I'd like to direct you to Bill McKibben and the organization Third Act, which I believe he started in collaboration with others. Third Act is for people over 60 to use the multiple means at the disposal of an oft-ignored citizen group to push for real solutions to climate change. You're probably aware of the recent national campaign to close bank accounts in the 4 major U.S. banks who continue to fund fossil fuel companies. It was very successful and the organization is energetic and creative. There's also a lot of financial clout in at least some segments of senior citizens and Third Act is targeting this power to effect change. https://thirdact.org/
Excellent newsletter on all counts. I was very glad to see that you wrote again about the critical issue of climate. I strongly agree that voting for legislators who will take acton on this crisis is extremely important. In my Climate Action Now
app, (which was recommended by Jessica Craven in your newsletter and which I strongly recommend), I read the other day that there are 150 members of our current Congress who deny that human activity causes climate change. That is totally unacceptable!!
It is extremely important for people to vote for candidates who recognize the danger and want to work for solutions.
I was very frustrated to read a letter in our paper on Sunday from a writer who was criticizing a previous writer's letter which I had not seen. The title of the letter on Sunday was, "Expert's view of Future of Solar Energy in New York is far too Sunny". He went on to contradict the first writer's valid claims, which I have seen in many other places, that solar energy could be a very important part of New York's energy future. The Sunday actually called the first writer's position "dangerous" and wrote about the "advantages" of staying with our current sources of electricity which, of course, means fossil fuels. I was immediately moved to write a long letter to the editor supporting the former writer by agreeing that solar can definitely work in New York. We in Central New York have recently experienced hazardous air from Canadian fires, which are also caused by climate change. I won't review my entire letter, but I did conclude by saying that staying with fossil fuels is no longer a real choice and pointed out that even on Google you can read that the primary driver of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. My concluding statement was, "Our choice is between staying addicted to fossil fuels and believing the misinformation promoting them or making difficult but ultimately better choices which could halt the continuing destruction of the planet"
Omigoodness! Another Today’s Edition filled with Hope, Light, and Studies to wrap my weary mind around this chaotic, frightening time.
Thank you so much Robert Hubbell and Editor, and this Community for providing so many documents and Comments to make sense of all the goings on, and understand actions to take.
In addition to learning from Markers For Democracy virtual meetings, and writing this household’s regular Postcards To Voters, NEAZ, and occasionally other, postcard campaigns, and Vote Forward letters, and work, for which I am extremely thankful.
Nancy, are you the same Nancy Cochran who visited me in MA last month? If so, how is it that we spent 2-3 days together and didn't talk about this important newsletter!! I was delighted to read this comment from you. More later!! Always powerful to find out that a dear old friend is on the same page. With love, Penny
I lived for five years in central New York (Ithaca), and am a bit skeptical about solar energy, there, in winter. There is nearly continuous thick cloud cover for days on end, which, I suspect would severely limit the effectiveness of solar energy production. In “snow belt” areas, heavy snow will cover solar panels and remain unless assiduously removed.
These considerations could extend to much of the upper midwest, and even east into parts of New England.
In addition, there is the “baseline” generation problem, which may require more than energy storage.
One possible solution might be to build advanced nuclear generating plants to provide baseline power. Another, which probably would be a good idea in its own right, would be to extend and thoroughly modernized ower grids, so power could be “shipped” from regions having temporary excesses to regions with temporary deficits.
I don’t mean to be categorical about this. Rather than being bombarded with handwaving advocacy pieces, we need to see *quantitative* information and reasoning.
from a reader: Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan group whose motto is “creating the political will for a livable world.”
Focusing on a carbon fee and cash back dividend, a market approach considered the MOST effective way to reduce carbon, we lobby at the national level with volunteers from 450+ US and international chapters.
CCL has expanded our portfolio of actions to include, healthy forests, clean energy permitting reform and building electrification and efficiency.
From a reader: The Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) has been working across the aisle to get members of both parties to agree on a carbon fee and dividend measure that would have a far greater impact on carbon reduction than cap and trade and other similar solutions.
