Jay Feldman 0:12
Welcome to Episode 60 of the energy balance podcast, where we teach you how to live without constant hunger and cravings, fatigue, brain fog, poor sleep and other low energy symptoms by maximizing your cellular energy. I'm Jay Feldman. I'm a health coach and independent health researcher, and joining me again today is my good friend Mike Fave. Mike and I have been studying health and nutrition together for a long time now, and Mike also draws on his experiences from working within the healthcare industry. Today's episode is basically an offshoot of our last series discussing tissue oxygenation, cellular swelling and pH balance, where in today's episode, we're going to be talking mostly on CO two and its effects and impacts on the environment and climate, and this is not really a typical episode. We aren't really going to be discussing health and nutrition so much, or at least not directly, but what we will be discussing is still integral to any discussions relating to our health and the medical system, and aspects of these things and the systems that control them that aren't directly related to what exact food we're eating. So definitely still relevant, but not as focused on nutrition. If you do want to dig into some more nutrition based episodes, feel free to head back to episodes one through seven, where we took some time to build a foundation as far as the bioenergetic view of health is concerned. But as far as today's episode goes, we'll be talking specifically about whether human produced carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change. We'll be talking about whether carbon offsetting programs and initiatives are effective. We'll be talking about industry tactics that are used to shift blame to the people and allow for the industry to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. We'll be talking about whether we should be blaming each other for the destruction of our environment and tactics used by the media that prevent open discussion on controversial topics like the one we'll be discussing today. To check out these show notes for today's episode, head over to Jay Feldman wellness.com/podcast we're all linked to these studies and articles and anything else that we referenced throughout today's episode. And if you are dealing with any low energy symptoms, whether that's chronic cravings and hunger, fatigue, chronic pain, weight gain, digestive symptoms like bloating and inflammation, brain fog, poor sleep or insomnia, any hormonal imbalances like that might present as low libido or reproductive issues of any sort, or if you're dealing with any chronic health conditions or other low energy symptoms, then head over to Jay Feldman wellness.com/energy where you can sign up for A free energy balance mini course where I'll explain how these different symptoms and conditions are really caused by a lack of energy, and I'll also explain the main things that you can do from a diet and lifestyle perspective, to restore your cellular energy production and maximize your cellular energy to resolve these symptoms and conditions. So to sign up for that free energy balance mini course, head over to Jay Feldman, wellness.com/energy, and with that, let's get started. All right. So before we wrap up this episode on carbon dioxide, well, before we wrap up this whole series, really, I feel like we have to talk at least a little bit about carbon dioxide and its impact on the environment and its role in our atmosphere and in the environment, just because it's something that's discussed a lot throughout the mainstream and politically, of course, and obviously, this isn't an area that we put a ton of our focus in. I mean, it is something that we find interesting and read about and research a little bit about, but it's definitely not an area that we focus on heavily, at least up until this point, as far as just the environmental impacts of these things. And I definitely want to put a bit of a disclaimer out there as well, where, when it comes to any of these sort of topics, and we talked about this a lot when we were talking about some of the failures with modern medicine and conventional medicine is that a lot of people will tend to have a bit of a knee jerk reaction whenever you talk about this, and regardless of what side you know the listener is on, and that's to be expected with how heavily divided we've become on some of these issues. And so I just want to try as much as we can to, like, put those biases aside, or, you know, encourage you listening to try put those biases aside and and try to listen, you know, and just consider the actual the actual points. And I think that if we were to do that on all sorts of topics, you know, we might lead to a lot more progress in various areas. And so obviously, when it comes to carbon dioxide. Side related things. There's a lot of names that are thrown around, you know, on one side you have like the global warming deniers or climate change deniers, and the people who are saying that the science is settled and and there's, you know, entire consensus, and all scientists agree that this is what's happening. Now. On the other side you have, you know, the idea that these people are just like, you know, only care about the economy and are just like pro oil, or, you know, something along those lines, or are just entirely ignorant of science, and are, you know, basing their decision on some other interest or some other thought process. And so I want to try to definitely work away from those ideas, because obviously it doesn't get us anywhere. And that's not actually and that's not actually what's happening. I think it's pretty like any time that on any topic that somebody says the science is settled, I think that's an area to be critical. Yeah, it's definitely a red flag for sure, and it's something to be mindful of and and to consider. You know, why is it that we're trying to silence the other side. Why is it that there's no, you know, that there can't be a discussion on this topic? And it's, it's definitely something that is used for people who are either very strong proponents, but also it tends to be used by people who don't know a lot about the topic, but who feel like they're supposed to feel strongly about it, and so they can't even engage in a discussion about it, because a lot of times they aren't even, they don't even know what they don't know sort of thing. They really don't understand it to a large extent, and most of it is fueled by politics and emotion as opposed to the actual understanding here. And another kind of disclaimer I want to put forth, too, is that, and this will become apparent, but like, we care a lot about the environment and the earth and nature and the preservation of all those things. And I mean, at least as of right now, it doesn't seem like carbon dioxide is at odds with those things. I would say even opposite. So, yeah, with that in mind, I guess, just to share a few thoughts here is that in the same way that we talked about how carbon dioxide, physiologically, is considered to be a waste product, and it's not really looked at as something that's health promoting. I think you see a somewhat parallel response to carbon dioxide environmentally, and I think in many ways, it's become a scapegoat, of course, for this idea of global warming, that we're producing a lot of carbon dioxide, and that's, you know, driving global warming, and that's the that's the entire problem. It all centers around this greenhouse gas and maybe methane too, from the cows, you know. And I think that this scapegoat has drawn us away from a lot of what's actually going on environmentally and what's actually destroying a lot of the planet, which I think has much more to do with the pollution of the air and water and deforestation, and those things are definitely separate direct, you know, it's not those things aren't directly related to carbon dioxide. And I think another huge factor here, as well as is over consumption and consumerism, and that's, I mean, to like see where all the plastic is ending up. Is like, you know, all the single use items, I think is pretty good evidence of that. And I think that all of these things tend to be driven by corporate interest. And we talked about this again in the, you know, the failures of modern medicine episodes, which I'll link to, where a lot of times the corporate or whether it's pharmaceutical companies or various companies that are polluting our our Earth will will try, in various ways, to direct the focus on something that they can change easily, and that doesn't actually cause them to lose any money, or cause them to lose any any industry, any aspect of their industry, or their industry control or or the profit. So I think that carbon dioxide tends to be one of those things where there's a lot that they can try to do to quote, unquote, offset carbon emissions and to be carbon neutral, and that's much easier than actually preventing the pollution that they're causing and the deforestation and actually considering the overconsumption that they're encouraging. You know, just a little side note about plastic is that when I was first marketed, it was supposed to be like it was. It was marketed as something that was for long term use, for like furniture and things that you were going to use for a long time because it's very sturdy. And then, of course, you can make a lot more money if these things are single use, kind of cheap products that, you know, you just throw out and don't really worry about again. And and so anyway, that kind of a side note here, but definitely related to the destruction, or problems with destroying. You know what's going on environmentally in our planet. But another thing that, uh, that the whole focus on carbon dioxide does as far as the environment, is it shifts the blame to the people, as opposed to to the corporations who are doing a lot of the polluting where now you can consider your own carbon footprint as this major part of the problem. And again, not to say that the amount of fossil fuels that we're burning shouldn't be considered, but more just whether the carbon dioxide is really the focus. And again, also another example is the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Is something that's being done currently and has talked about being done on a much larger scale, in order to supposedly prevent climate change, prevent global warming, which, you know, if assuming that this is actually a scapegoat, I think is, is really, you know, misdirecting funds and resources and and effort.

