Before my newly written plays start, I’m going to digress.
A lot.
Please be patient.
To get my petroleum engineering degree, I had to study thermodynamics, the study of heat transfer. Petroleum engineers working on the production side of the industry are often heating the oil/water/gas mixtures coming from wellheads to later separate the three components.
Coupled with my high school chemistry and physics, I came to an interesting conclusion in 1980. The burning of fossil fuels was only releasing the sun’s energy of millions of years ago. Earth would be heating up.
At that time, I had some glass cookware. I liked watching the water heat up. By squinting a little, I could see the convection cells of the warmer water at the bottom rising through the colder water at the top. Lots of swirls and whirls. The closer to the boiling point, the more intense the swirls and whirls. Miniature convection cells.
With a warmer Earth, the convection cells known as thunderstorms, downbursts, tornados, hurricanes, and ocean currents will be more active trying to move warm and cold air and water past each other before eventually equalizing their temperature differences. And the warmer the atmosphere and oceans, the more active these cells become. We should not have been surprised at more aggressive weather patterns as we burned coal, oil, and gas as the oceans and atmosphere heated up.
This realization did not stop me from a career in petroleum engineering. I was a practical person — and we could not quit our petroleum consumption cold turkey. But if the right policies were implemented in 1980, there would have been a 50-year transition — and petroleum engineers could have a great career in this time. We needed competent engineers to make that transition.
I graduated in 1982. I was not seeing any signs of that transition happening. So rather than complain about it, I joined a Canadian political party in 1986, hoping that my involvement would somehow accelerate the changes we needed to make, like a higher fuel tax to help curb fossil fuel consumption.
I was not successful in my advocacy. Most discussion in my back rooms was about winning the next election.
I quit politics in 1992, vowing never to partake in this political activity again. But somehow I invented another kind of democracy that addressed many of the flaws I was seeing: Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) has been my hobby ever since.
Come Carl Sagan
In 1985, Dr. Carl Sagan delivered his warning to Congress. Here is the youtube link to this now-famous presentation:
I was not aware of that presentation until many years after. It has become a popular “see-he-told-us-so” link on the internet. Even though Al Gore seems interested, how did the average American regard this presentation in its day?
My thermodynamics training never addressed heat transfer by radiation very well. So my “hypothesis” was not based on any greenhouse effect. But the conclusion was the same: more vibrant weather patterns. And a more hefty fuel tax would have been an important solution. That was 45-years ago. Where are we today?
Now it is time for you to read some plays. You clicked this article to get some political theatre, right?
Play 1: Carl Sagan & American Democracy
Place: A pub in Washington DC.
Time: A few hours after Dr. Sagan’s presentation to Congress
Characters: Tom, Dick, Harry; all three are US Congressmen
Tom: That was some presentation, wasn’t it?
Dick: A bunch of crap, in my opinion.
Harry: I’m not so sure. Dr. Sagan sure has the scientific community behind him.
Dick: I’ll check with the scientists I rely on.
Tom: But what if he’s right?
Dick: He’s not right. And 20 years ago, the scientists were telling us we were heading for another ice age.
Harry: But he could be right? Who knows where this is going?
Dick: I know where this is going. . . . Harry, didn’t you get a $50,000 campaign donation from a major oil company last election?
Harry: Yeah, I did. But I could let that go, couldn’t I? After all, I’m the incumbent next election.
Dick: Would you want to take that chance? The petroleum industry will funnel money to your opponent’s campaign. That’ll buy many negative political ads about you. Remember those pictures of teenage girls hugging you in the last election campaign. That’ll shake up your 52–48 win.
Tom: Well, I don’t have any oil money in my campaign.
Dick: Same goes for you. The industry can top up your opponent’s campaign. That DUI you had 10 years ago will be brought up. . . . . You guys follow this Sagan guy and you’ll both be wearing the same adjective: “unelected.” Hell, you might even lose the primary. That costs money too.
Tom: I see your point. I have so many issues I want to address in Congress. It seems a shame to lose all that influence for just this one issue, . . . . which may or may not be right.
Harry: I think Dr. Sagan is right. But not being in Congress means I cannot support all my other political missions. . . . . . I think I can let other Congressmen champion Dr. Sagan’s recommendation. I can still offer subtle support — but only if I’m still in Congress.
Dick: Yep, you two do that. Just don’t mess with the petroleum industry.
The End
Play 2: Carl Sagan & Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)
Place: The coffee room in the Top TDG Tier antechamber in Washington DC.
Time: A few hours after Dr. Sagan’s presentation to the Top Tier
Characters: Leroy and Lorinda, who are top-tier representatives; Wilma, who is a top TDG advisor
Leroy: That was some presentation from Dr. Sagan, wasn’t it?
Lorinda: Sure was. Burning all this fossil fuel seems so scary. Dr. Sagan is highly regarded in the scientific community.
Leroy: But wasn’t it only 20 years ago that the scientists were claiming an Ice Age is coming.
Lorinda: They were. But my recollection was that the scientists were not as united.
Wilma: This goes to show that we cannot fully predict any outcome, even in TDG governance.
Leroy: OK, with this uncertainty, what do we do? Should we wait until the effects become obvious?
Lorinda: But it might be too late when it is obvious.
Wilma: Let’s assume, for the moment, that the effects will become obvious. How could we minimize those effects?
Lorinda: Well, . . . maybe we could introduce a bigger fuel tax to curb consumption.
Leroy: The people won’t like that.
Lorinda: But if we offer a reduction in income taxes, the actual taxation for most people will be the same.
Leroy: And in this way, the polluters will be paying for any negative consequences. The more environmentally conscious citizens will have a little more money in their pocket.
Wilma: So what if Dr. Sagan’s prediction does not come about?
Leroy: Well . . . all we’ve done is shift the tax burden a little bit. The government still gets the same tax revenue.
Lorinda: And this tax revenue might change consumer habits to address Dr. Sagan’s warning of global warming.
Wilma: So it seems that we have two outcomes. The first outcome is serious. We need to implement the tax to minimize global warming. The second outcome is neutral. The climate will be the same 40 years from now as it is today. The change in tax sources should not affect the economy in a negative way.
Lorinda: It sounds like a no-brainer to take Dr. Sagan’s warning more seriously.
Leroy: I think we should bring this discussion to the full Top Tier. I’d like to hear the thoughts from our colleagues.
The End
Conclusion
So which backroom discussion works better for the environment?
Published on Medium 2026
TDG Leaders Making TDG Decisions
