoever correctly guesses the calendar year, when the fresh-water swimming pool at Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort will be topped over, three or more times, in a single year, by salt water, due to rising oceans. It could be called "The Mar-A-Lago Pool-Pool". Whoever wins the pool will get 50, or 60, or 70 percent of the wagered money, while the organization that sponsored the betting pool gets to keep the rest, as part of a fundraising project. And, then, every year, people can report on just how much closer the ocean keeps getting, to that pool. There would need to be rules to cover various outcomes, such as, "What if they shut the pool down, or move it, to prevent the triple-overtopping from happening?" Nevertheless, this could become a bit of a game that might genuinely get under Trump's skin, in ways that he would not be able to deny, or talk his way past, especially after the first time salt water begins to lap up onto the lawn in front of that resort. More importantly, it might get people in general, and Trump and his supporters in particular, to begin watching, with higher levels of seriousness, attention, and concern, to see what is actually happening to the coastlines of Florida, during the coming years.
​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #2. Perhaps one or more climate experts should begin making open guesses, possibly including grim predictions, in public articles and interviews, about how many years will pass before the prices of coastal property in Florida collapse, not just by 40 or 50 percent, but by more than 90 percent, when millions of people finally realize that the state of Florida is doomed to become, not entirely under water (at least, not initially), but so badly damaged that it will become ungovernable, except by gangs, marauders, etc., with large areas having no functioning water supplies, sewage removal, or electric power. What would the experts say, in terms of timing? 80 years? 120 years? 200 years? And, perhaps they could (and perhaps they should) begin urging Congress to begin seriously contemplating, and making plans for, the time when Florida will need to be declared, "No longer a state." Should Florida still have Representatives, or Senators, if and when its property values collapse by more than 90%, and its state government can no longer function in ways that provide actual services to the residents? Some day, that actually WILL happen; so, should Congress at least TRY to get ready for it, in advance? Or, stated in politically realistic terms, how long can they stall, delay, and pretend it won't happen, before they finally are forced to face up to a huge, nation-changing crisis? Perhaps . . . if we can force into open and public discussions, the "No longer a state" warning (which is indeed inevitable, when it comes to Florida, and the only real question is how long will it take, before it happens), as a serious question which true and genuine experts will begin talking about, openly and directly . . . more people might realize – sooner – what is really and actually happening, and how serious the warnings have already become.
First, someone could begin polling the experts, to see what THEY say, in terms of how many years it is likely to take, before COASTAL PROPERTY VALUES (ONLY), in Florida, drop by some fixed-but-very-high percentage (such as, 90%). Then, let the deniers try to deny it. That would start a series of highly interesting debates, which quite a few people might actually listen to, and pay attention to, so that they can decide, for themselves, which side seems to be better informed, and more honest. Republicans often say, "Let the markets decide." And, we agree with that. Let the markets decide; and, to help markets and investors make better decisions, give them the best possible information, coming from both sides of the argument. That might turn into a good way to find out – and, it might help voters figure out, a few years before they otherwise would – who is really telling the truth. And, as a huge and crucial factor, bear in mind that the entire state of Florida sits on limestone, a soft mineral-rock, which can be dissolved and washed away by water. Florida has already suffered multiple hundreds of large sinkholes, and every time another hurricane hits it, no matter where it hits, that surge of water creates even more tunnels, gaps, porosity, defects, and weak spots in that limestone. So, it's not sea level rise; it's sinkholes that pose the most direct, fast-acting, rapidly-spreading threats, in Florida. More information can be found HERE.
​​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #3. Perhaps some climate activists should team up with some television writers, and work together to create a hard-hitting, discussion-provoking TV series with a title such as "Because They Ignored All The Warnings". Each episode (or mini-series) could present – in a serious and entirely realistic way – a disturbing, frightening, and even horrifying scenario . . . which, as experts can confirm, in the days after a broadcast, might actually happen, some day.
To help people begin to understand how serious, and how horrible, the consequences might actually become if humans fail to limit global warming, starting-point sketches for five possible episodes of a TV series are offered HERE. All five are firmly believed to be entirely within the realm of genuine possibility . . . and perhaps even probability.
​​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #4. Perhaps some climate activists should begin encouraging Democratic candidates for office to begin thinking in terms of "Lifeboat America" – which implies, "We simply cannot take, into this boat, more people than this boat can support. Otherwise, the boat will sink, and ALL of us will die."
Relevant thought 1: This might be able to offer Democratic candidates (especially for Congress) a huge, crucial, election-changing "pivot point", which would give them a powerful reason, rationale, and opening, to re-align themselves with millions of hard-working citizens who genuinely and sincerely want to protect the US, especially because (and especially when) things, and the times we live in, are likely to turn grimly difficult and troublesome, within the next few years, due to a combination of a dysfunctional federal government, out-of-controls deficits and debts, global warming, and other factors.
