A beautiful and troubling essay, weaving together, finding connection in, many disparate elements. It's the way we think, the way we make sense of this sometimes troubling world, this truly alarming age, the Anthropocene. Our senses tell us something is wrong, our intuitions tell us things are out of kilter, but our lonely and disconnected imperious intellects can ignore or even veto these presentments. And so things proceed to bitter ends.
I have already voted. Straight Democrat up and down ballot. In this age of misinformation and clamorous claims, like flocks of contending gulls, it was best to steer by intuition. I urge everyone to do the same but don't discard your intellect-just think deeply and you arrive in agreement with your gut sense: Trump and his cadre are not remotely a path to anything good, they will make things worse.
Jason, this is such a beautiful essay. I'm honoured to find myself perched within its branches. As you well know, we're in a deeply troubling time. Balance is so hard to find. "I’d register as an Independent if there was a middle ground between the parties to inhabit. But there isn’t." Amen to that.
Thank you, Chloe. Given the beauty of your writing, that excerpt feels like a beating heart in the essay. It speaks to so much of what sensitivity means in this world. The impossibility of it sometimes.
Finding that photo took a while, but it also led me to an interesting hunter's post from MT about hanging up a deer's ribcage after butchering for the birds to eat the fat. The original suet feeder, but healthier, without whatever is in industrial beef fat. Always intrigues me that our little bird friends are nibbling on the fat of carcasses. There was a photo of a woodpecker on the hanging ribs. Death and birds...
The impossibility of it... I'm feeling that so strongly at the moment. Employing all the practices I have to remain here, open, in love and attuned to the impossible beauty of it all.
I'm about to gear myself up to fall into that rabbit hole of images of birds in ribcages :) Thank you, Jason. Hope to spend some time with you on a nature call soon.
Chloe, it's so nice to hear your voice in this neck of the Substack forest. I've said over and over again that Jason and you are two of the finest writers in substack.
I read recently that environmental scientists are less likely to vote. That seems so backwards to me and so sad - I can only imagine it is due to hopelessness. Thank you for another wonderful story. The new thing I learned today was about caul. I love the story of your grandmother. Thanks so much for sharing and please keep writing.
Thank you, Karen. Please, if you can, let me know where you read that story about environmental scientists being less likely to vote. That's intriguing. It does sound at first glance like they know too much... But I'd like to check it out. And yes, I'll keep writing.
I can't imagine that environmental scientists are less likely to vote. My long ago Berkeley professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, has certainly voted, or will be doing so (I don't know that, but I can't imagine otherwise. He's too well grounded.) And I'm sure another environmental scientist, who told me I put her on the map, has also surely voted, or will also be doing so. (I have written a fair amount on environmental science.)
(googles)
It's not environmental scientists who don't vote. It's environmentalists, according to multiple articles. But one article, from this past January, came with this headline and subhead:
"U.S. voters’ climate change opinions swing elections
New analysis: climate concerns likely gave Democrats the White House in 2020."
My guess about all those articles claiming the opposite is the media's push for articles that say the opposite of the current wisdom, in a push for clicks and financial remuneration. For the good news, go here:
As a long time environmentalist, I see that either outcome (Trump or Harris) presents challenges. Voting is, as you say, "the least we can do" and I am not discouraging it. But the "more" and the “most” that we can do is engaging in mass movements that pressure elected officials to do the right thing. Like decrease domestic fossil fuel production, protect wildlife habitat from industrial development, and support sustainable land management practices (i.e. organic agriculture and habitat restoration). Mass movements are the forces responsible for positive change in our culture, whether that's been civil rights, labor rights or environmental protection. Politicians always need to have their feet held to the fire to do the right thing, and mass movements are the way to do that.
Hence my personal view about the outcome of this election. You've spelled out quite well why Trump and Project 2025 are potentially disastrous, and if he's in the White House again, we'll certainly have a lot of work to do to push back against their plans. Under that circumstance, there will be plenty of egregious things to motivate the growth and action of a mass movement. However, if Harris wins, the challenge will be convincing people that, no, everything's not alright, and we still have to mobilize and hold her administration’s feet to the fire.
History provides us with cautionary tales. During the Obama administration, both the antiwar movement and the environmental movement withered at the level of big mainstream organizations, though the smaller, localized or radical grassroots groups persisted with their work, bless them. Their voices don't command the same attention though, in the media or in policy circles. Obama’s energy policy was, in his words, “all of the above” and US domestic fossil fuel production rose to record levels, which is the opposite of "keeping it in the ground." Obama’s feet were not held to the fire and the damages his administration caused were real.
We also saw this during the Clinton administration. When Bill entered office, he faced a situation where efforts by environmentalists had successfully pushed a judge to declare no commercial logging on public lands. “Zero cut” is the hold grail of forest defense, but Bill didn’t want that. He convened a group with both Big Timber and Big Green, and the resulting Northwest Forest Plan clearcut more acres of old growth trees in his eight years than Reagan/Bush I had accomplished in their 12 years. It was a tragedy. By giving environmentalists “a seat at the table” he successfully neutered them, and since then the Big Green organizations have been reluctant to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire.
Under Biden, US fossil fuel production hit another historic peak, and today the US produces more annually than any other country in history. This is horrific.
My fear is that if Harris wins, the same thing will happen: that complacency will reign and that recruiting people to a mass movement will be an uphill battle.
One more history lesson: What president put into place the most environmental legislation? That would be the president responsible for the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA, one of our most powerful tools for protecting places), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which engages in important climate and environmental research. Who was that president?
Nixon. A staunch Republican (and a war monger of astounding proportions). But Nixon felt forced to do these things because of the power of the environmental movement at the time. Now I know that the Republican party of now is an entirely different thing, but the example is still instructive. People power is powerful.