Mike 10:19
Yeah. I mean, there's, like, you went through a lot of stuff, so there's quite a few points to unpack there. I think the first thing that I that I personally want to touch on is that there's being, there's multiple thought processes that are being pushed across the mainstream, and they're being pushed as dichotomies. So it's like, if you're, if you're, if you care about the environment, then you believe in global warming, or now it's climate change, right? They've changed it from, it's not global warming anymore. It's climate change. Um, because I think the global warming idea kind of fell flat.

Jay Feldman 10:59
Right, there's a reason for that. I mean, just, just like, real quick. One is, is it's, it became hard to prove global warming, which is, you know, like, and it depends on what temperature readings are going based off of. And some interesting thoughts as far as, like, satellite readings versus ground readings and all that, which is not worth getting into at the moment, but it became harder. And the other thing too, is when you make it climate change, it's much less static, like the climate is always changing in a million ways. So it's like creating an argument that you can't be wrong and you can't falsify, but it also isn't really saying anything, and it doesn't mean that it's being caused by people you know.

Mike 11:34
Exactly it's and it can be. You can make that into anything, right? You can make climate change into anything that you want to fit your narrative. And if anybody disagrees with that, oh, you're a climate denier, you automatically get a label. And that's very productive, from their point of view, to silence opposition or to close down opposition. But anybody who critically thinks about climate change or global warming and understands that there's, there's a bunch of evidence of different causation and theories all over the place, from from sunspots to space weather or whatever else there's. There's a con. There's a couple different things like or solar minimums. It's actually another big one. It the idea that it's settled and that there's this idea of climate change and it's being driven by CO two is just kind of like it's just scratching the surface. It's and moving the target from global warming to climate change is the same strategy they're using. You can see the same exact strategy they're using with genetics, where we started with genetics, and then we then genetics didn't necessarily pan out once they sequence the genome, and then now, all of a sudden, oh, it's epigenetics now. So it's a small step in another direction, so that the mainstream interest isn't necessarily wrong. It was just, it's, it's one place removed. Oh, it's, it's not directly the genes. It's how we regulate the genes, so it's like a climb out of that hole, essentially, and global warming and climate change, it's the same same, same logical or psychological tactic that they're employing. And another tactic I wanted to touch on here is the idea of consensus. Consensus means absolutely nothing. It literally means nothing. It's a whole bunch of people think this, and what right, it doesn't mean that they're right. Is what you're getting exactly. It doesn't, it doesn't matter.

Jay Feldman 13:32
It's and typically, when someone's citing consensus, There rarely is actually consensus.

Mike 13:37
Well, that that's, that's also a great point, but it's just, it's consensus on what it doesn't matter what a whole bunch of random people believe, it matters what the information actually says.