Relevant thought 2: A huge and crucial part of why so many Latinos suddenly voted Republican, in 2024, might have arisen from the fact that quite a few Latinos who are already in the US, and who are fully and legally entitled to vote, are more acutely aware than most Democratic candidates appeared to be, in 2024, of both: (i) the misery that comes from over-population, and overcrowding, and more babies than the parents can afford to raise, because they actually saw, and suffered through, and came to understand that type of misery, while they lived in Mexico, Central America, and similar locales; and (ii) the unavoidable fact that the US simply does not have, and never will have, and cannot create, an "endless, ever-growing, unlimited" niche for more, and more, and endlessly more people coming to the US who can speak Spanish, but not English. It seems at least somewhat logical to assume that at least some of the already-here, already-established Latinos (i.e., the ones who can and do vote) may have been trying (either consciously, or from a vague and unnamed sense of worry) to protect their hard-earned, hard-won, already-established places within that limited "niche", against endless numbers of additional people who speak Spanish but not English, and who were trying to enter the US, and who would then demand that they needed to also be given a place in that limited niche, which would mean that they would need to take part of that limited niche away from those who had already found and created stable jobs, and stable places, within that niche. Have any Democrats ever seriously considered THAT, as a possible (at least partial) explanation for why so many Latinos suddenly decided to vote Republican, and/or for Trump, in 2024? Have any studies ever been done, which at least tried to isolate and analyze that, as a possible factor in how "voting Latinos" voted?
Perhaps more Democratic strategists, candidates, and campaign managers should try to look beyond just a set of dire warnings about climate change and global warming, and figure out ways to actually, genuinely, and sincerely weave a huge, crucial, and reasonable set of concerns and worries, among voters, into Democrat pleas and appeals for votes, by assuring the working class that Democrats are genuinely trying to take care of workers, and the middle class, instead of just passing more tax cuts for wealthy Republican campaign contributors. The true and genuine need for political leaders to begin actually thinking in terms of "Lifeboat America", as an entirely valid, reasonable, responsible way to help the US begin getting at least a bit better prepared against the approaching onslaughts of climate change, global warming, and coastal destruction, might give Democrats a "pivot point" they could genuinely, honestly, and fairly use, to win more elections.
​​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #5. As a hard fact, this nation will need to do more and more, each year, to help severely damaged communities cope with the increasing number – and severity, and costs – of climate-related disasters, such as tornados, hurricanes, floods, and fires (and, the problems will get even worse, if Trump succeeds in dismantling the "Federal Emergency Management Agency", presumably so that he can simply turn the other way, and say it's not a federal problem, and the state should pay any and all costs, whenever a catastrophe hits). So, PERHAPS we should at least BEGIN the years-long process of wrestling with the question of whether all high school graduates, and/or any citizens who have not previously served in some form of public service, and perhaps one or more other groups (newly-arrived immigrants? people being released from prison?) should spend some amount of time – such as a year – working to help badly damaged communities clean up, after they have been hit.
More info (and a lovely set of pictures) on this topic can be found HERE.​ And, if environmentalists get out in front, on this issue, we may be able to change a lot of minds, about both our sincerity in wanting to actually pitch in and help (instead of just trying to tell other people what to do), and our level of commitment to the public good.
​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #6. Perhaps those who are genuinely working to help slow down climate change, should invite nominations for, and then publicly discuss and debate, and finally, adopt and begin using – openly, publicly, and frequently – a label that we choose for ourselves, rather than just passively submitting, whenever "paid disrupters" (and the Wall St. Journal, Fox News, etc,) label us as radicals, leftists, socialists, crazies, or whatever.
One possible name I would like to ask climate activists to at least consider, would ​involve labeling ourselves as "the realists". That label would be plain, simple, blunt, and memorable, and every time someone challenges or mocks it, that would give us an opportunity to pull out some hard macro-facts, confront the mockers with those hard facts, and challenge THEM to either admit, or deny, those facts, and explain why.
Or, as an alternate, perhaps we should call ourselves "radical realists". The implication would be that anyone who genuinely and seriously faces up to the truth of how much horrible damage and devastation are actually going to be cause, by global warming and rising oceans, will end up SOUNDING like some kind of radical. Not because they WANT to, but because of how radical the damage is going to be.
And, anyone who adopts and uses either of those labels should be strongly discouraged from talking about how global warming might drive humans extinct. Yeah, it might, some day, but that day might be ten or twenty thousand years away, and we need to focus on the next 30 years, instead. And, climate advocates might be surprised to hear how often some Republicans, when no liberals are around, mock those "possible extinction" warnings, and turn them into rationales for doing whatever we want, today, since we're all going to die anyway, some day.
​
EARLY, INITIAL, "NOT YET READY FOR A PROPOSAL" THOUGHT #7. Climate activists need to begin looking seriously into calculated strategies that might be able to get Trump, his cabinet appointees, and Republicans in Congress, to actually begin changing their positions on climate change.
That might actually be possible, if climate activists can learn how to skillfully use a strategy described in a book called, "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?" The trick: figure out where the "tender spots" are, and then poke those, with a broomstick. Since Trump severely and even desperately wants certain things he does not yet have (e.g., a Nobel Peace Prize; the grandest library/monument ever created for anyone, ever in history; and, to be seen as a truly brilliant, magnificent genius), then THOSE might be "tender spots" that could be used to get him to at least change position, if not dance. That approach is described HERE.
​