We can’t elect people to office assuming they will do the right thing. We need to elect people who will be more susceptible to our pressure when we hold their feet to the fire. It is widely believed that Democrats are more susceptible to that pressure than Republicans and I won’t argue against that. But if Harris wins, we we must take advantage of that susceptibility and hold her administration’s feet to the fire from Day 1, which means the day after the election. After all, that’s the day her team will be at work crafting policy and assigning people to fill important posts. We can’t allow a Harris administration to raise fossil fuel production to yet another record high, for example. Nor can we allow it to destroy wildlife habitat for “green energy” industrial development or to continue subsidizing Big Ag over small-scale organic farming or to keep supporting an “invasive plant” ideology that utilizes widespread application of herbicides. We will have our work cut out for us!
So sure, we can vote because it’s “the least we can do.” But we must—must!—do the “more” and the “most” as hard as we can. Given the state of the world, we must mobilize with an intensity as yet unseen, no matter who ends up occupying the White House.
Agreed on all accounts, Kollibri. Thanks for spelling it out so thoroughly. The Nixon note is an important one. That first Earth Day is still the largest single day of protest in US history, with about 10% of the population hitting the streets. But I think in the same scenario Trump will call in the dogs. There will be no compliance with popular opinion in another Trump presidency. I think people don't really know the scale of change that's in the offing nor how fast it will be.
Kollibri and Jason, I'm curious what you think about Rights of Nature.
It feels rather ironic that I've been working on Rights of Nature for the Swannanoa River since SCOTUS effectively wiped out 50% of the wetland protection in the May 2023 Sackett case.
Kollibri, I understand your concerns about climate complacency. Yet, Hurricane Helene screamed with intensity. If a hurricane can take that weird left hand turn into the mountains, there's a unique opportunity to build on Trish O'Kane's work in Birding To Change the World, her memoir post Katrina. Katrina and Helene call us to translate how wind and water work. We need to envision the future for the politicians. What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson might be a good foundation.
Rights of Nature is the essential next step in widening the circle, but looks Herculean in the face of an electorate split evenly over a party that isn't sure about the rights of women. That said, the building block approach that's happening with such rights approved for landscapes and species around the world seems exactly right. Keep building until such rights jump the threshold from weird to normal. And your work isn't ironic, Katharine, it's necessary, especially in the face of scotus malfeasance. Until we have a top down correction we can only work on bottom up patchwork.
I think Rights of Nature is one of the most important efforts going on in the legal system worldwide right now. I'm acquainted with a lawyer who tried to have such rights declared for the Colorado River. Unfortunately, the judge was not convinced and dismissed it, but it was worth a try.
Hurricane Katrina is what inspired me to get into farming. I was living in Portland, Oregon, at the time and had friends who went down to help. They were herbalists, anarchists, and other community-minded folks, and they told me stories about how FEMA and the other big orgs were ineffective, but that the grassroots, neighborhood-level efforts that they were involved in enjoyed some success. (I've been hearing similar stories from NC post-Helene.) Their accounts made me see that community resilience is extraordinarily important and that the best time to start building it is *before* disaster hits. I then became an urban farmer, in order to help create a localized food system. That was a great experience. Very fruitful (literally and metaphorically). I no longer live in Portland but have remained involved in small-scale organic agriculture, and have also branched out into "wildtending" which is about nurturing non-domestic plants and landscapes for abundance, often taking cues from ancient, pre-Colonial lifeways. Reciprocity is the key to such relationships. Agriculture could benefit from having some of that spirit brought to it.
And yes, as the climate becomes more chaotic, hopefully that shakes people out of complacency, including politicians. An important task now, in my opinion, is to introduce non-Capitalist narratives and values into the discussion. For example, a very popular idea currently is decarbonization through industrial "green energy" development but I believe a more effective approach is decarbonization through reduction of consumption. This is largely because I don't want to see more wildlife habitat torn up and bulldozed for solar and wind farms, and for the mining of all the components they need. This is already happening unfortunately, and maybe you've heard of Thacker Pass and the lithium mines there, in Nevada.
Yes the loss of wetland protection was an upsetting tragedy. And not to be too pointed, but that happened under Biden's watch, which is exactly my point. Will there be more resistance if Trump is installed and tries similar things? I hope so.
I haven't heard of either of those books and will check them out. Thanks so much for what you do too!
Yes, to what you said! I appreciate the time you took to answer. I need to subscribe to your Substack. I'm very interested in wildtending. My forest land is greatly altered with so many trees down.
As far as the stories coming out of NC, I know there are many. One of the oddities is we have 'orphan roads' which are part of the mountain culture of western North Carolina. Orphan roads are technically easements and there's no governmental body associated with them. 600 orphan roads were compromised by the force of Helene. One of 300 landslides in Buncombe County landed on the entrance of my orphan road that is home to 80 households. NC Department of Environmental Quality crawled behind the slide. When the guys returned after an hour, they reported that the slide went in 1/4 mile and there were two more slides behind it. (I will cover orphan roads and landslides in Matters of Kinship as soon as I get out from under.)
We maintain the road as a community with road dues. FEMA couldn't help initially (they were here ,but in town) because the only way in for the first week was by helicopter., and they were scarce due to the scope of the disaster.
The moment was perfect for community to step in first. We unblocked the road so emergency vehicles could get in. We got the pregnant and the elderly out by helicopter. Then the Cajun Army came in, the National Guard, the Reserves of some military branch. I seriously lost track. As we cleared the landslide, vehicles driving by stopped to offer help.
This is where Substack helps. Once I get my Helene brain fog to dissipate. I can essay the story from the trenches.
On the Sackett debacle. Yes, it was on Biden's watch. But I would say it was really on the patriarchy's watch. McConnell blocked Obama from what should have been his Supreme Court nomination. Trump got his three 'justices' in thus SCOTUS is a threat to our ecosystems. Sackett got to build on a wetland riding on the tailwind of Trump's taint to SCOTUS.
Reading your comment, I think Johnson's book may find a home place with you. O'Kane's book is impressive because she treats a city park as an ecosystem with rights, without specifically going after rights of nature or saying the park is a being. She acts as if. Remarkable human. I interviewed her twice for Matters of Kinship. And I wrote two or three other essays about how her approach rippled out to other parks, and schools.