My faith community, St Katharine Drexel parish, Environmental Stewardship team which is, collecting batteries for recycling, educating on how to better care for our common home switching our parish culture from disposables to reusable tableware at parish socials, held a community wide recycling event for metal, textiles, styrofoam, and paper, and has moved garden care toward sustainable
MultiFaith Alliance of Climate Stewards, a Frederick Co Maryland organization of faith based climate leaders which "act locally on our moral duty to future generations by protecting the earth and its inhabitants from harmful impacts of climate change. In some traditions, this is known as Creation Care"
We have switched our house to community solar power, which was too easy to be believed and it saves us about 10% on our power bills
We drive a hybrid car now that gets about 60 mpg
I am working on switching our heating system from oil/hot water system to electric heat pump
https://www.norfolksolar.org - my own effort, I install solar via PPAs (power purchase agreements) in low income areas of Virginia, and also hire those residents to be trained as solar installers
Hello, and here I am again from Florida! My official title is VP of the Democratic Environmental Caucus of Florida. Environmental caucuses have been promoted throughout the U.S. by an organization called DNC Council on Environmental and Climate Crisis. Our goal is to do just what your newsletter today encourages. We develop policy and messaging for Democrats in Florida, so that our candidates understand what good environmental policy is, and voters understand who to vote for.
The very human defense of denial is at work here, a survival mechanism we employ, when the reality of our situation is so upsetting that we find ways to deny that reality. The fossil fuel marketing campaign uses our strongly held religious beliefs and worldviews to "fuel" denial. It feels like too massive a pivot when we think about what is necessary to transition to clean energy sufficient to address climate change; it is easier to buy into fossil fuel messaging.
Unfortunately, Democrats are just as susceptible to fossil fuel propaganda; some of our candidates take money from fossil fuel companies and water polluting interests. In past elections, voters have not prioritized environmental issues.
We have a rights of nature ballot initiative in Florida, called The Right to Clean Water. There is another ballot initiative happening now as well, to place access to abortion in the Florida constitution. Democratic organizations are prioritizing the abortion access petition with our voters, rather than prioritizing both. Unfortunately, that reflects the state of our state Democratic Party.
Increasingly, it is impossible for any of us to escape the effects of climate change and water pollution here. If we prioritized climate change and clean water in Florida, I believe that independent voters and communities hit hard by climate change and water pollution would respond.
This weekend is our Florida convention, called Leadership Blue. Our caucus has plans to "message" fellow Democrats at the convention, to show people ways to make environmental and climate change issues ones that can grow the number of people who vote Democratic. We also are working on ways to recruit candidates who will campaign on those issues.
I propose we stop using “Christian” to describe such things as “Christian Nationalism”. To know true Christianity is to know there is nothing Christian about any philosophy or practice that hates, belittles or marginalizes any group or any one…and yes I mean Any One.
I have started to use "religious nationalism," but I pause every time. Nationalism has found a home in the Christian church. Until the rest of the Christian church denounces and rejects the use of the Christian Church for nationalistic ends, it is difficult for us to describe the problem without identifying the source.
I get that. The difficulty is that it makes it sound as if Christianity is all about what a certain segment of the so-called Christian Church says it is. It saddens and angers me that the word "Christian" has been hijacked casting all of Christianity into a dark, judgmental, bigoted corner that has little or nothing to do with what it truly is.
I agree. Legitimate Christian churches and individuals are speaking out about this frequently. The problem is the media, much of which seems caught up in the usual jingoistic labels about the extremist right and their claims. They both fail to cover what Christians are saying (an occasional small side-piece), and fail to identify who the so called "Christian Nationalists" really are: wearing a label that does not fit what they do and say. I will add that I do not consider myself an "official" Christian, but have learned a lot from people who are, and see the connections with my own faith tradition. Long ago, I was having a conversation with an evangelical neighbor who I recall with great fondness. Not about spiritual matters, just in way of exploring how various people make their way in the world. I said something I don't recall now, other than it was about kindness, but her response sticks with me: She told me I was a true Christian, and then, remembering, she started to apologize. I stopped her, and told her that I understood what she was saying (within her context), and that I regarded it as a great compliment. I still do. Telling this is bringing back the memory of a good, now deceased friend, and I am near tears. We ended the conversation with a wonderful, affectionate hug. I miss that too.
Thank you so much for covering climate change so well, Robert! I wanted to chime in that our food choices critically impact the environment. In fact, we actually have to make significant changes to our food system in order to reach climate goals. This paper in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba7357) shows that a business-as-usual food system alone will exceed the maximum greenhouse gas emissions allowable from all sectors for a 1.5 degrees C warming. The paper quantifies impacts of five strategies that could actually turn our food system into a net carbon sink, and a move to plant-rich diets is the most effective strategy. The carbon footprint of beef is roughly 26 g CO2 equivalents per gram, while that of beans is about 0.8 g CO2 equivalents per gram. While lower carbon ranching is an active research area, it's not something that is available at this time. Even pasture-raised beef has a hefty footprint due to methane production.
As part of my work as an environmental engineering professor, I crunch numbers for carbon footprints of dietary patterns and individual meals. If you want to see some recipes along with the carbon footprint numbers, please visit:meals4planet.org.
