Great essay, Jason. I shared it on Facebook. Like my mom says of those fossil fuel oligarchs and their bought-off politicians who are so actively burning the Earth because it makes them richer, "Where do they think they will go? Where will their children and grandchildren go? They will suffer the consequences too. There is no other planet."
Thank you, Jim. Great to hear from you. Tell your mom she's quite right. Once you start realizing just how bizarre and selfish the behavior is, you keep asking those questions.
I am so moved by this essay, Jason. Your anger and your love burst through this and create a safe space for me to rest my own anger, love and grief and not feel so alone with it. So much has to happen so quickly I can barely breathe for all the work that needs to be done. We must change the narrative, the paradigms of those narratives and we must do it now. I wish I could plaster this essay all over the telephone poles and the storefront windows!
Wonderful to hear from you, Kathleen. Thanks for the kind words, and for your righteous energy. But I think you'd go through too much paper trying to put this essay on all those poles and windows... When can we expect to hear from you and Code Red again?
Thanks so much, Laurie. I was thinking of you when I wrote that last bit. Heather really loved that walk with you and the group. And yes, you're right, there are so many voices and activists to thank for their good work.
“can only be blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions.” Great essay, thank you. But there are two “legs” to climate, not just CO2 but also land use. This was well known 50 years ago but the IPCC modelers found it to difficult to add land use to their models and plus it would interfere with all our green development. Forests shouldn’t be considered solely as CO2 sinks but as active drivers of climate on a much quicker and local scale.
Excellent, Leon. Thanks for this reminder and for the link to Rob Lewis' Substack, which is new to me. Millan Millan's work is also new to me. I glanced at the post and am excited to read it fully. I do sometimes fall into the trap of talking about climate through the narrow greenhouse lens, knowing nonetheless that the destruction of landscapes, particularly wetlands, is just as important as addressing our emissions. I will need to make a point of the importance of landscape loss for climate, though. Again, thank you.
I think the whole world has been falling into the CO2-only trap and this is no thanks to the IPCC and the media and governments. Acknowledging that land use affects climate change means less development. I’m so sick of seeing articles about whales and how much CO2 they sequester, or debates about how much CO2 forests can sequester. It drives me nuts. Yes we need to cut emissions, that’s a given, but we also have so much potential to restore ecosystems and quite rapidly change climate.
Well said. Talking only about emission-related climate solutions keeps the discussion focused on tech "fixes," rather than on the civilizational changes that reduce impact holistically. Framing the climate story around reduction of land use is a much harder sell, though a bit easier now since the global conversation about the biodiversity crisis has become more mainstream.
Do you know of reporting or research that quantifies the potential of restored landscapes to modify climate, or compares its capacity to reduction of emissions? I'm asking without having first searched on my own, but thought I'd check with you while also thanking you for the comment.
Hi Jason, I’m not sure of any figures, but I’m sure this analysis must have been done. Other organizations that look along these lines and may have done the research like water for climate, soil for climate, biodiversity for a living planet. But no I don’t have a direct answer
“I don’t know how many more warnings the world needs. It’s as if the human race has received a terminal medical diagnosis and knows there is a cure, but has consciously decided not to save itself.” — spot on!
Thanks, Molly. I was very happy to find that quote. It's from the Guardian, which really does an extraordinary job every day reporting on the biodiversity and climate crises. I can't recommend their environmental reporting enough.
Another brilliant piece, Jason. Your writing has this acute ability to make me feel both fully informed of the gravity of the problem, while leaving room for hope, love, solidarity, etc.
This piece in particular brought to mind Parquet Courts’ song “Before the water gets too high”:
Weeping and cheering throughout this post. Thank you for giving voice to so many of our collective frustrations, despair, and refusal to give up fighting. And thank you for the shout-out! I find a lot of strength in efforts to reclaim and rebuild commons around the world. Mostly, I take heart from people's refusal to limit their imaginations to capitalism's insistence of what is possible.
Thank you, Antonia. Love that last line. That refusal to be limited by capitalism's two-dimensional imagination has always been there, right? So many of us are stuck in the system - complicit but trapped - but have never been motivated by it per se. But now we're in a crisis of such proportions that the refusal has to become policy.
"The refusal has to become policy." YES. It sometimes -- or often -- hurts to think of what societies could have accomplished by now if all of this had been taken seriously and acted on 30 years ago. But sometimes I have to remind myself of that hurt and anger because otherwise it would be easy to forget the forces and interests we're up against and what they've managed to accomplish for themselves to everyone else's detriment.
On Amy Westervelt's Drilled podcast a few years ago, she had a great interview that stuck with me. Unfortunately, I can't remember who it was with, but the woman said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "I don't buy the locally raised organic chicken because I think it's going to save the planet. I buy the locally raised organic chicken because I want to help build a system that's going to contribute to life on this planet, not destroy it."