I totally agree on decarbonization through reduction of consumption. (You will find that Johnson is big on that in her first chapter.) Going sixteen days without electricity showed me that I could reduce, even when I thought I had pared down to the essentials.
"Orphan roads" is a new term to me, but I spent two months in Sonoma County this last summer on a farm that is part of a 64 parcel HOA that manages its own roads through dues just like that, with all the roads being easements through private property. This community only dates back to the early '70s Back-to-the-Land movement, so is not as old. I did some paid work for the HOA weedwacking along these roads for fire prevention purposes.
I took this opportunity to dig back into the Sackett case. First of all, yes, the best way to say it is that it was on the Patriarchy's watch. I totally agree, and I'm a Smash Patriarchy person all the way!
It's worth mentioning though that the case was 9 to 0, so this wasn't apparently an instance in which the decision was decided because of Trump appointments.
Biden's response to the ruling was that his administration would "use every legal authority we have to protect our nation's waters." I couldn't find any information about what form that took, if any, however, and more to the point, the key missing ingredient here was (and is) pressure from environmental organizations, activists and his base (the mass movement organizing I mentioned originally). This issue doesn't have to end with the Supreme Court, after all, and what work-arounds, legislative or otherwise, need to be advocated for? I couldn't find any suggestions about that, other than that individual states can implement their own protections. (Taking things to the statehouse level has been a specialty of Republicans and the Right and they've done well with it.) This is what frustrates me about environmental issues under Democratic administrations. There's just not enough attention given to them, and not enough action taken. I think this is because a) too many regular well-meaning people think everything's ok because it's a Dem and b) big environmental organizations don't want to risk losing their "seat at the table" by pushing too hard. If Harris wins, there will be important work to do with both a) and b). so that the Dems aren't just another agent of the Patriarchy.
Sackett was 9-0 only in the particulars of that case. It was 5-4 on the larger implications, with the 4 arguing for a much narrower ruling that didn't undermine the CWA. See ScotusBlog for details. Otherwise, yes, Congress if it falls into responsible hands and state legislatures until then. One partial solution on both levels is the RAWA act in Congress that amply funds non-game species conservation work in the states. It's bipartisan and has come close but for a dispute over funding mechanism. States have detailed plans to protect species and habitats (including wetlands), but need the money.
I'm definitely excited to delve into O'Kane. I love that she treats city parks as ecosystems. This is very forward thinking. Ecosystems are not just "natural" environments, but any set of relationships among plants, animals, etc., anyplace that they're found. In science, a recently coined term and concept is "novel ecosystems" to describe such places that are anthropogenically inflected or controlled. I have a friend who's a professor at the U of Arizona in Phoenix who teaches a course on novel ecosystems and they make observational trips to many different kinds of locations, from abandoned city lots to restoration projects to soccer fields. It's fascinating stuff!
Yeah, the differences between Nixon and Trump show just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone. Noam Chomsky has called Nixon "our last liberal president." It really was a different time. The idea that Trump would bow to pressure on the environment the way that Nixon did is, I agree, ridiculous. I mentioned Nixon's record in part to show how little has gotten done at the federal level since then. So if Harris/Walz prevail, we should aim to pressure them to beat his record. I would love to see it.
As would I, but the 21st century KKK/John Birchers will still be in Congress, the courts, and the media. The main path for environmental policy will be in economic terms, as Biden has expressed it. Much will depend on the makeup of Congress, and the Senate does not look promising.
The Senate is darn close. Hopefully the independent candidate Dan Osborne wins in Nebraska against the Republican incumbent. (The Democrats didn't bother to run anyone against her!!) The polls show them in a dead heat, but the polling in Nebraska's first district shows Harris over Trump by 12 points, compared to Biden's win of 7, and Osborne's support among Democratic voters is very very high. If he does win, this will be an important lesson for the Democrats because it will show that victory is possible in deep red places, where, honestly, they could try harder.
Absolutely. If democrats don't heal the rift with rural voters they're out to lunch. They need to take back the narrative about economics (Biden has begun this process but no one is listening) and on values (which if your data pans out might be happening?).
Lovely writing as always. Thanks you, but I find myself anxious and angry in ways that nature can barely soothe, and then only until the next reminder of what is at stake and the fact that half the voting population prefers Trump. And yes, of course I will vote and vote for Harris. I have almost as much intolerance for 3rd party voters in the presidential race as for Trump supporters. Oh my, that cloud of doom, that undercurrent of fear, and that caul, not of prescience but of pessimism.
I usually take the philosophical long view. Regimes come and go. The news cycle moves on like a grass fire, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains. Both fame and notoriety are fleeting. The nation recovers from bad leadership and good (for that matter) Time heals all wounds.
But Trump is different. When I think of the future libraries, there will be shelves of books (in whatever form) analyzing Trump and his impact. Only Lincoln and FDR's shelves will rival his. He is singular- not because of any greatness of character or will, but he arrived at a moment when a rare conjunction of events and forces opened up a gap for an individual like him to accrue power. He is essentially a mediocrity, but is the proxy for powerful subterranean forces that have emerged into the daylight.
He is making a tremendous impact. He is the Chicxulub asteroid of our time.
Sorry I’m arriving late, Jason. But not too late. I voted today.
Exquisite writing. Like you, I have been heavily tormented and overwhelmed in disbelief . How did we get to this crevasse that divides family, friends and country. Though, it sounds like a question, I think we both know the answer.
Thank you for including D&B, Chloe’s gorgeous story of embers, her embers, and the photograph you included ; “nestlings in deer ribcage” was the perfect companion to her writing.
Yes, chaos is a writhing theme throughout. The word seems to play on repeat , in my head . Another question that needs no answer, why are some people attracted to chaos.
I just finished reading an article from the NYTimes, now I can’t sleep and it’s way past my bedtime.
I’ve included it for you, though I’m sure you are well aware. I am putting a cautionary label on it;
No such thing as late, Lor. It's just read when you want, a 24-hour buffet of online narrative. And I was really happy to bring in Chloe's amazing work.