For more recipes to help people shift to a greener diet, please see:
Thanks so much for the informative links! I have never thought about the impact of food choices on the dining table as drivers of climate change. thanks for educating me!
Robert, thank you for this focus on the Climate Crisis. If extinctions, massive suffering and the forced relocation of millions of humans don't have the attention of humans, what does that say about our collective intelligence?
May I humbly recommend that the Climate Crisis have at least one paragraph in every one of your fine letters? After all, if we don't make a difference on this subject, nothing else will matter.
We have such a list of worries and projects. But if our house is burning down or our crops are covered in soot from wild fires, who will have the time to think about the essential issues of gun violence, health care and women's rights? Who will be talking about affirmative action or websites for gay marriages when there are millions and millions of desperate people fleeing their homes? When the ERs are overloaded with people gasping for breath...wishing the gas masks were not stuck in a supply chain debacle.
I'd suggest subscribing to Bill McKibben on climate change. He's got years of experience in this area. Robert is invaluable for his own areas of expertise.
I would suggest looking beyond Bill McKibbon. There are many other leaders in the field who have moved further than Bill in getting people on board. This is true nationally and internationally, but especially at the local level, which is where the most effective action is happening. I give Bill his due, but at this point he is a figurehead: the easy guy for media to turn to.
It's hopping, David. Especially with the latest news, people are really hard at work. It's scary, but I finally have a small sense of optimism. Finally, legislatures (some of them) are listening, realizing that it is happening now, not in some distant future we can shove things off onto. More people "get it", and are starting to step change how they do things. In my area, all the outfits installing heat pumps in my area are booked ahead for months (I finally get mine in August). More places are paying attention to real public transportation options, because it is finally sinking in that electric cars are not going to do it. We need to change HOW we travel, because we will need that electricity to cool spaces for people (and, in some cases, animals). And we need to change how we do land use planning, and how we build homes. How we produce food and where. Group here is looking at how my town can replant lost yard trees, increase shade. Small things add up.
We're late getting on it, and it's not going to be easy, but I believe that we can at least slow the warming down enough to reduce the impacts. We just need to remember that we are part of the process
Robert reaches a different audience and an important audience. My experience is that the environmental consequences of climate change are so massive, as Bill describes, that it is tempting to relegate the discussion to the environmentalists.
There is a tendency also to prioritize the authoritarian threat to our democracy, yet the threat of climate change is way more consequential to the survival of human and animals on our earth.
I think it's fine for Robert to bring these issues up occasionally for the reason you mention. But I strongly disagree that he should do more than that. Regarding your second paragraph, unless we maintain democracy, we can't do anything about climate change. Robert is being a huge help in that critical area. Furthermore, the Trumpists are mostly climate change deniers, who are in bed with the fossil fuel moguls. And Robert makes one critical mistake on global heating, in dismissing the contention that immigration is a problem:
My long-ago (1975) professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, and whose influence pervades much of the writing I've done, and who later became President Obama's Science Advisor, came up with an important equation to measure human impact on the environment.
Human Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology.
(I=PAT)
Thus, greater numbers of people have greater environmental impact.
We need fewer people in the world, and hopefully, fertility will keep falling for a while. But immigration to the US is also unhealthy for the world. That's because the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. This should not be surprising, as so many come from third world nations, where per capita emissions are low, to the US, the major industrialized nation with the highest per capita emissions.
I think that 3-fold figure is direct consumption, but there is also indirect consumption. Virgin land contains large amounts of sequestered carbon. When virgin lands are developed--for roads, homes, or other sprawl related stuff, or for farming, that carbon is released into the atmosphere, worsening warming.
From 1990-2020, the US grew by 83 million, equivalent to slightly more than four New York States, half of that from immigration. Over the next 40 years, the Census Bureau projects we will add a little more than three New York State equivalents, plus 7 million from native increase (one Massachusetts).
It is crazy for us to be adding to CO2 emissions through immigration when we're telling our citizens to cut down on CO2 emissions. It's even crazier given ProPublica's projection that within the next several decades, climate change will cause MILLIONS of Americans to become climate refugees.
Part of that is wildfires, and part of it is sources of water that are disappearing--the Colorado River, for example, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which ranchers and farmers use to water the Great Plains. The Ogallala stretches from Canada down to Texas, and users have been depleting it for decades.