I just don't think that that's a basis for for anything is, and especially because with the climate aspect, or the global warming aspect when they start talking about consensus, like, well, who are these scientists? What are their credentials? It doesn't even, not even, what are credentials. Like, why do they think? What they think? What's the rationale? What's the thought process, what's the data? That's really what you need to get to instead of just sitting there and relying on Oh, so and so from whatever University says this, it's like, unless he had PhD from whatever university behind his name, it would be the same thing as me saying, Oh, my friend down the street says that this, and his all of his friends say this too. So this must be true. It doesn't. It's not necessarily so valuable, right? It's and experts are people, and they can change their opinions and they change their thought process, and if they are good experts, it's more than likely that they're going to adjust their thought processes and opinions over time as more data comes to light. But it's in this case, it's not even about that. It's the idea of saying, creating a statement. Oh, all these experts think this. It's like a peer pressure appeal to authority logical fallacy that people use to get you to. Move in one direction or another when it that that doesn't have any bearing on on science. Science isn't determined by consensus. Sciences can determine is determined on the basis, or used to be determined on the basis of a hypothesis. A hypothesis process, we have an idea, we test out where we have an understanding of something, we test it out, and then we can never necessarily prove it directly right, but we can continue to prove that these the challenges are wrong and null hypothesis is consistently wrong. That's the scientific process. Not 100 guys in a room think this. So therefore it must be true. It doesn't. That doesn't necessarily tell us anything. Now you there is something to be said for listening to somebody's opinion who has studied the subject or knows more about that particular subject. I'm not questioning that, but what we're saying is using consensus as an argument, isn't it's not an argument. It's a non argument. And I think that's really important, important to point out. So the consensus argument, and then the idea of walking things back by just changing the language a little bit so it's Oh, it's not genetics, epigenetics, it's not global warming, it's client climate change, and then trying to conflate them as similar, or make them seem some like something similar. I don't think any of these are helpful. I think they're all they're all basically logical or psychological tactics to move people in a particular direction and put pressure on them, and then the other thing is creating, the first thing I kind of mentioned was creating different thought processes or different ideas, and then making them juxtaposed to each other, like dichotomous to each other, where it's like, Oh, if you're not, if you don't believe in climate change, then you're a climate denier. Or if you don't believe that CO two is causing global warming, then you're a climate denier. It's these aren't either or statements. I I think both of us here can agree that there's pollution issues and there's being there's damage being done to the planet on multiple levels that are serious and are are causing issues to environments and ecosystems, and that has nothing to do with CO two, and that doesn't make us climate deniers, and it doesn't mean that we don't care about the planet. It's not these are not black or white, either or things. These are the especially this type of stuff is very nuanced, and it depends on what topic you want to cover. Covering plastics in the ocean is very different from covering air pollution created by burning fossil fuels that may have nothing to do with CO two the other compounds that are generated, or the or strip mining, all of these things are very different from each other, and to go and classify all of them together as, oh, climate change, it's glossing over multiple nuanced topics that are largely unrelated to each other and require their own individual research. You can't sit there and say, Oh, I care about the planet global warming. That's not an it's not an answer to anything, or oh, I care about the planet climate change. Oh, you don't believe in CO two climate denier. I'm sure you can have people who are ardent experts in the field who don't think anything of the CO two hypothesis, but are doing more than any of these other people, marching on sign, marching on the street with signs about climate change. They're going the expert who doesn't believe in the CO two hypothesis and who has researched whatever about plastics in the ocean. He's going to go on Twitter, he's going to go on social media. He's going to make a statement whatever, and you're going to get a whole bunch of these people who supposedly care about the environment go ahead and label him a climate denier, yet he's dedicated his life to looking at something with plasticizers and and I'm not saying that it's necessarily these people's fault. It's the mainstream narrative is being pushed into people to create these dichotomous groups, so that if you don't align with one, then you must be the other, which is a logical fallacy. It's like, if you're if you're not a, then you have to be B. When there's no link between A and B, it's just like that, you have to, you have to believe the presupposition first. And so that's like, we need to get out of that. We need to remove that from the process. What is the actual problem that you want to address here? What is the actual thing you want to address here? What's the data behind it? What's everything showing us? What's the large picture, and then, what's our conclusion from that on this specific topic? And it's a lot harder to get into that than it is to just say, oh, global warming, climate change. It's like, what? Okay, is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. Well, how is it changing? And what's causing it? And we're we'll get into some of the other theories in a second. But there's different hypothesis and theories about it. It's not like there the idea of carbon dioxide is but one theory and just and to be honest, there's a lot of evidence to not support. And this is why they had to walk away from the global warming idea, because there's, there's kind of, like, a lot of stuff cropping up. So it was adjusted to climate change.

Jay Feldman 19:52
Yeah. And before that, it was the whole in the ozone layer.

Mike 19:55
Well, yeah. But even, and Dr Pete has talked about this too, and there. And like, I've seen news articles, I think was from the 40s, or the 50s, where it was like, global cooling was going to be a problem. And then it like, shifts, yeah. And so there's a media cycle for this type of stuff. And then the other thing that we heard about for X period of time was, what was it? The like, we're running out of oil, or, like, oil, the idea of peak oil. So they had that for however long. We don't hear anything about peak oil anymore. Like, the narratives just keep shifting.