Just read that Times piece, thank you. Hope it makes a difference. It won't keep me up. I'm in the bad news business... And know this story well already.
I am going to push back on this assertion you made: “Some third-party candidates are better, I know, but without ranked-choice voting a vote for them in a binary election is a vote for Trump.” I know this is a popular Democratic talking point, and given how hard they’ve been pushing it, I understand why you’re tempted to repeat it, but I find it misleading.
As you know, the president is chosen by the electoral college, not the popular vote. The majority of states are solidly blue or solidly red in terms of assigning electors, and in such states, a vote for a third party really is just a vote for a third party. For example, my vote for Nader in 1996 in Massachusetts and in Minnesota in 2000, and my vote for Stein in Oregon in 2016 and in New Mexico in 2024 were all inconsequential in terms of who won the electors for those states, given that they were all solidly blue at the the time of those elections. (I didn’t vote the other years.)
In a swing state like this year’s Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona, individual votes are more meaningful. But it’s not factually true that every vote for Stein is taken from Harris, or every vote for Chase Oliver (the Libertarian) is taken from Trump. Many (and arguably most) third party voters wouldn’t vote for a Democrat or Republican no matter what. (I’m in that category personally because of my lifelong antiwar stance.) Some could be convinced, but that’s the responsibility of Harris and Trump to make their case to such voters. No vote is owed to or owned by any party. You’re making your case here why such voters should vote for Harris, and such efforts are part of the democratic process. You made a good case, and I appreciate that you’re working to educate people. The more collective knowledge we have, the more effective our collective efforts can be.
There are definitely situations where every vote really does count. Here in New Mexico, Gabe Vasquez, the incumbent Democratic Congressman, is running for reelection against Republican Yvette Herrell. This is a rematch of the 2022 election, when Vasquez squeaked by with a 1,350-vote margin out of more than 192,000 votes cast. So my vote for Vasquez this year is potentially consequential (as was the vote cast by a friend here who I convinced to vote for him too). Herrell is absolutely terrible on the environment, and is one of these people pushing to privatize public lands, which would be an absolute nightmare. There was no third party choice in this race, but given the 2022 margin, I probably would’ve voted Vasquez even if there was.
Thanks again, Kollibri, for zooming in, this time on my broad-brush statement about electoral politics. You're right of course about third party votes in safe states, and about the importance of gauging the most rational voting option in local races. In tighter swing states, yes it's up to candidates to persuade, but it's equally up to voters to look holistically at the consequences of their vote. As Rebecca Solnit says, voting is a chess move not a Valentine.
You’re welcome, Jason! I continue to enjoy your posts or I wouldn’t bother to comment. My personal chess move is a long-game to help the Green Party grow. And I forgot to mention it in the first comment, but yes, I agree that ranked choice voting would really be a great thing. I’m happy to see it being adopted at the local level in a few places, including the state of Maine.
I read that article and it left out what’s usually left out of the discussion about the efficacy of Green Party electoral effort at the federal level, which is the enormous amount of resources that the Democratic Party devotes to trying to squash the Greens. This year (as in the past) they hired a bunch of lawyers to keep the Green Party off the ballot in various states, which tied up Green Party resources in legal battles. The Democrats also posted paid jobs for infiltrators/spies into the Green Party, which was a new tactic this year as far as I know. Of course such efforts have had the desired effect of keeping the Greens small.
Time magazine reports:
“For the first time, the party has built a war room devoted to tracking and attempting to discredit third-party candidates. The operation has more than 30 dedicated staffers, with an operating budget in the low seven figures, according to a staffer involved.”
Whoa, that's interesting/terrible. I guess the best time for a third party is always the next election… Or with any luck the Republicans will split into two, and inspire the Dems to do the same.
What a beautiful, lyrical essay about the problems we face and the election that could keep us pointed in the direction of problems that have been growing for well over a century, and exploding since 1980, when we traded a decent, thoughtful man in the White House who has continued to do good ever since he left Sodom on the Potomac, and persists after a century on this mortal coil, for one who helped the rich become richer, and more destructive, and enabled the rise of Mary's bad uncle, and all the evil that spreads in his wake. Good grief.
I think I'm going to go read the comics, and then, perhaps, I should phone bank. I have voted--for Kamala Harris, of course, and if she gains the White House, which my rational side thinks she will, she will continue all the good that President Biden has begun (see the Nov. 4 New Yorker), and there will be more hope for our species, and the myriad species with which we share this planet.
Thanks, David. Wouldn't it be lovely if politics revolved a little closer to the honorable orbit of Jimmy Carter than in the colder reaches of space that Reagan created? And yes, I wish people actually understood how much Biden has accomplished and how unlikely those accomplishments would have been under anyone else.
Biden has been amazing! During his first year of office, I noticed I was feeling the way I did when, while riding a bicycle from Seattle to Boston, I'd get a strong tailwind. He's the best president of my lifetime, which began the first summer of the Eisenhower Administration (see the aforementioned NYer article for some details), although I think it's possible that Harris might be even better.
And, yes, as you say, except that I'd call it the frigid reaches of space that Reagan created. Reagan should never have gained the White House. I remember how Reagan fired the air traffic controllers early in his presidency. It was only years later, well after my father had died, that I found out that during WWII, my father had been an air traffic controller on a base in what was then the Soviet Union, and is now Ukraine--which somehow gave me a more distinct sense of solidarity with the air traffic controllers that Reagan fired. But I wish they'd had a union.
A beautiful and troubling essay, weaving together, finding connection in, many disparate elements. It's the way we think, the way we make sense of this sometimes troubling world, this truly alarming age, the Anthropocene. Our senses tell us something is wrong, our intuitions tell us things are out of kilter, but our lonely and disconnected imperious intellects can ignore or even veto these presentments. And so things proceed to bitter ends.