And how are we going to do that if democracy is not functioning? We the People are the force that will bring about meaningful action and keep the oligarchs from simply taking over the government. They are the primary roadblock in the way. WE HAVE to ensure that we have healthy, functioning government to put a brake on climate change, and to do that we have to make voting and the rights of human beings a priority.
including their relevant sector(s) and their impact on reducing heat-trapping gases. This list is extensive but not exhaustive, and we continue to add to it as a living project. Drawdown Scenario 1 is roughly in line with 2˚C temperature rise by 2100, while Drawdown Scenario 2 is roughly in-line with 1.5˚C temperature rise at century’s end. The results shown here are based on projected emissions impact globally. The relative importance of a given solution can differ significantly depending on context and particular ecological, economic, political, or social conditions. The Top Priority actions to achieve 1.5 degree C drawdown of 93 actions analyzed include:
SOLUTION SCENARIO 2 * (to keep at 1.5 C)
3. Plant-Rich Diets 103.11
4. Reduced Food Waste 102.20
7. Family Planning and Education 68.90
8. Distributed Solar Photovoltaics 64.86
11. Silvopasture 42.31
14. Perennial Staple Crops 32.87
19. Regenerative Annual Cropping 23.21
22. Abandoned Farmland Restoration 20.32
All these action areas are being addressed or implemented at Massaro Community Farm in Woodbridge, CT. View our 5th solar installation at our model organic farm and
As a resident of Massachusetts I feel proud of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It has been a remarkable institution and I would encourage any visitor to Boston to visit the court. As an emigrant from South Africa, I feel so proud of former Chief Justice Margaret Marshall who wrote the Gay Marriage opinion in 2003. She too, came from South Africa, where she was politically active at a time when doing so was dangerous. Writing that opinion took great courage. Her intellectual rigor in interpreting the constitution puts the Reactionary Supreme Court to shame!
Homegrown National Park is a way we can all help address climate change. If you have a yard planting natives and using less chemicals can contribute to supporting a better environment for all.
Here is the website of the Homegrown National Park, https://www.homegrownnationalpark.org, which is the brain child of Doug Talamy, a professor in the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the University of Delaware.
No chemicals in my yard. Letting the natives grow.
In other climate related matters, my long-ago (1975) professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, and whose influence pervades much of the writing I've done, and who later became President Obama's Science Advisor, came up with an important equation to measure human impact on the environment.
Human Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology.
(I=PAT)
Thus, greater numbers of people have greater environmental impact.
We need fewer people in the world, and hopefully, fertility will keep falling for a while. But immigration to the US is also unhealthy for the world. That's because the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. This should not be surprising, as so many come from third world nations, where per capita emissions are low, to the US, the major industrialized nation with the highest per capita emissions.
From 1990-2020, the US grew by 83 million, equivalent to slightly more than four New York States, half of that from immigration. Over the next 40 years, the Census Bureau projects we will add a little more than three New York State equivalents, plus 7 million from native increase (one Massachusetts).
It is crazy for us to be adding to CO2 emissions through immigration when we're telling our citizens to cut down on CO2 emissions. It's even crazier given ProPublica's projection that within the next several decades, climate change will cause MILLIONS of Americans to become climate refugees.
Part of that is wildfires, and part of it is sources of water that are disappearing--the Colorado River, for example, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which ranchers and farmers use to water the Great Plains. The Ogallala stretches from Canada down to Texas, and users have been depleting it for decades.
From a reader:
I'd like to direct you to Bill McKibben and the organization Third Act, which I believe he started in collaboration with others. Third Act is for people over 60 to use the multiple means at the disposal of an oft-ignored citizen group to push for real solutions to climate change. You're probably aware of the recent national campaign to close bank accounts in the 4 major U.S. banks who continue to fund fossil fuel companies. It was very successful and the organization is energetic and creative. There's also a lot of financial clout in at least some segments of senior citizens and Third Act is targeting this power to effect change. https://thirdact.org/
Excellent newsletter on all counts. I was very glad to see that you wrote again about the critical issue of climate. I strongly agree that voting for legislators who will take acton on this crisis is extremely important. In my Climate Action Now
app, (which was recommended by Jessica Craven in your newsletter and which I strongly recommend), I read the other day that there are 150 members of our current Congress who deny that human activity causes climate change. That is totally unacceptable!!
It is extremely important for people to vote for candidates who recognize the danger and want to work for solutions.