Jay Feldman 20:26
Well, there used to be, like, the overpopulation idea too. They used to say that we were going to hit that point, you know what, the 1980s or something, based on their earlier calculations that we weren't going to be able to feed everyone, there's going to be massive, you

Mike 20:38
know that Ehrlich, that was the who was saying, making all these ridiculous predictions, yeah, and

Jay Feldman 20:42
there's gonna be massive starvation events. Yeah,

Mike 20:44
People, I think people need to realize that these are agendas, and these are they're literally agendas. It's someone pushing some type of agenda. If you really want to know anything about it, you have to actually go look at the information directly yourself, and not from the people who are pushing the agendas. Because what they're gonna what the people who are pushing the agendas are going to do, are going to take a piece of data that is true, this piece of data is true, they're going to inject that piece of data, it's like, okay, well, this is true, and then they're going to put their the rest of their argument either next to or around that piece of data. And then people are going to conflate, oh, if this is true, then the rest of their stuff must be true. It's like a disarming process. Somebody can say something that's true, somebody can believe something that's true. Carnivores and as as an example, their their thought processes on the value of consuming animal products is true. That doesn't mean that the rest of their deductions about carbohydrates and plants and whatever else is necessarily true. It's you. It's not an it's never an either or so and but the mind wants to generalize thing. And it's just a process of psychology. The mind tends to want to generalize things, so it's easier to make that generalization. Oh, you know carnivore? Well, animal products do actually have all these benefits well, so then I guess they must be right about everything else. And I'm not trying to blame people for that, but I'm trying to bring awareness that, because that's what's that's what these, that's what these, the me the the news and the media are preying on, and what these large government organizations and corporations and non governmental organizations, whatever else, are preying on with people. This is where the this is what the propaganda is, is playing on these psychological tricks and logical fallacies to push people in a different in in a different direction, and create this divisiveness, and then this idea of dichotomies and distraction inflation patterns, essentially, yeah, and distracted, distractionary arguments. You when you first recognize that, it makes it easier to start processing the information from, from a, I guess, a more neutral or as objective as possible. Point, you're all, we're always going to have our bias, but there is a you we are, I think humans are able to get close it with some careful thoughts and some some careful analysis to a closer state of objectivity and not be pushed around by basically, manipulation techniques, psychological manipulation techniques.

Jay Feldman 23:14
Yeah, yeah, and so, and you touched on it there too, I know earlier talking about situations with, you know, scientists having certain beliefs. But another huge factor here is the funding and the industry that they're being funded by, or the ostrich ostracization that occurs of people who have alternate beliefs, and then you can't get a job or whatever else. I mean, those things are all going to drive what looks like consensus in some ways to, you know, it makes it harder to find some of the the non consenters. For the people who are, you know..

Mike 23:49
Not non compliance.

Jay Feldman 23:50
Yeah..

Mike 23:51
They don't wear their masks.

Jay Feldman 23:54
And obviously, like, this is something that's that's been ubiquitous in the last year and a half, as far as all these things that we've talked about and, and obviously, as a lot of people know too, it's, it's not so clear and easy to wade through it all, but yeah, and to, I mean, those were all all really important points and something to always keep in mind when we're considering what is the, what tends to be the mainstream agenda, who's behind it, and is this just trying to, again, act as a scapegoat, so that we feel like we're doing something that's helping the world, and in reality, it's just a complete distraction from what's the actual damage that's going on and the loss of our of our whether it's our planet or our freedom or our health, or whatever it is, their agenda, which tends to be the same thing, yeah, yeah.

Mike 24:37
Well, I'm saying it's it's rather than just being a distraction. A lot of times it can actually be like directly helping the agenda, like a lot of people are going plant based for ethical reasons, and it's like the idea of moving the market to plant based by these large corporations and people who have vested interest in pushing this agenda involves model cropping, GMO. Crops across continents and completely destroying ecosystems. You can have a problem with tearing down the Amazon rainforest or tearing down ecosystems to create more land for farming and whatnot. There's arguments for that that are you know that I can't like they're valid, right? I'm 100% valid. But to make to follow plant based diet, out of interest for some of this stuff is not helping that situation. The whole entire this whole center, the US, to a large extent, or a vast majority of the interior states, are used for heavy, heavy monocultures with industrial monocropping and fertilizers that is not good for any ecosystem. They've completely destroyed topsoil. They've completely destroyed ecosystems. The land is is stripped of nutrients and value it. It's to say, Oh, I'm gonna go plant based and I'm gonna eat impossible burgers to help the planet. Is laughable. That like and I don't, it's not to offend anybody here, like I'm not trying to be offensive, but it really is. It doesn't make any sense. That's not, that's not a strategy that makes sense. That doesn't it the it's they create, and it's, it's not necessarily the individual's fault who's following that. It's you passively are receiving this, this consistent stream of propaganda from the news cycle all the time. Plant based saved the world. Plant based saved the world. And then the option that they then present as Impossible Burger or blab grown meats or whatever else. And it's like, oh, here's the solution. It's like the because cow farts. It's like, it's you hear it so much that it becomes true. And you don't go and look at the process that's used to create these things or where they're coming from, and you don't take that level deeper. You're just getting it from the news cycle. And then it's like, oh, well, this this picture you get. You're basically, they're creating a framework in your mind that you're you're passively accepting where it's like, oh, cow farts are causing a problem, because methane is even worse than CO two. And then they're tearing down forests for pasture land for cows. Like, okay, that sort of makes sense. And then it's like, well, we if I eat plant based, and I won't have all these problems with with eating cows or chickens or pigs or whatnot, oh, the plant, the Impossible Burger. It's plant based. It can replace my burgers. It's like they create this logic, this simple logical loop, if you accept all the presuppositions, but if you don't accept those presuppositions, if you question those presuppositions, you basically looking like, wow, this narrative is absolute crap. Like, it makes zero sense. And so the first step in dealing with any of these topics, whether it's CO two or or, I don't know, medical stuff, whatever it is, you start getting when you start to question those things, you start to see the narrative break down. And then you have to go look for the alternative. Solutions and actually see what makes sense. And it is harder, and it is more time consuming, and I know a lot of people just don't have the time for that. I mean, the idea for news, essentially, in the beginning was, you know, you have a station that's put it giving you content about what's going on, but like, when that gets bastardized and abused, it causes a huge issue. So there's a lot of issues going on with that, but I think the first thought part is to be is to open up your mind and be aware and question. I think that's the the first step and and be aware of what you're passively taking in and accepting as information any and that goes even with listening to what we're talking about, right? That goes with anything that you hear. Actually think about it take. Don't passively accept it in whether that's your your movies, whether that's your music, whether that's what you're reading, whether that's what you're listening to on a podcast, whether that's what you see on social media, there needs to be a healthy level of skepticism and a healthy level of internal awareness of what information you're accepting, and if you're and then putting it through a filter, and it is time consuming and energy expensive, but it's just the only way currently to really root through what's going on.