Right. Work to rebuild, rewild, restore, but let go of the idea that the personal scale is the same as the saving-the-planet scale. And yet, somehow...
Figuring out the utility of the anger and hurt is tricky. Sometimes they make you want to lean in, other times you just want to walk away (even though there's nowhere to go).
There is nowhere to go. I think of that often, especially when people talk to me about their plans for intentional communities. My first thought every single time is, "Do you have control over your water source?" (Aside from all the other difficulties and barriers of setting up that kind of thing.)
But as someone who believes in walking and advocates for walkability, I can't deny that walking -- maybe not away, maybe just aimlessly -- never fails to help me cope with all of this. A walk doesn't always give an answer, but it's almost always an answer in itself. 🧡
Early pre-dawn and a song sparrow is calling out. The
dew still glistens. But to the east the sky is lightening and all nature is hushed, even the sparrow,, with the dread of that lighting sky, the burning orb, the awful heat to come.
Thank you for this prose poem, Michael. I try not to think too much about how the birds are faring in these long-term extreme heat spells. I remember reading about birds falling out of the sky in Pakistan or India last year. Can't bear to contemplate it for too long. But the beautiful mornings keep coming too, so on we go.
“Global Warming:The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care”is the definitive new work on the subject of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Guy Mitchell, a businessman with the mind of a scientist, takes a holistic approach and combines scientific analysis with an in-depth review of the political and economic aspects of the subject. He uses proven science and scientific facts to refute every claim of the climate alarmists and proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis. He exposes the true reasons that the UN, certain politicians and global investment firms promote the global warming fraud. His analysis is an unbiased, scientifically based, insightful, no holds-barred approach to the subject.
There has been no significant warming of the world’s oceans, atmosphere or land mass since accurate satellite measurements were initiated in 1979. The average temperature of the Earth is an abstraction; it is a figment of the imagination of climate scientists, conjured up in an effort to support a fraudulent hypothesis. The concept has no validity in scientific analyses of the Earth’s climate. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming or climate change; the geometry of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun and the Sun-spot cycle are the primary fundamental natural causes. Man has had no measured impact on the Earth’s climate. The melting of polar ice is the result of a natural oceanic cycle and is not affected by man’s activities. Empirical evidence of global warming is the result of local atmospheric conditions that have nothing to do with so-called climate change."
Given that, what are we all so worried about? We've been deceived by those so-called "
scientists" and their liberal agendas. Go back to sleep everyone. Nothing to see here. We're in charge. Nothing but a silly group of alarmists, crackpots and tree-huggers outside. Don't rock the boat. Get with the program. Thank us for providing you jobs. Keep America strong.
Got to love that phrase, "businessman with the mind of a scientist." It's the kind of thing a businessman would write, and that a scientist never would. And the blurb writer's careful phrase, "scientifically-based," as opposed to actually scientific. That said, these ideas and conspiracy theories are giving way where it matters - the next generation - and so for now the scariest part of that write-up is the phrase "best-seller."
My guess is that Guy Mitchell has never read the work of Fourier, Callendar, Arrhenius, and others from the 19th century who laid the groundwork for the "scientific analyses" he claims has "no validity." And he certainly cannot have done the math taking into account radiation output from the sun, distance to the Earth, and what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth should be without this so-called invalid science.
No doubt. Or he has, and found a secret counterargument... But getting into those discussions risks the consequences of Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Yes, but I doubt that "best seller" description. It's just a pathetic marketing attempt to create a kind of bandwagon effect "Don't miss out!" "A national phenomenon!". Tired old stuff...
I live in northwest Montana, where this kind of thing finds a ready audience. It makes it incredibly hard to get any kind of traction. We keep trying anyway ...
I saw this book reviewed and was dumbstruck and furious. I wrote a scathing review of the book on Amazon and they refused to publish the review. They called it unacceptable and provocative. Ha!
Hi K. I have both the Heat book and the Ocean rising book that he wrote. This review of the standard obfuscating counter-book made my blood boil too so I put it there so readers could see what we're up against. Note the bit about "international investment bankers". That's a dog whistle code, since Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith, for anti-Semitism. Really charming, that!
Great essay, Jason. I shared it on Facebook. Like my mom says of those fossil fuel oligarchs and their bought-off politicians who are so actively burning the Earth because it makes them richer, "Where do they think they will go? Where will their children and grandchildren go? They will suffer the consequences too. There is no other planet."
Thank you, Jim. Great to hear from you. Tell your mom she's quite right. Once you start realizing just how bizarre and selfish the behavior is, you keep asking those questions.