I was very frustrated to read a letter in our paper on Sunday from a writer who was criticizing a previous writer's letter which I had not seen. The title of the letter on Sunday was, "Expert's view of Future of Solar Energy in New York is far too Sunny". He went on to contradict the first writer's valid claims, which I have seen in many other places, that solar energy could be a very important part of New York's energy future. The Sunday actually called the first writer's position "dangerous" and wrote about the "advantages" of staying with our current sources of electricity which, of course, means fossil fuels. I was immediately moved to write a long letter to the editor supporting the former writer by agreeing that solar can definitely work in New York. We in Central New York have recently experienced hazardous air from Canadian fires, which are also caused by climate change. I won't review my entire letter, but I did conclude by saying that staying with fossil fuels is no longer a real choice and pointed out that even on Google you can read that the primary driver of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. My concluding statement was, "Our choice is between staying addicted to fossil fuels and believing the misinformation promoting them or making difficult but ultimately better choices which could halt the continuing destruction of the planet"
Shelley, both Robert’s letter and your post have provided me with important info and an avenue for my own ongoing actions concerning climate.
Omigoodness! Another Today’s Edition filled with Hope, Light, and Studies to wrap my weary mind around this chaotic, frightening time.
Thank you so much Robert Hubbell and Editor, and this Community for providing so many documents and Comments to make sense of all the goings on, and understand actions to take.
In addition to learning from Markers For Democracy virtual meetings, and writing this household’s regular Postcards To Voters, NEAZ, and occasionally other, postcard campaigns, and Vote Forward letters, and work, for which I am extremely thankful.
Now it’s off to the races time.
Nancy, are you the same Nancy Cochran who visited me in MA last month? If so, how is it that we spent 2-3 days together and didn't talk about this important newsletter!! I was delighted to read this comment from you. More later!! Always powerful to find out that a dear old friend is on the same page. With love, Penny
Thank you very much, Pam. I am very glad. Thanks for writing.
I lived for five years in central New York (Ithaca), and am a bit skeptical about solar energy, there, in winter. There is nearly continuous thick cloud cover for days on end, which, I suspect would severely limit the effectiveness of solar energy production. In “snow belt” areas, heavy snow will cover solar panels and remain unless assiduously removed.
These considerations could extend to much of the upper midwest, and even east into parts of New England.
In addition, there is the “baseline” generation problem, which may require more than energy storage.
One possible solution might be to build advanced nuclear generating plants to provide baseline power. Another, which probably would be a good idea in its own right, would be to extend and thoroughly modernized ower grids, so power could be “shipped” from regions having temporary excesses to regions with temporary deficits.
I don’t mean to be categorical about this. Rather than being bombarded with handwaving advocacy pieces, we need to see *quantitative* information and reasoning.
from a reader: Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan group whose motto is “creating the political will for a livable world.”
Focusing on a carbon fee and cash back dividend, a market approach considered the MOST effective way to reduce carbon, we lobby at the national level with volunteers from 450+ US and international chapters.
CCL has expanded our portfolio of actions to include, healthy forests, clean energy permitting reform and building electrification and efficiency.
Check us out on https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
From a reader: The Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) has been working across the aisle to get members of both parties to agree on a carbon fee and dividend measure that would have a far greater impact on carbon reduction than cap and trade and other similar solutions.
From a reader:
My faith community, St Katharine Drexel parish, Environmental Stewardship team which is, collecting batteries for recycling, educating on how to better care for our common home switching our parish culture from disposables to reusable tableware at parish socials, held a community wide recycling event for metal, textiles, styrofoam, and paper, and has moved garden care toward sustainable
MultiFaith Alliance of Climate Stewards, a Frederick Co Maryland organization of faith based climate leaders which "act locally on our moral duty to future generations by protecting the earth and its inhabitants from harmful impacts of climate change. In some traditions, this is known as Creation Care"
We have switched our house to community solar power, which was too easy to be believed and it saves us about 10% on our power bills
We drive a hybrid car now that gets about 60 mpg
I am working on switching our heating system from oil/hot water system to electric heat pump
https://solarvillageproject.org - a non-profit that installs solar in rural india
https://www.norfolksolar.org - my own effort, I install solar via PPAs (power purchase agreements) in low income areas of Virginia, and also hire those residents to be trained as solar installers
https://regeneration.org - a great compendium of ideas
thanks, Ruth!
Hello, and here I am again from Florida! My official title is VP of the Democratic Environmental Caucus of Florida. Environmental caucuses have been promoted throughout the U.S. by an organization called DNC Council on Environmental and Climate Crisis. Our goal is to do just what your newsletter today encourages. We develop policy and messaging for Democrats in Florida, so that our candidates understand what good environmental policy is, and voters understand who to vote for.
The very human defense of denial is at work here, a survival mechanism we employ, when the reality of our situation is so upsetting that we find ways to deny that reality. The fossil fuel marketing campaign uses our strongly held religious beliefs and worldviews to "fuel" denial. It feels like too massive a pivot when we think about what is necessary to transition to clean energy sufficient to address climate change; it is easier to buy into fossil fuel messaging.