Jay Feldman 29:12
Yeah, or if you don't have the time and energy to do that, just examine your beliefs and maybe consider you know, acknowledge the possibility that there's a lot that you don't know, which you know is always going to be the case, yeah. And then it's perfect. It's great. And then try to, you know, keep your mind open to those other things. And definitely, I would encourage someone not to hold on to their beliefs so tightly in that situation, because then, you know, especially when you reckon, and that goes hand in hand with recognizing that you don't have all this information. And so I don't think everybody needs to know everything and or needs to always be trying to learn everything. I think it's great if you know for somebody to do that. I'm definitely encouraging of that, but it's okay not to, as long as you also recognize that, and then don't end up calling anybody who disagrees with the light, you know, lightly held opinion that you have a denier of science. Or, or in, you know, or any other plethora of names. But to circle back to CO two a little bit, because I wanted to at least, you know, I'm, I think most people who are inundated with this narrative don't, aren't even aware of some of the counterpoints and some of those things. And so I figured it was at least maybe worth going through a couple of interesting talking points that most of these, you know, I went ahead and checked, but we're pulled from Joe Rogan's podcast with Randall Carlson. Pretty sure is the first one. I'll link to it in the show notes. Randall Carlson is, you know, he pretty sure is a climatologist, or geo climatologist. Some, some, you know, some combination of all those things, something he studies a lot and knows a ton about. And as that interview is really, really fascinating to listen to, and he's a wealth of knowledge, and he refers to other researchers as well that are, you know, throughout that episode, that I think are worth investigating too, but just just to circle back and give some concrete things to think about. So the first is that there are a lot of different factors affecting our climate and climate change, and while some of those are, you know, might be within our control something like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a lot are not in our control. And as you mentioned earlier, some of that has to do with like the solar cosmic rays. Another factor there is the Earth's geomagnetic field, which helps to buffer those rays to an extent. And so that's kind of, you know, that can vary considerably as well during different time periods. But throughout the earth's history, there's a huge oscillation of of cool, cooling and warming periods that happen to be associated with times of of growth in species and times of contraction as well. And there's a lot of different things that can cause them. You know, another huge factor that everybody knows about, too is, but doesn't think about as much as, like, asteroidal impacts, which, have, you know, wiped out very, you know, huge amounts of species over time, and also dramatically changes the climates in, you know, in various ways. So those are all things to consider. And then in particular, now we're actually, I mean, we don't know for towards the end, but we're pretty far into a long mini warming period that had started hundreds of years, or around 100 years, I'm pretty sure, before we started really producing significant amounts of fossil fuels. So we've already been on that same warming trajectory, and it doesn't seem like it's changed all that much. And of course, it's also important to consider that it's not like the planet is considerably warmer than it has been in the past. There's been many times where life has flourished and it's been much warmer. And the same thing is also true for the carbon dioxide factor, where right now, we're just about somewhere around 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and which has gone up, you know, in the last 100 years. But for one it's important to consider that there are other places that carbon dioxide gets released from. One of them is actually the ocean that the ocean holds on the carbon dioxide that's like a sink and then gets released there, which is, you know, as it warms up, releases more. Yeah, right, right. And if it was already warming up for other reasons, that could have also lead led to an increase in carbon dioxide. Increase in carbon dioxide, but also that 400 parts per million is pretty minuscule compared to previous periods, again, where life was flourishing. If you consider, like the dinosaur eras, there was as much as 2000 parts per million CO two at that point when life was expanding considerably, and there's huge amounts of vegetation, much more than now, right, right? So that's definitely something to consider, especially when you also consider the fact that plants use carbon dioxide as as like a fuel they breathe carbon dioxide in. And so increasing carbon dioxide would tend to have an effect of increasing plant life and growth. And obviously carbon dioxide has some benefits for us too, as we've talked about throughout the series so and other organisms too. I mean, the another example that we actually didn't discuss is the naked mole rat, which lives underground in a high CO two environment and happens to be really resistant to cancer and other diseases and lives many times longer, at least 30 years on average. Which, I think about that which...

Mike 33:56
And the average rat is like two, right?