I am so moved by this essay, Jason. Your anger and your love burst through this and create a safe space for me to rest my own anger, love and grief and not feel so alone with it. So much has to happen so quickly I can barely breathe for all the work that needs to be done. We must change the narrative, the paradigms of those narratives and we must do it now. I wish I could plaster this essay all over the telephone poles and the storefront windows!
Wonderful to hear from you, Kathleen. Thanks for the kind words, and for your righteous energy. But I think you'd go through too much paper trying to put this essay on all those poles and windows... When can we expect to hear from you and Code Red again?
“Look with attention and act with care”
A good mantra to live by. I was one of those with Heather most recently. I walked in “awe”
TY once again for your research and thought provoking and hopefully action provoking wisdom. Yours with others who need acknowledgement as well.
Thanks so much, Laurie. I was thinking of you when I wrote that last bit. Heather really loved that walk with you and the group. And yes, you're right, there are so many voices and activists to thank for their good work.
“can only be blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions.” Great essay, thank you. But there are two “legs” to climate, not just CO2 but also land use. This was well known 50 years ago but the IPCC modelers found it to difficult to add land use to their models and plus it would interfere with all our green development. Forests shouldn’t be considered solely as CO2 sinks but as active drivers of climate on a much quicker and local scale.
This is the work of MIllan Millan and all explained here: https://open.substack.com/pub/theclimateaccordingtolife/p/millan-millan-and-the-mystery-of?r=fhgru&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Excellent, Leon. Thanks for this reminder and for the link to Rob Lewis' Substack, which is new to me. Millan Millan's work is also new to me. I glanced at the post and am excited to read it fully. I do sometimes fall into the trap of talking about climate through the narrow greenhouse lens, knowing nonetheless that the destruction of landscapes, particularly wetlands, is just as important as addressing our emissions. I will need to make a point of the importance of landscape loss for climate, though. Again, thank you.
I think the whole world has been falling into the CO2-only trap and this is no thanks to the IPCC and the media and governments. Acknowledging that land use affects climate change means less development. I’m so sick of seeing articles about whales and how much CO2 they sequester, or debates about how much CO2 forests can sequester. It drives me nuts. Yes we need to cut emissions, that’s a given, but we also have so much potential to restore ecosystems and quite rapidly change climate.
Well said. Talking only about emission-related climate solutions keeps the discussion focused on tech "fixes," rather than on the civilizational changes that reduce impact holistically. Framing the climate story around reduction of land use is a much harder sell, though a bit easier now since the global conversation about the biodiversity crisis has become more mainstream.
Do you know of reporting or research that quantifies the potential of restored landscapes to modify climate, or compares its capacity to reduction of emissions? I'm asking without having first searched on my own, but thought I'd check with you while also thanking you for the comment.
Hi Jason, I’m not sure of any figures, but I’m sure this analysis must have been done. Other organizations that look along these lines and may have done the research like water for climate, soil for climate, biodiversity for a living planet. But no I don’t have a direct answer
Thanks, Leon. I'll dig into it. Take care.
Brilliant post. Thank-you.
“I don’t know how many more warnings the world needs. It’s as if the human race has received a terminal medical diagnosis and knows there is a cure, but has consciously decided not to save itself.” — spot on!
Thanks, Molly. I was very happy to find that quote. It's from the Guardian, which really does an extraordinary job every day reporting on the biodiversity and climate crises. I can't recommend their environmental reporting enough.
Another brilliant piece, Jason. Your writing has this acute ability to make me feel both fully informed of the gravity of the problem, while leaving room for hope, love, solidarity, etc.
This piece in particular brought to mind Parquet Courts’ song “Before the water gets too high”:
Before the water gets too high
Add up the bribes you take
And know time can't be bought
By the profits that you make
Before the water gets too high
To float the powers that be
Or is it someone else's job
Until the rich are refugees?
Thanks so much, Jacob. That's about the highest praise I can get.
Great lyrics, too. Those last lines, especially. I'll give it a listen. I'm hearing echoes of Dylan...
Weeping and cheering throughout this post. Thank you for giving voice to so many of our collective frustrations, despair, and refusal to give up fighting. And thank you for the shout-out! I find a lot of strength in efforts to reclaim and rebuild commons around the world. Mostly, I take heart from people's refusal to limit their imaginations to capitalism's insistence of what is possible.
Thank you, Antonia. Love that last line. That refusal to be limited by capitalism's two-dimensional imagination has always been there, right? So many of us are stuck in the system - complicit but trapped - but have never been motivated by it per se. But now we're in a crisis of such proportions that the refusal has to become policy.