Unfortunately, Democrats are just as susceptible to fossil fuel propaganda; some of our candidates take money from fossil fuel companies and water polluting interests. In past elections, voters have not prioritized environmental issues.
We have a rights of nature ballot initiative in Florida, called The Right to Clean Water. There is another ballot initiative happening now as well, to place access to abortion in the Florida constitution. Democratic organizations are prioritizing the abortion access petition with our voters, rather than prioritizing both. Unfortunately, that reflects the state of our state Democratic Party.
Increasingly, it is impossible for any of us to escape the effects of climate change and water pollution here. If we prioritized climate change and clean water in Florida, I believe that independent voters and communities hit hard by climate change and water pollution would respond.
This weekend is our Florida convention, called Leadership Blue. Our caucus has plans to "message" fellow Democrats at the convention, to show people ways to make environmental and climate change issues ones that can grow the number of people who vote Democratic. We also are working on ways to recruit candidates who will campaign on those issues.
If there are Floridians reading this who want to help, we certainly need you. If you want to help in any way, go to: https://www.environmentalcaucus.com/, or send me an email at decfvp@gmail.com.
Hi, Judy. Thanks for your important work. If you ever want me to promote one of your events, write to me at rhubbell@outlook.com
PostScript
Propping up the State Supreme Courts as well as the analysis and actions for Climate Change --extremely helpful.
Thank you!
Am Floridian and Dem-touch base?
email me
Address?
judyfreiberg@sbcglobal.net
Thank you, Robert. I am excited about the prospect of "propping up" our state supreme courts. Sounds like a fine idea!
I propose we stop using “Christian” to describe such things as “Christian Nationalism”. To know true Christianity is to know there is nothing Christian about any philosophy or practice that hates, belittles or marginalizes any group or any one…and yes I mean Any One.
I have started to use "religious nationalism," but I pause every time. Nationalism has found a home in the Christian church. Until the rest of the Christian church denounces and rejects the use of the Christian Church for nationalistic ends, it is difficult for us to describe the problem without identifying the source.
I get that. The difficulty is that it makes it sound as if Christianity is all about what a certain segment of the so-called Christian Church says it is. It saddens and angers me that the word "Christian" has been hijacked casting all of Christianity into a dark, judgmental, bigoted corner that has little or nothing to do with what it truly is.
I agree. Legitimate Christian churches and individuals are speaking out about this frequently. The problem is the media, much of which seems caught up in the usual jingoistic labels about the extremist right and their claims. They both fail to cover what Christians are saying (an occasional small side-piece), and fail to identify who the so called "Christian Nationalists" really are: wearing a label that does not fit what they do and say. I will add that I do not consider myself an "official" Christian, but have learned a lot from people who are, and see the connections with my own faith tradition. Long ago, I was having a conversation with an evangelical neighbor who I recall with great fondness. Not about spiritual matters, just in way of exploring how various people make their way in the world. I said something I don't recall now, other than it was about kindness, but her response sticks with me: She told me I was a true Christian, and then, remembering, she started to apologize. I stopped her, and told her that I understood what she was saying (within her context), and that I regarded it as a great compliment. I still do. Telling this is bringing back the memory of a good, now deceased friend, and I am near tears. We ended the conversation with a wonderful, affectionate hug. I miss that too.
Yes. I have been thinking/saying this for quite some time. Those people are not Christian.
Thank you so much for covering climate change so well, Robert! I wanted to chime in that our food choices critically impact the environment. In fact, we actually have to make significant changes to our food system in order to reach climate goals. This paper in Science (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba7357) shows that a business-as-usual food system alone will exceed the maximum greenhouse gas emissions allowable from all sectors for a 1.5 degrees C warming. The paper quantifies impacts of five strategies that could actually turn our food system into a net carbon sink, and a move to plant-rich diets is the most effective strategy. The carbon footprint of beef is roughly 26 g CO2 equivalents per gram, while that of beans is about 0.8 g CO2 equivalents per gram. While lower carbon ranching is an active research area, it's not something that is available at this time. Even pasture-raised beef has a hefty footprint due to methane production.
Here are some useful links:
https://ffacoalition.org/learn/facts/
https://www.wri.org/events/2022/5/cool-food-growing-movement-delicious-climate-action
https://www.farmsanctuary.org
https://betterfoodfoundation.org
As part of my work as an environmental engineering professor, I crunch numbers for carbon footprints of dietary patterns and individual meals. If you want to see some recipes along with the carbon footprint numbers, please visit:meals4planet.org.