Jay Feldman 33:58
Right, yeah, yeah, something like that. I mean, it's way longer than another rodent that's similar in in size would typically live. And so there's a possibility that that could be attributed, at least in part to carbon dioxide. And then, you know, I'll link to some info on that in the show notes as well. So there's this possibility that the carbon dioxide could actually be really helpful in a lot of ways. And another interesting thing as well is that there's supposedly, based on the amount of carbon dioxide that's been released just from fossil fuels, the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is much less than would be expected. And so, you know, again, that that might lend some support to the idea that it's actually working to fuel plant growth in various ways. And so again, these are just some small talking points that obviously we're not doing. It's not like this is anything in depth. I would encourage anyone to look into all these things in more detail. But there's all these different factors that could be affecting our climate in various ways. The fact that our climate has been changing considerably between cooling and warming periods, both Mini and large, over decades, over millennia. You know, centuries, millennia.

Mike 35:08
Cyclically, it has, it's a cyclical effect. It's not just like, it's not like, there's not like one off things. We haven't had a consistent climate. It's constantly changing, right? Considering, on a it's changing on a time scale that is much larger than our lifespan.

Jay Feldman 35:25
Right, right. Yeah. And another interesting thing too is, at least it seems, when you look through that history, those cooling periods tend not to be periods of a lot of advancement or like or life, you know, things tend to contract a lot during those, those time periods, you know, and it seems that warmth and carbon dioxide together tend to really encourage life. So, yeah, that's definitely something to consider as well. Yeah, I don't know. Do you have much else to add there?

Mike 35:53
I remember one point in time we were actually passing an article back and forth where they were talking about CO two wasn't, wasn't such a huge predictor, or one of the main greenhouse gasses, like, it didn't have such a massive effect. It had such a minus. Like, the percentage of effect it had was extremely small. And so, like, when you take that into consideration with like, comparisons to other periods of time, its content, and then when you take that into consideration of like the effect of CO two on plant life, and the effect of temperature on the planet on plant life, and that we ideally need larger amounts of CO two and adequate amounts of heat across the planet to produce enough food, you know, it's not a good thing. I personally don't believe it's a good thing to actively try and lower CO two. Do I think it's a good thing to lower burning of certain fuels that, you know, they coal and whatnot, that put out a ton of other products besides CO two that can be problematic.

Jay Feldman 37:00
Yeah, like particulate matter that's contributing to actual pollution?

Mike 37:03
Yeah, exactly. Do I think? And smog and whatever else like do? I think it's a good idea to stop using plastic water bottles and plastic everything and and socking it away in landfills or dumping it in the ocean. Yes. Do I think that, you know, we need to stop paving the entire the entire world and and everything else, and we need to stop basically taking down the rainforest and whatnot. Yes, I think that these are all valuable things to work towards. I just don't think that CO two, personally, is really the problem. I think that there's much larger issues as far as pollution goes. And another example, pharmaceutical waste into the into the water supply, plasticizers and plastic industrial chemicals in the water supply right run off from from monocultures and industrial farm systems into the water supply with with dangerous chemicals and whatever else have you, and destruction of the topsoil and destruction and degradation of the food supply and some of the industrial farming practices, do I think all of those are problems? Yes, those are 100% problems. Those are things that it would be great if we could move towards, towards adjusting those things. However, I don't think the solution to those things is GMO, and I don't think the solution to those things is cell based meats or plant based meats or faux plant garbage. I don't think any of that is the solution. I don't think it'll ever be the solution. And I think that taking into consideration optimization of human health is a key component in making sure that things are done appropriately and that these things are solved. If everybody on the planet moves to eating impossible burgers and sell and lab grown meats and develops rank nutrient deficiencies and gut issues and toxicities and poor fertility, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I don't think there's going to be a lot of advancement towards going on to fix these issues. The other thing that I that I want to address here, that I hear consistently, not only from other people online, but from like, my own family members, is the idea that there's too many people in the world and that and that there needs, like, we need to slow down population growth or not have as many people, and that there's not enough resources on the planet to feed all these people. I think anybody making these arguments doesn't like, doesn't have like, what most people that I've seen making these arguments like, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to support that. Like, where's the data to support that? If anything, I've seen people starting to talk about the modeling systems that they use to look at the amount of food that we have in the food supply and whatnot, being just as good as the covid modeling systems that they used to determine how many people were going to get sick, which, if you actually looked at the original model that they used, was horrific. It was atrocious. It didn't predict anything even close to what actually happened. Right? And the same thing is going on with the food supply. And who is behind the modeling systems, the the industrial interest. And why do the industrial interest want to push these particular models that create a supposed outcome, because it drives their own, their whatever their own purposes are, right? If you, if you start to say, oh, we need to grow more food. We need to push for more food. Oh, we're gonna have a food supply shortage. The food system behind this benefits from that. It create, it's creating a demand. And on top of that, it's, it's, it's a piece of the puzzle to move things in a certain direction, right? It's, it's, oh, we don't have enough food supply, so, oh, you know the solution? Oh, GMOs, we need to, we need to make more genetically modified, patented seeds that we can sell to farmers with heavy industrial equipment and industrial fertilizers, because that's what's going to feed the world. And there's been a lot of pushback against that by certain groups and people, because basically, it hasn't panned out that way. It hasn't turned out to produce much of anything valuable in the long run, and even in countries like India, which is not necessarily on the news but or not on the news. In the United States, at least, there's been farmer protests and mass suicide by farmers because of the amount of debt and destruction that's going on on their farms when they got switched over into GMO farming through these larger corporations, Monsanto, Syngenta, whatever, whatever, whatever their corporation you want to talk about. So it's you have to be very careful with with the information and where you go with it, especially around global warming and plant based foods and whatever else. And then the solutions that are being offered, right? These solutions that are being offered are not solutions to solve these problems. The solutions that are being offered are the solutions that these corporations want to push to solve their problems, Coke is going to create research and models and ideas and theories that support the idea that you just need to eat less and exercise more to make sure that your your body stays healthy and you don't develop disease, so that you continually suck down it's nutrient deficient, synthetically created garbage drink. Now, Mexican coke may be a little bit different, but the idea is, the idea is is basic there. We don't We want you to think that you just need to eat less and exercise more, so that you don't focus on the fact that the food that we're going to sell you has zero nutrition, and that the actual problem is a nutrition problem. And that's what they're doing. Cokes doing that with this Monsanto and our friend Bill Gates and whoever else call me conspiracy theorists, are buying up farmland and funding Impossible Burger and and these other cell based meats and whatnot, and then saying, Oh, we're having issues with supplying the world with food, and we need to the only solution here is GMO. It's like, you can't be the purveyor of GMO, and then turn around and say, We're create issues with supply chains and create issue with food and say the the reason we don't have this is because GMO, it's a conflict of interest. Like to trust their modeling and to trust their basis when we know what their motive is behind. It just doesn't make any sense you and so a lot of these narratives are moving in that direction, and a lot of these narratives are being funded and pushed through the mainstream media so that people can people basically get a mental framework of how things are supposed to work. Here's the problem, and then, oh, we just so happen to have the solution right here too. But the solution is not a solution to the actual problem. The solution is a solution to the manufactured problem.

