Show Notes
In the world of college sports, money talks and the volleyball team walks, er, flies 33,000 miles to play games. The NCAA, like almost everyone else, is playing games with Mother Nature. What do we expect student-athletes to gain from ignoring the climate emergency (not to mention putting their health at risk)? Who cares, as long as we can wring a few more dollars out of the TV deals — am I right?!? Jason, Rob, and Asher propose a new plan for college sports and for taking the climate emergency seriously.
Warning: This podcast occasionally uses spicy language.
Sources/Links/Notes:
- Jeff Eisenberg, “Conference realignment has redefined ‘travel ball’,” yahoo!sports, September 11, 2024.
- Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment and Doerr School of Sustainability
- Stanford has the most winning NCAA program, counting all sports. (2nd and 3rd are UCLA and USC, by far!)
FeedSpot ranked Crazy Town as the #1 environmental economics podcast.
Comments
Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!
We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.
We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Always my most fav thing to listen to! Thank you for the amazing discussions. I still remember when Climate Breakdown became a thing – so now LA has popularized Climate Whiplash. I wonder when "desertification" will be rolled-out, or what term they'll coin to cover it up? And who decides what terms to use? A newsroom editor?
_______________________
https://youtu.be/6CXRaTnKDXA?t=95
________________________
Centibillionaire: "I will fund your university as long as you don't mention thermodynamics, and give it an amazing name"
Department Chair: "You got it!"
I knew LOTS of scientists at USAF Space Command who worked for money, not facts; would dissemble-on-command, and knew their role and place in perpetuating the overextended/failing system. The evident reason was carbon footprint – the ultimate arbiter of all this. One very good scientist said she would not feel good until she drove a Mercedes. OMG!
________________________
We already import everything in AZ. Can you guys think what the next big shock will be? I'm guessing food. But maybe global economic/supply shocks b/c of insane government? What picture emerges if you just look at facts and ignore social media? Maybe you see the hand of those who work behind the scenes? I know high-paid scientists/professors have sold themselves, but have those who carry real responsibility?
I'm about where that guy in the interview is. Yea, it's no wonder nobody says that. Now imagine you have a mortgage and kids in schools and on sports teams and with friends and you really just want to keep your job so what are you going to do? Say what's really on your mind or what you know the folks who pay you want you to say?
With the recent LA fires, the writings of Mike Davis – The Ecology of Fear – are again being discussed . Your points regarding the cognitive dissonance happening in Stanford, of all places, is more of the same. Daniel Quinn tried to steer us clear of this thinking with Ishmael, all to no avail. With the recent election results it seems that rationality is completely obsolete, not that I am giving up. As long as hubris is more common than compassion; as long as money rules all, we will not have the leverage to make permanent, sustainable changes to the way will live in this world. Thank you for helping to keep us from Crazy Town. I'll be sure to share any more epiphanies that come my way.
By coincidence I was in the LA area a week before the fires. Went to Will Rogers park and birded. Went to Malibu. Was in the hills above Pasadena. And even in Santa Clarita to catch a train. All these areas caught fire! And I remember thinking, by gosh, this place is going to burn some day, coastal chaparral will just do that, and these houses are toast. I didn't imagine it this bad though.
I know that far away look well. I've probably done it myself. Maybe when someone has brought up "chem trails" and I don't know how to keep talking to them. Maybe this is where they are, thinking you're off your rocker. Or, they have gone into what I've called "tilt" mode, as in the pinball machine won't play. A dissociative fugue state where the brain is weighing the situation. The calculation may be "agree with this person and become a kind of social outcast, or stop right here as in the near term there is no payoff for going this far in my reasoning." So yea, discounting is built into status preservation.
In trying to talk to "responsible" peeps, the conversation seems to consistently wind up at the point where the other person says, "When disaster hits, somebody will do something…" It would seem this is the "discounting the future" phenomenon? The correct words seem important. When I say "climate breakdown," or "gaslighting," conversations sort of stop and the other person gets a faraway look in their eyes. I guess this means they're thinking? Typically, they won't talk to me again…
When I told the USAF Lt. Col. how many tons of benzene and PAH's musk's rockets were illegally (and fraudulently) dumping into the atmosphere, I got that far-away look, followed by ignore, and an abrupt management change and several peeps took early retirement. But the problem endures because there's always someone willing to carry a fraud for a big promotion, and, anyway, the powers that be can swat an individual like a bug.