For more recipes to help people shift to a greener diet, please see:
https://plantbasedonabudget.com
https://minimalistbaker.com
Thanks so much for all of your great work!
Thanks so much for the informative links! I have never thought about the impact of food choices on the dining table as drivers of climate change. thanks for educating me!
Thank you so much for message and links.
Robert, thank you for this focus on the Climate Crisis. If extinctions, massive suffering and the forced relocation of millions of humans don't have the attention of humans, what does that say about our collective intelligence?
May I humbly recommend that the Climate Crisis have at least one paragraph in every one of your fine letters? After all, if we don't make a difference on this subject, nothing else will matter.
We have such a list of worries and projects. But if our house is burning down or our crops are covered in soot from wild fires, who will have the time to think about the essential issues of gun violence, health care and women's rights? Who will be talking about affirmative action or websites for gay marriages when there are millions and millions of desperate people fleeing their homes? When the ERs are overloaded with people gasping for breath...wishing the gas masks were not stuck in a supply chain debacle.
And now, I'm off to Jessica's latest.
I'd suggest subscribing to Bill McKibben on climate change. He's got years of experience in this area. Robert is invaluable for his own areas of expertise.
I would suggest looking beyond Bill McKibbon. There are many other leaders in the field who have moved further than Bill in getting people on board. This is true nationally and internationally, but especially at the local level, which is where the most effective action is happening. I give Bill his due, but at this point he is a figurehead: the easy guy for media to turn to.
Thanks Annie. I haven't followed who's doing what in climate activism.
It's hopping, David. Especially with the latest news, people are really hard at work. It's scary, but I finally have a small sense of optimism. Finally, legislatures (some of them) are listening, realizing that it is happening now, not in some distant future we can shove things off onto. More people "get it", and are starting to step change how they do things. In my area, all the outfits installing heat pumps in my area are booked ahead for months (I finally get mine in August). More places are paying attention to real public transportation options, because it is finally sinking in that electric cars are not going to do it. We need to change HOW we travel, because we will need that electricity to cool spaces for people (and, in some cases, animals). And we need to change how we do land use planning, and how we build homes. How we produce food and where. Group here is looking at how my town can replant lost yard trees, increase shade. Small things add up.
We're late getting on it, and it's not going to be easy, but I believe that we can at least slow the warming down enough to reduce the impacts. We just need to remember that we are part of the process
Robert reaches a different audience and an important audience. My experience is that the environmental consequences of climate change are so massive, as Bill describes, that it is tempting to relegate the discussion to the environmentalists.
There is a tendency also to prioritize the authoritarian threat to our democracy, yet the threat of climate change is way more consequential to the survival of human and animals on our earth.
So I agree with Bill. Bring it on, Robert!!!
I think it's fine for Robert to bring these issues up occasionally for the reason you mention. But I strongly disagree that he should do more than that. Regarding your second paragraph, unless we maintain democracy, we can't do anything about climate change. Robert is being a huge help in that critical area. Furthermore, the Trumpists are mostly climate change deniers, who are in bed with the fossil fuel moguls. And Robert makes one critical mistake on global heating, in dismissing the contention that immigration is a problem:
My long-ago (1975) professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, and whose influence pervades much of the writing I've done, and who later became President Obama's Science Advisor, came up with an important equation to measure human impact on the environment.
Human Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology.
(I=PAT)
Thus, greater numbers of people have greater environmental impact.
We need fewer people in the world, and hopefully, fertility will keep falling for a while. But immigration to the US is also unhealthy for the world. That's because the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. This should not be surprising, as so many come from third world nations, where per capita emissions are low, to the US, the major industrialized nation with the highest per capita emissions.
I think that 3-fold figure is direct consumption, but there is also indirect consumption. Virgin land contains large amounts of sequestered carbon. When virgin lands are developed--for roads, homes, or other sprawl related stuff, or for farming, that carbon is released into the atmosphere, worsening warming.
From 1990-2020, the US grew by 83 million, equivalent to slightly more than four New York States, half of that from immigration. Over the next 40 years, the Census Bureau projects we will add a little more than three New York State equivalents, plus 7 million from native increase (one Massachusetts).
It is crazy for us to be adding to CO2 emissions through immigration when we're telling our citizens to cut down on CO2 emissions. It's even crazier given ProPublica's projection that within the next several decades, climate change will cause MILLIONS of Americans to become climate refugees.
Part of that is wildfires, and part of it is sources of water that are disappearing--the Colorado River, for example, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which ranchers and farmers use to water the Great Plains. The Ogallala stretches from Canada down to Texas, and users have been depleting it for decades.
https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-will-force-a-new-american-migration
Climate change is bad not just for us, but for the entire planet. Our immigration policy is hurting the whole world.
