Every man has the right to happiness

What you find everywhere is warnings regarding the climate changes.

"Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) over 1,000 years.
The poorest countries will be most vulnerable to these effects."


"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
And I could go on. What they fail to say is how we can do something against it.
Alternative energy IS NOT enough.
A change in life style would mean a dramatic change of the way we consume and the way we consume is the basis of our economy.
Not only you cannot afford to consume less, you cannot even afford to consume the same.
Every year there must be an increase, as if we could consume more and more.
It's getting a stress.
Soon we will be obliged to consume what we cannot consume, or to pay for what we cannot consume.
"The world today depends on fossil fuels to meet over 80 percent of its energy needs, a simple fact of the way the industrial world has grown up. But dependence brings with it major challenges: rising demand because of economic growth and new consumers; the global distribution of resources; growing concerns about environmental impacts of energy production and use; and the timescales associated with transforming how we produce, deliver and consume energy."
And then:
"All this places the United States and the world at an energy crossroads.
Meeting the world's hunger for energy without fundamentally altering the global climate, increasing geopolitical tensions or causing serious economic dislocation begs for, indeed requires, new technology solutions.
There is, however, no simple or single technology option."
I would say there are not many options, at least not enough for the growing demand of energy.
The only alternative I see is the lowering of the demand.
How?
Just consuming less.
And that doesn't necessary mean that our economy has to downgrade.
It's just that we have to consume "services" and not "hardware".
That we need quality that lasts and humans that make it last.
Like some years ago.
Do you remember?
When a suit lasted many years and once in a while somebody repaired it.
Just like the hair dryer, the fridge, or the TV.
We didn't need one every six months, because the old one was good enough for many years.
And we also didn't have the problem of disposal of garbage, because we didn't produce that much.
We didn't need to go shopping every day for a new tool, a new pair of shoes, a new washing machine.
That doesn't necessarily mean that technology has to stop.
What has to finish is this belief that men are on this earth to consume all the resources in a lifetime, leaving nothing to the ones who come later.
We consumed more in 100 years than what our predecessors consumed in the other million.
Life can be nice also if you do not own the latest car model or the latest technical gadget.
I would say it could even be better.
We could work less, produce less and enjoy life more.
"Every man has the right to happiness" isn't that written somewhere?