I have already voted. Straight Democrat up and down ballot. In this age of misinformation and clamorous claims, like flocks of contending gulls, it was best to steer by intuition. I urge everyone to do the same but don't discard your intellect-just think deeply and you arrive in agreement with your gut sense: Trump and his cadre are not remotely a path to anything good, they will make things worse.
.
Well said as always, Michael. Love that "flocks of contending gulls, it's best to steer by intuition."
Jason, this is such a beautiful essay. I'm honoured to find myself perched within its branches. As you well know, we're in a deeply troubling time. Balance is so hard to find. "I’d register as an Independent if there was a middle ground between the parties to inhabit. But there isn’t." Amen to that.
Oh and that photo!! What a find!
Thank you, Chloe. Given the beauty of your writing, that excerpt feels like a beating heart in the essay. It speaks to so much of what sensitivity means in this world. The impossibility of it sometimes.
Finding that photo took a while, but it also led me to an interesting hunter's post from MT about hanging up a deer's ribcage after butchering for the birds to eat the fat. The original suet feeder, but healthier, without whatever is in industrial beef fat. Always intrigues me that our little bird friends are nibbling on the fat of carcasses. There was a photo of a woodpecker on the hanging ribs. Death and birds...
The impossibility of it... I'm feeling that so strongly at the moment. Employing all the practices I have to remain here, open, in love and attuned to the impossible beauty of it all.
I'm about to gear myself up to fall into that rabbit hole of images of birds in ribcages :) Thank you, Jason. Hope to spend some time with you on a nature call soon.
Chloe, it's so nice to hear your voice in this neck of the Substack forest. I've said over and over again that Jason and you are two of the finest writers in substack.
I agree.💙🌎
❤️ Biggest love to you, Katharine
It's an honour to be in that category alongside Jason, Michael. Thank you. Always so good to see you :)
I read recently that environmental scientists are less likely to vote. That seems so backwards to me and so sad - I can only imagine it is due to hopelessness. Thank you for another wonderful story. The new thing I learned today was about caul. I love the story of your grandmother. Thanks so much for sharing and please keep writing.
Thank you, Karen. Please, if you can, let me know where you read that story about environmental scientists being less likely to vote. That's intriguing. It does sound at first glance like they know too much... But I'd like to check it out. And yes, I'll keep writing.
I can't imagine that environmental scientists are less likely to vote. My long ago Berkeley professor, John Holdren, who grounded me in environmental science, has certainly voted, or will be doing so (I don't know that, but I can't imagine otherwise. He's too well grounded.) And I'm sure another environmental scientist, who told me I put her on the map, has also surely voted, or will also be doing so. (I have written a fair amount on environmental science.)
(googles)
It's not environmental scientists who don't vote. It's environmentalists, according to multiple articles. But one article, from this past January, came with this headline and subhead:
"U.S. voters’ climate change opinions swing elections
New analysis: climate concerns likely gave Democrats the White House in 2020."
My guess about all those articles claiming the opposite is the media's push for articles that say the opposite of the current wisdom, in a push for clicks and financial remuneration. For the good news, go here:
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/us-voters-climate-change-opinions-swing-elections
As a long time environmentalist, I see that either outcome (Trump or Harris) presents challenges. Voting is, as you say, "the least we can do" and I am not discouraging it. But the "more" and the “most” that we can do is engaging in mass movements that pressure elected officials to do the right thing. Like decrease domestic fossil fuel production, protect wildlife habitat from industrial development, and support sustainable land management practices (i.e. organic agriculture and habitat restoration). Mass movements are the forces responsible for positive change in our culture, whether that's been civil rights, labor rights or environmental protection. Politicians always need to have their feet held to the fire to do the right thing, and mass movements are the way to do that.
Hence my personal view about the outcome of this election. You've spelled out quite well why Trump and Project 2025 are potentially disastrous, and if he's in the White House again, we'll certainly have a lot of work to do to push back against their plans. Under that circumstance, there will be plenty of egregious things to motivate the growth and action of a mass movement. However, if Harris wins, the challenge will be convincing people that, no, everything's not alright, and we still have to mobilize and hold her administration’s feet to the fire.
History provides us with cautionary tales. During the Obama administration, both the antiwar movement and the environmental movement withered at the level of big mainstream organizations, though the smaller, localized or radical grassroots groups persisted with their work, bless them. Their voices don't command the same attention though, in the media or in policy circles. Obama’s energy policy was, in his words, “all of the above” and US domestic fossil fuel production rose to record levels, which is the opposite of "keeping it in the ground." Obama’s feet were not held to the fire and the damages his administration caused were real.
We also saw this during the Clinton administration. When Bill entered office, he faced a situation where efforts by environmentalists had successfully pushed a judge to declare no commercial logging on public lands. “Zero cut” is the hold grail of forest defense, but Bill didn’t want that. He convened a group with both Big Timber and Big Green, and the resulting Northwest Forest Plan clearcut more acres of old growth trees in his eight years than Reagan/Bush I had accomplished in their 12 years. It was a tragedy. By giving environmentalists “a seat at the table” he successfully neutered them, and since then the Big Green organizations have been reluctant to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire.
Under Biden, US fossil fuel production hit another historic peak, and today the US produces more annually than any other country in history. This is horrific.
My fear is that if Harris wins, the same thing will happen: that complacency will reign and that recruiting people to a mass movement will be an uphill battle.
One more history lesson: What president put into place the most environmental legislation? That would be the president responsible for the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA, one of our most powerful tools for protecting places), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which engages in important climate and environmental research. Who was that president?
Nixon. A staunch Republican (and a war monger of astounding proportions). But Nixon felt forced to do these things because of the power of the environmental movement at the time. Now I know that the Republican party of now is an entirely different thing, but the example is still instructive. People power is powerful.