And how are we going to do that if democracy is not functioning? We the People are the force that will bring about meaningful action and keep the oligarchs from simply taking over the government. They are the primary roadblock in the way. WE HAVE to ensure that we have healthy, functioning government to put a brake on climate change, and to do that we have to make voting and the rights of human beings a priority.
Gerrymandering, The Federalist Society, Citizens United, FOX News. These are the 4 horses of the democratic apocalypse in the US.
Project Drawdown
Here are the individual solutions reviewed and assessed by Project Drawdown,
Gigatons CO2 Equivalent Reduced / Sequestered (2020–2050)
See: https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions
including their relevant sector(s) and their impact on reducing heat-trapping gases. This list is extensive but not exhaustive, and we continue to add to it as a living project. Drawdown Scenario 1 is roughly in line with 2˚C temperature rise by 2100, while Drawdown Scenario 2 is roughly in-line with 1.5˚C temperature rise at century’s end. The results shown here are based on projected emissions impact globally. The relative importance of a given solution can differ significantly depending on context and particular ecological, economic, political, or social conditions. The Top Priority actions to achieve 1.5 degree C drawdown of 93 actions analyzed include:
SOLUTION SCENARIO 2 * (to keep at 1.5 C)
3. Plant-Rich Diets 103.11
4. Reduced Food Waste 102.20
7. Family Planning and Education 68.90
8. Distributed Solar Photovoltaics 64.86
11. Silvopasture 42.31
14. Perennial Staple Crops 32.87
19. Regenerative Annual Cropping 23.21
22. Abandoned Farmland Restoration 20.32
All these action areas are being addressed or implemented at Massaro Community Farm in Woodbridge, CT. View our 5th solar installation at our model organic farm and
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project:
https://massarofarm.org/june-27-2023-newsletter-transform-our-learning-garden-with-a-solar-pavilion/
love this list. Sent this on to others. Thank you.
As a resident of Massachusetts I feel proud of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It has been a remarkable institution and I would encourage any visitor to Boston to visit the court. As an emigrant from South Africa, I feel so proud of former Chief Justice Margaret Marshall who wrote the Gay Marriage opinion in 2003. She too, came from South Africa, where she was politically active at a time when doing so was dangerous. Writing that opinion took great courage. Her intellectual rigor in interpreting the constitution puts the Reactionary Supreme Court to shame!
I should have mentioned Justice Marshall by name. She was a true trailblazer. Thanks for doing so.
And even more than being a trailblazer: Justice Marshall brought solid intelligence and wisdom to the Court.
Homegrown National Park is a way we can all help address climate change. If you have a yard planting natives and using less chemicals can contribute to supporting a better environment for all.
Here is the website of the Homegrown National Park, https://www.homegrownnationalpark.org, which is the brain child of Doug Talamy, a professor in the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology at the University of Delaware.
No chemicals in my yard. Letting the natives grow.
In other climate related matters, my long-ago (1975) professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, and whose influence pervades much of the writing I've done, and who later became President Obama's Science Advisor, came up with an important equation to measure human impact on the environment.
Human Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology.
(I=PAT)
Thus, greater numbers of people have greater environmental impact.
We need fewer people in the world, and hopefully, fertility will keep falling for a while. But immigration to the US is also unhealthy for the world. That's because the average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US. This should not be surprising, as so many come from third world nations, where per capita emissions are low, to the US, the major industrialized nation with the highest per capita emissions.
From 1990-2020, the US grew by 83 million, equivalent to slightly more than four New York States, half of that from immigration. Over the next 40 years, the Census Bureau projects we will add a little more than three New York State equivalents, plus 7 million from native increase (one Massachusetts).
It is crazy for us to be adding to CO2 emissions through immigration when we're telling our citizens to cut down on CO2 emissions. It's even crazier given ProPublica's projection that within the next several decades, climate change will cause MILLIONS of Americans to become climate refugees.
Part of that is wildfires, and part of it is sources of water that are disappearing--the Colorado River, for example, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which ranchers and farmers use to water the Great Plains. The Ogallala stretches from Canada down to Texas, and users have been depleting it for decades.
https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-will-force-a-new-american-migration
Climate change is bad not just for us, but for the entire planet. Our immigration policy is hurting the whole world.
Jess Craven shares many ways to help. Who knew about Super Soft toilet paper ?
Chop Wood, Save The Earth ! 🔥
⬇️
https://open.substack.com/pub/chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions/p/chop-wood-save-the-earth?r=fqsxl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email