Jay Feldman 43:26
Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. No, no, yeah. I mean just it makes them money.

Mike 43:30
Yeah, money or power, or whatever they want to establish.

Jay Feldman 43:33
And then it looks like they're doing the right thing in the process, right? And so when we see a carbon offsetting, when we're coming back to carbon dioxide, it's a way to not actually it's okay. It's a way to not actually change anything that they're doing, but then just pay for some sort of conservation, or pay to take carbon out of the atmosphere or whatever it is, as if that's actually offsetting the amount of pollution that they're that, and destruction of the water and food supply and ecosystems and all of that. And as you're saying too, with GMOs, we're seeing that with the destruction of of pollinators, like the depopulation and things like that. And we're also seeing because of various pollutants and plastics and whatever else, we're seeing endocrine disruption and various organisms. We're seeing plastics like in found in small amounts, in seafood.

Mike 44:16
We're seeing that babies. We're seeing the plastics and pharmaceutical drugs in babies fetal blood, right? Like there's people are taking samples of fetal blood and finding, like, hundreds of known chemicals from industrial processes, pharmaceutical companies and whatever else in the fetal blood. And then people want to turn around and act like there's no like, oh, birth rates are going down, not because of that. The autism rates and birth defects are skyrocketing, not because of that. It's like, again, more narrative, more garbage narrative, to completely distract people from what's actually going on. And then anybody who says, Oh, this, this may be what's going on gets labeled as a climate denier, a conspiracy theorist. Why? Wants to kill your grandma. Some ridiculous, some ridiculous, racist, whatever it is, like all these different terms that they're creating categories for anybody who disagrees with what they're talking about, and then the people who still don't care about that, oh, we're going to censor you. We're going to shut you down. We're not going to we're not You can't talk anymore. Be quiet. It's like, it's absolutely absurd. It's and it's like, blatant in front of people's it's like, when you start censoring people, it's like, Doesn't anybody sit there and think, Well, why did they shut that guy down? You know? Oh, he was a conspiracy theorist. He's a white nationalist. He's a it's like, the guy didn't even talk about anything to do with white nationalism. He was, he was talking about GMOs. He was talking about, I don't even know, he was talking about something to do with with Coke's theory or anything like that. He was talking about something to do with government regulation in certain periods of time, like he had nothing. He wasn't. There's nothing to do with what the category he labeled him as. It's just like, big category there. Boom, you're done.

Jay Feldman 46:02
Yeah, yeah. Well, hopefully that doesn't happen in this podcast. Hopefully we're you're actually listening to this, and you can find it when you go back and look for it. Just a quick closing remark, real quick, because I know we talked about plastic quite a bit, but I wanted to point out also that recycling is not doesn't seem to be a very effective solution there. It's not very efficient. Most people are not like recycling properly, and that's because there's like, a huge miseducation situation there going on where we just think that we're it's okay that we're over consuming because we can just recycle it all. And in reality, it really tends not to work out too well, and a vast majority of what you're buying can't actually be recycled. So I just wanted to throw that out there. It's kind of a side note, but I know we're talking about plastic and that that's another one of those things, very similar to the carbon offsetting, where it's a way to put the put the responsibility on the consumer and ignore the industry's role in the problem. So yeah.