We can’t elect people to office assuming they will do the right thing. We need to elect people who will be more susceptible to our pressure when we hold their feet to the fire. It is widely believed that Democrats are more susceptible to that pressure than Republicans and I won’t argue against that. But if Harris wins, we we must take advantage of that susceptibility and hold her administration’s feet to the fire from Day 1, which means the day after the election. After all, that’s the day her team will be at work crafting policy and assigning people to fill important posts. We can’t allow a Harris administration to raise fossil fuel production to yet another record high, for example. Nor can we allow it to destroy wildlife habitat for “green energy” industrial development or to continue subsidizing Big Ag over small-scale organic farming or to keep supporting an “invasive plant” ideology that utilizes widespread application of herbicides. We will have our work cut out for us!
So sure, we can vote because it’s “the least we can do.” But we must—must!—do the “more” and the “most” as hard as we can. Given the state of the world, we must mobilize with an intensity as yet unseen, no matter who ends up occupying the White House.
I discussed all this in more detail in a Substack post about a month ago: https://kollibri.substack.com/p/the-environment-and-the-election
Agreed on all accounts, Kollibri. Thanks for spelling it out so thoroughly. The Nixon note is an important one. That first Earth Day is still the largest single day of protest in US history, with about 10% of the population hitting the streets. But I think in the same scenario Trump will call in the dogs. There will be no compliance with popular opinion in another Trump presidency. I think people don't really know the scale of change that's in the offing nor how fast it will be.
Kollibri and Jason, I'm curious what you think about Rights of Nature.
It feels rather ironic that I've been working on Rights of Nature for the Swannanoa River since SCOTUS effectively wiped out 50% of the wetland protection in the May 2023 Sackett case.
Kollibri, I understand your concerns about climate complacency. Yet, Hurricane Helene screamed with intensity. If a hurricane can take that weird left hand turn into the mountains, there's a unique opportunity to build on Trish O'Kane's work in Birding To Change the World, her memoir post Katrina. Katrina and Helene call us to translate how wind and water work. We need to envision the future for the politicians. What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson might be a good foundation.
Thank you both for your work. 💙🌎
Rights of Nature is the essential next step in widening the circle, but looks Herculean in the face of an electorate split evenly over a party that isn't sure about the rights of women. That said, the building block approach that's happening with such rights approved for landscapes and species around the world seems exactly right. Keep building until such rights jump the threshold from weird to normal. And your work isn't ironic, Katharine, it's necessary, especially in the face of scotus malfeasance. Until we have a top down correction we can only work on bottom up patchwork.
Thanks, Jason. Sometimes it feels like I'm working in the dark. It's heartening to hear you and Kollibri agree on the need for Rights of Nature.
I think Rights of Nature is one of the most important efforts going on in the legal system worldwide right now. I'm acquainted with a lawyer who tried to have such rights declared for the Colorado River. Unfortunately, the judge was not convinced and dismissed it, but it was worth a try.
Hurricane Katrina is what inspired me to get into farming. I was living in Portland, Oregon, at the time and had friends who went down to help. They were herbalists, anarchists, and other community-minded folks, and they told me stories about how FEMA and the other big orgs were ineffective, but that the grassroots, neighborhood-level efforts that they were involved in enjoyed some success. (I've been hearing similar stories from NC post-Helene.) Their accounts made me see that community resilience is extraordinarily important and that the best time to start building it is *before* disaster hits. I then became an urban farmer, in order to help create a localized food system. That was a great experience. Very fruitful (literally and metaphorically). I no longer live in Portland but have remained involved in small-scale organic agriculture, and have also branched out into "wildtending" which is about nurturing non-domestic plants and landscapes for abundance, often taking cues from ancient, pre-Colonial lifeways. Reciprocity is the key to such relationships. Agriculture could benefit from having some of that spirit brought to it.
And yes, as the climate becomes more chaotic, hopefully that shakes people out of complacency, including politicians. An important task now, in my opinion, is to introduce non-Capitalist narratives and values into the discussion. For example, a very popular idea currently is decarbonization through industrial "green energy" development but I believe a more effective approach is decarbonization through reduction of consumption. This is largely because I don't want to see more wildlife habitat torn up and bulldozed for solar and wind farms, and for the mining of all the components they need. This is already happening unfortunately, and maybe you've heard of Thacker Pass and the lithium mines there, in Nevada.
Yes the loss of wetland protection was an upsetting tragedy. And not to be too pointed, but that happened under Biden's watch, which is exactly my point. Will there be more resistance if Trump is installed and tries similar things? I hope so.
I haven't heard of either of those books and will check them out. Thanks so much for what you do too!
Yes, to what you said! I appreciate the time you took to answer. I need to subscribe to your Substack. I'm very interested in wildtending. My forest land is greatly altered with so many trees down.
As far as the stories coming out of NC, I know there are many. One of the oddities is we have 'orphan roads' which are part of the mountain culture of western North Carolina. Orphan roads are technically easements and there's no governmental body associated with them. 600 orphan roads were compromised by the force of Helene. One of 300 landslides in Buncombe County landed on the entrance of my orphan road that is home to 80 households. NC Department of Environmental Quality crawled behind the slide. When the guys returned after an hour, they reported that the slide went in 1/4 mile and there were two more slides behind it. (I will cover orphan roads and landslides in Matters of Kinship as soon as I get out from under.)
We maintain the road as a community with road dues. FEMA couldn't help initially (they were here ,but in town) because the only way in for the first week was by helicopter., and they were scarce due to the scope of the disaster.
The moment was perfect for community to step in first. We unblocked the road so emergency vehicles could get in. We got the pregnant and the elderly out by helicopter. Then the Cajun Army came in, the National Guard, the Reserves of some military branch. I seriously lost track. As we cleared the landslide, vehicles driving by stopped to offer help.
This is where Substack helps. Once I get my Helene brain fog to dissipate. I can essay the story from the trenches.
On the Sackett debacle. Yes, it was on Biden's watch. But I would say it was really on the patriarchy's watch. McConnell blocked Obama from what should have been his Supreme Court nomination. Trump got his three 'justices' in thus SCOTUS is a threat to our ecosystems. Sackett got to build on a wetland riding on the tailwind of Trump's taint to SCOTUS.