"The refusal has to become policy." YES. It sometimes -- or often -- hurts to think of what societies could have accomplished by now if all of this had been taken seriously and acted on 30 years ago. But sometimes I have to remind myself of that hurt and anger because otherwise it would be easy to forget the forces and interests we're up against and what they've managed to accomplish for themselves to everyone else's detriment.
On Amy Westervelt's Drilled podcast a few years ago, she had a great interview that stuck with me. Unfortunately, I can't remember who it was with, but the woman said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "I don't buy the locally raised organic chicken because I think it's going to save the planet. I buy the locally raised organic chicken because I want to help build a system that's going to contribute to life on this planet, not destroy it."
Right. Work to rebuild, rewild, restore, but let go of the idea that the personal scale is the same as the saving-the-planet scale. And yet, somehow...
Figuring out the utility of the anger and hurt is tricky. Sometimes they make you want to lean in, other times you just want to walk away (even though there's nowhere to go).
There is nowhere to go. I think of that often, especially when people talk to me about their plans for intentional communities. My first thought every single time is, "Do you have control over your water source?" (Aside from all the other difficulties and barriers of setting up that kind of thing.)
But as someone who believes in walking and advocates for walkability, I can't deny that walking -- maybe not away, maybe just aimlessly -- never fails to help me cope with all of this. A walk doesn't always give an answer, but it's almost always an answer in itself. 🧡
Early pre-dawn and a song sparrow is calling out. The
dew still glistens. But to the east the sky is lightening and all nature is hushed, even the sparrow,, with the dread of that lighting sky, the burning orb, the awful heat to come.
Thank you for your efforts to sound the alarm.
Thank you for this prose poem, Michael. I try not to think too much about how the birds are faring in these long-term extreme heat spells. I remember reading about birds falling out of the sky in Pakistan or India last year. Can't bear to contemplate it for too long. But the beautiful mornings keep coming too, so on we go.
And then there's this:
"Wall Street Journal Best Seller
“Global Warming:The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care”is the definitive new work on the subject of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Guy Mitchell, a businessman with the mind of a scientist, takes a holistic approach and combines scientific analysis with an in-depth review of the political and economic aspects of the subject. He uses proven science and scientific facts to refute every claim of the climate alarmists and proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis. He exposes the true reasons that the UN, certain politicians and global investment firms promote the global warming fraud. His analysis is an unbiased, scientifically based, insightful, no holds-barred approach to the subject.
There has been no significant warming of the world’s oceans, atmosphere or land mass since accurate satellite measurements were initiated in 1979. The average temperature of the Earth is an abstraction; it is a figment of the imagination of climate scientists, conjured up in an effort to support a fraudulent hypothesis. The concept has no validity in scientific analyses of the Earth’s climate. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming or climate change; the geometry of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun and the Sun-spot cycle are the primary fundamental natural causes. Man has had no measured impact on the Earth’s climate. The melting of polar ice is the result of a natural oceanic cycle and is not affected by man’s activities. Empirical evidence of global warming is the result of local atmospheric conditions that have nothing to do with so-called climate change."
Given that, what are we all so worried about? We've been deceived by those so-called "
scientists" and their liberal agendas. Go back to sleep everyone. Nothing to see here. We're in charge. Nothing but a silly group of alarmists, crackpots and tree-huggers outside. Don't rock the boat. Get with the program. Thank us for providing you jobs. Keep America strong.
Got to love that phrase, "businessman with the mind of a scientist." It's the kind of thing a businessman would write, and that a scientist never would. And the blurb writer's careful phrase, "scientifically-based," as opposed to actually scientific. That said, these ideas and conspiracy theories are giving way where it matters - the next generation - and so for now the scariest part of that write-up is the phrase "best-seller."
My guess is that Guy Mitchell has never read the work of Fourier, Callendar, Arrhenius, and others from the 19th century who laid the groundwork for the "scientific analyses" he claims has "no validity." And he certainly cannot have done the math taking into account radiation output from the sun, distance to the Earth, and what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth should be without this so-called invalid science.
No doubt. Or he has, and found a secret counterargument... But getting into those discussions risks the consequences of Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Yes, but I doubt that "best seller" description. It's just a pathetic marketing attempt to create a kind of bandwagon effect "Don't miss out!" "A national phenomenon!". Tired old stuff...
I live in northwest Montana, where this kind of thing finds a ready audience. It makes it incredibly hard to get any kind of traction. We keep trying anyway ...
I saw this book reviewed and was dumbstruck and furious. I wrote a scathing review of the book on Amazon and they refused to publish the review. They called it unacceptable and provocative. Ha!
Hi K. I have both the Heat book and the Ocean rising book that he wrote. This review of the standard obfuscating counter-book made my blood boil too so I put it there so readers could see what we're up against. Note the bit about "international investment bankers". That's a dog whistle code, since Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith, for anti-Semitism. Really charming, that!