Mike 46:58
I just, I want to add to that too, and this, the last thing I'll add is that I want people to start to realize, or I want to, at least, in my opinion, I think that people should start to realize that too many people, and they themselves, are not the problem. The problem in the world is not that we have too many people to feed. The problem in the world is that we have modeling systems that tell us there's too many people to feed, and that the way that we're going about feed the systems that we're using to feed people are the problem. And those weren't set up by the people who are necessarily eating. Those were set up by a lot of these corporations in a in a very negative way. There's we need to explore alternative technologies and alternative ideas about how to do these things the right way, rather than just say, oh, there's too many people. We need to get rid of them and and we need to. The blame is constantly pushed onto the consumer. The problem that you have health, disease, or your fat or overweight or whatever it is, is because you eat too much. It's your gluttony. The problem that you are that there's too much plastic in the world is because you is because you know you're buying too many Coca Cola Well, you're not recycling it. Oh, yeah, or you're not recycling. The reason that there's too much carbon in the world is because you're driving your car too much. It's like you everyone here is most people. The vast majority of the population, is functioning within the system that was created. The problem is not the people. The problem is the system. Technology can advance rapidly if it's not being actively dissuaded and actively suppressed. That's what's currently going on now, because the systems that are in place have a motive to keep themselves in place and perpetuate their own perpetuate themselves. They are the problem. Coca Cola, selling all their drinks with zero nutrition and plastic bottles is the problem. Not the consumer. The consumer it. There is an element where the consumer is involved in that, yes, what? But the ideas, you know, you can choose to buy it or not, right? That that's part of the idea. But when you're only giving so many salute, when you're only giving so many options of what you can buy, and all of it is in plastic bottles, right? 99% of the options you can have in plastic bottles, like, it's almost like, Could you buy glass? Yeah, but you have enough money to buy everything in glass? Well, that's another point. It's almost like, you Oh, it's the consumer's fault. There's only these options on the table, right? Yeah, and that's, that's the Go ahead. Go ahead.

Jay Feldman 49:27
Well, I was just saying, and all the education is to suggest that what you know, that that not only are there only those options, but that it's all, you know, it's not the corporation's fault, and they're not actually causing any problems. And, yeah, that's that. I was just saying, it's education. And in addition to that, the whole point I want to get across is the solution isn't to get rid of people, and the solution isn't to blame people. The solution is to change the systems. That's really what it's about, and that involves people taking responsibility.

Mike 50:00
Yes, but it's not like I. Electric vehicles and electric trucks and or electric trolleys and whatnot were in vogue in the early 19th century. Right? They were a huge thing. The automotive industry and Standard Oil changed and decent advice the development of trolleys and electric electric motors and whatever else, to push the combustion engines so that they can sell oil for their combustion engine. They created the market. And then now they now it's going to turn around and say, Oh, it's the consumer's fault. It's like, it's It's ridiculous. It's such a ridiculous thing to go on and push onto the consumer. And same thing with covid. Oh, you're fat because you're eating too much, not because the Coca Cola or the Fauci or the Pepsi or the Sprite or the other sugar based things that we put out there is the or the majority of your options are, are the problem? It's your gluttony. Like I want it. I just wanted people to shift away from seeing as it's their fault, it's humanity's fault, and start recognizing that we can do something about it, and we need to change the systems that that's kind of it's something that really irritates me, because really tired of hearing, oh, there's too many people in the world. It's humanity's a plague. And I don't think that's true. And while we do have problematic things, I think that we also have the capacity to do really amazing things, and I think we should be focusing on doing those really amazing things and less on, you know, where to play. I think that's kind of a useless thought process to get into. Yeah.

Jay Feldman 51:33
Yep, I totally agree. All right, before we wrap up here, I did want to offer a few alternative solutions to consider that may be more effective at supporting our environment than the ones that we discussed today that are not so effective. And I think one of the most important ones to consider there is sustainable and regenerative farming that involves livestock and that using that in place of mono cropping, which is the the main means used for food production currently. And I'll refer to a couple of links in the show notes, one which is a TED Talk by Alan Savery, discussing how regenerative agriculture with livestock can reverse desertification, the creation of deserts, which is actually a huge problem around the globe. That is another thing that's not really discussed. And not only is that contributing to environmental damage, but the desertification of of the environment is also causing famine and a lack of access to clean water, which then causes various political disputes and violence and starvation, and I mean, it's a major, huge problem. So that's a really great TED Talk to take a look at. And then I'll also refer to some Instagram accounts and channels with some more information about regenerative and sustainable agriculture and farming practices and how those things affect our environment. And with that, if you did enjoy today's episode, please leave a like or comment. If you're watching on YouTube and if you're listening elsewhere, please leave a review or a five star rating on iTunes. All of those things do a lot to help support the podcast, and are very much appreciated. To check out these show notes for today's episode, you can head over to Jay Feldman wellness.com/podcast where I'll link linked to this studies and articles and anything else that we referenced throughout today's episode. And if you are dealing with any low energy symptoms, whether that's chronic cravings and hunger, fatigue, joint pain, poor sleep or insomnia, hormonal imbalances that result in low libido or other reproductive symptoms, or if you're dealing with weight gain or brain fog or any digestive symptoms like bloating or inflammation or any other low energy symptoms or chronic health conditions, whether that's heart disease or diabetes or autoimmune conditions or any other chronic health issue, then head over to Jay Feldman wellness.com/energy, where you can sign up for a free energy balance mini course, where I'll walk you through how these symptoms and conditions are really caused by a lack of energy, and I'll explain what you can do from a diet and lifestyle perspective to maximize your cellular energy and therefore resolve these symptoms and conditions. So to sign up for that free energy balance, mini course. Head over to Jay Feldman, wellness.com/energy, and with that, I'll see you in the next episode.