Reading your comment, I think Johnson's book may find a home place with you. O'Kane's book is impressive because she treats a city park as an ecosystem with rights, without specifically going after rights of nature or saying the park is a being. She acts as if. Remarkable human. I interviewed her twice for Matters of Kinship. And I wrote two or three other essays about how her approach rippled out to other parks, and schools.
I totally agree on decarbonization through reduction of consumption. (You will find that Johnson is big on that in her first chapter.) Going sixteen days without electricity showed me that I could reduce, even when I thought I had pared down to the essentials.
Thanks again, Kollibri.🌱
Thanks Jason, for letting us share your space!
"Orphan roads" is a new term to me, but I spent two months in Sonoma County this last summer on a farm that is part of a 64 parcel HOA that manages its own roads through dues just like that, with all the roads being easements through private property. This community only dates back to the early '70s Back-to-the-Land movement, so is not as old. I did some paid work for the HOA weedwacking along these roads for fire prevention purposes.
I took this opportunity to dig back into the Sackett case. First of all, yes, the best way to say it is that it was on the Patriarchy's watch. I totally agree, and I'm a Smash Patriarchy person all the way!
It's worth mentioning though that the case was 9 to 0, so this wasn't apparently an instance in which the decision was decided because of Trump appointments.
Biden's response to the ruling was that his administration would "use every legal authority we have to protect our nation's waters." I couldn't find any information about what form that took, if any, however, and more to the point, the key missing ingredient here was (and is) pressure from environmental organizations, activists and his base (the mass movement organizing I mentioned originally). This issue doesn't have to end with the Supreme Court, after all, and what work-arounds, legislative or otherwise, need to be advocated for? I couldn't find any suggestions about that, other than that individual states can implement their own protections. (Taking things to the statehouse level has been a specialty of Republicans and the Right and they've done well with it.) This is what frustrates me about environmental issues under Democratic administrations. There's just not enough attention given to them, and not enough action taken. I think this is because a) too many regular well-meaning people think everything's ok because it's a Dem and b) big environmental organizations don't want to risk losing their "seat at the table" by pushing too hard. If Harris wins, there will be important work to do with both a) and b). so that the Dems aren't just another agent of the Patriarchy.
Sackett was 9-0 only in the particulars of that case. It was 5-4 on the larger implications, with the 4 arguing for a much narrower ruling that didn't undermine the CWA. See ScotusBlog for details. Otherwise, yes, Congress if it falls into responsible hands and state legislatures until then. One partial solution on both levels is the RAWA act in Congress that amply funds non-game species conservation work in the states. It's bipartisan and has come close but for a dispute over funding mechanism. States have detailed plans to protect species and habitats (including wetlands), but need the money.
I'm definitely excited to delve into O'Kane. I love that she treats city parks as ecosystems. This is very forward thinking. Ecosystems are not just "natural" environments, but any set of relationships among plants, animals, etc., anyplace that they're found. In science, a recently coined term and concept is "novel ecosystems" to describe such places that are anthropogenically inflected or controlled. I have a friend who's a professor at the U of Arizona in Phoenix who teaches a course on novel ecosystems and they make observational trips to many different kinds of locations, from abandoned city lots to restoration projects to soccer fields. It's fascinating stuff!
Yeah, the differences between Nixon and Trump show just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone. Noam Chomsky has called Nixon "our last liberal president." It really was a different time. The idea that Trump would bow to pressure on the environment the way that Nixon did is, I agree, ridiculous. I mentioned Nixon's record in part to show how little has gotten done at the federal level since then. So if Harris/Walz prevail, we should aim to pressure them to beat his record. I would love to see it.
As would I, but the 21st century KKK/John Birchers will still be in Congress, the courts, and the media. The main path for environmental policy will be in economic terms, as Biden has expressed it. Much will depend on the makeup of Congress, and the Senate does not look promising.
The Senate is darn close. Hopefully the independent candidate Dan Osborne wins in Nebraska against the Republican incumbent. (The Democrats didn't bother to run anyone against her!!) The polls show them in a dead heat, but the polling in Nebraska's first district shows Harris over Trump by 12 points, compared to Biden's win of 7, and Osborne's support among Democratic voters is very very high. If he does win, this will be an important lesson for the Democrats because it will show that victory is possible in deep red places, where, honestly, they could try harder.
Absolutely. If democrats don't heal the rift with rural voters they're out to lunch. They need to take back the narrative about economics (Biden has begun this process but no one is listening) and on values (which if your data pans out might be happening?).
Lovely writing as always. Thanks you, but I find myself anxious and angry in ways that nature can barely soothe, and then only until the next reminder of what is at stake and the fact that half the voting population prefers Trump. And yes, of course I will vote and vote for Harris. I have almost as much intolerance for 3rd party voters in the presidential race as for Trump supporters. Oh my, that cloud of doom, that undercurrent of fear, and that caul, not of prescience but of pessimism.
Thank you, Terry. I feel what you're saying. Trying to contain my concern for what I can't control, but the scale of what may come is overwhelming.
I usually take the philosophical long view. Regimes come and go. The news cycle moves on like a grass fire, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains. Both fame and notoriety are fleeting. The nation recovers from bad leadership and good (for that matter) Time heals all wounds.
But Trump is different. When I think of the future libraries, there will be shelves of books (in whatever form) analyzing Trump and his impact. Only Lincoln and FDR's shelves will rival his. He is singular- not because of any greatness of character or will, but he arrived at a moment when a rare conjunction of events and forces opened up a gap for an individual like him to accrue power. He is essentially a mediocrity, but is the proxy for powerful subterranean forces that have emerged into the daylight.
He is making a tremendous impact. He is the Chicxulub asteroid of our time.
And he won't be re-elected.
Sharing your fabulous post
Another incredible piece. Your writing is my favorite thing on Substack.
Wow, thank you, Stef. Kind of you to say.
Thank you. I feel this one.
Thank you, Melina.
Sorry I’m arriving late, Jason. But not too late. I voted today.
Exquisite writing. Like you, I have been heavily tormented and overwhelmed in disbelief . How did we get to this crevasse that divides family, friends and country. Though, it sounds like a question, I think we both know the answer.
Thank you for including D&B, Chloe’s gorgeous story of embers, her embers, and the photograph you included ; “nestlings in deer ribcage” was the perfect companion to her writing.
Yes, chaos is a writhing theme throughout. The word seems to play on repeat , in my head . Another question that needs no answer, why are some people attracted to chaos.
I just finished reading an article from the NYTimes, now I can’t sleep and it’s way past my bedtime.
I’ve included it for you, though I’m sure you are well aware. I am putting a cautionary label on it;
DO NOT READ BEFORE BEDTIME!
Be fiercely hopeful this coming week.
That’s what I’m focusing on, hope.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/climate/trump-environment-election.html
No such thing as late, Lor. It's just read when you want, a 24-hour buffet of online narrative. And I was really happy to bring in Chloe's amazing work.
Just read that Times piece, thank you. Hope it makes a difference. It won't keep me up. I'm in the bad news business... And know this story well already.
I am going to push back on this assertion you made: “Some third-party candidates are better, I know, but without ranked-choice voting a vote for them in a binary election is a vote for Trump.” I know this is a popular Democratic talking point, and given how hard they’ve been pushing it, I understand why you’re tempted to repeat it, but I find it misleading.
As you know, the president is chosen by the electoral college, not the popular vote. The majority of states are solidly blue or solidly red in terms of assigning electors, and in such states, a vote for a third party really is just a vote for a third party. For example, my vote for Nader in 1996 in Massachusetts and in Minnesota in 2000, and my vote for Stein in Oregon in 2016 and in New Mexico in 2024 were all inconsequential in terms of who won the electors for those states, given that they were all solidly blue at the the time of those elections. (I didn’t vote the other years.)
In a swing state like this year’s Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona, individual votes are more meaningful. But it’s not factually true that every vote for Stein is taken from Harris, or every vote for Chase Oliver (the Libertarian) is taken from Trump. Many (and arguably most) third party voters wouldn’t vote for a Democrat or Republican no matter what. (I’m in that category personally because of my lifelong antiwar stance.) Some could be convinced, but that’s the responsibility of Harris and Trump to make their case to such voters. No vote is owed to or owned by any party. You’re making your case here why such voters should vote for Harris, and such efforts are part of the democratic process. You made a good case, and I appreciate that you’re working to educate people. The more collective knowledge we have, the more effective our collective efforts can be.
There are definitely situations where every vote really does count. Here in New Mexico, Gabe Vasquez, the incumbent Democratic Congressman, is running for reelection against Republican Yvette Herrell. This is a rematch of the 2022 election, when Vasquez squeaked by with a 1,350-vote margin out of more than 192,000 votes cast. So my vote for Vasquez this year is potentially consequential (as was the vote cast by a friend here who I convinced to vote for him too). Herrell is absolutely terrible on the environment, and is one of these people pushing to privatize public lands, which would be an absolute nightmare. There was no third party choice in this race, but given the 2022 margin, I probably would’ve voted Vasquez even if there was.
Thanks again, Kollibri, for zooming in, this time on my broad-brush statement about electoral politics. You're right of course about third party votes in safe states, and about the importance of gauging the most rational voting option in local races. In tighter swing states, yes it's up to candidates to persuade, but it's equally up to voters to look holistically at the consequences of their vote. As Rebecca Solnit says, voting is a chess move not a Valentine.
Side note: you might be interested in this post about Stein's candidacy: https://revkin.substack.com/p/for-those-voting-for-jill-stein-a
You’re welcome, Jason! I continue to enjoy your posts or I wouldn’t bother to comment. My personal chess move is a long-game to help the Green Party grow. And I forgot to mention it in the first comment, but yes, I agree that ranked choice voting would really be a great thing. I’m happy to see it being adopted at the local level in a few places, including the state of Maine.
I read that article and it left out what’s usually left out of the discussion about the efficacy of Green Party electoral effort at the federal level, which is the enormous amount of resources that the Democratic Party devotes to trying to squash the Greens. This year (as in the past) they hired a bunch of lawyers to keep the Green Party off the ballot in various states, which tied up Green Party resources in legal battles. The Democrats also posted paid jobs for infiltrators/spies into the Green Party, which was a new tactic this year as far as I know. Of course such efforts have had the desired effect of keeping the Greens small.
Time magazine reports:
“For the first time, the party has built a war room devoted to tracking and attempting to discredit third-party candidates. The operation has more than 30 dedicated staffers, with an operating budget in the low seven figures, according to a staffer involved.”
https://time.com/7171425/jill-stein-third-party-spoiler/
Whoa, that's interesting/terrible. I guess the best time for a third party is always the next election… Or with any luck the Republicans will split into two, and inspire the Dems to do the same.
What a beautiful, lyrical essay about the problems we face and the election that could keep us pointed in the direction of problems that have been growing for well over a century, and exploding since 1980, when we traded a decent, thoughtful man in the White House who has continued to do good ever since he left Sodom on the Potomac, and persists after a century on this mortal coil, for one who helped the rich become richer, and more destructive, and enabled the rise of Mary's bad uncle, and all the evil that spreads in his wake. Good grief.
I think I'm going to go read the comics, and then, perhaps, I should phone bank. I have voted--for Kamala Harris, of course, and if she gains the White House, which my rational side thinks she will, she will continue all the good that President Biden has begun (see the Nov. 4 New Yorker), and there will be more hope for our species, and the myriad species with which we share this planet.
Thanks, David. Wouldn't it be lovely if politics revolved a little closer to the honorable orbit of Jimmy Carter than in the colder reaches of space that Reagan created? And yes, I wish people actually understood how much Biden has accomplished and how unlikely those accomplishments would have been under anyone else.
Biden has been amazing! During his first year of office, I noticed I was feeling the way I did when, while riding a bicycle from Seattle to Boston, I'd get a strong tailwind. He's the best president of my lifetime, which began the first summer of the Eisenhower Administration (see the aforementioned NYer article for some details), although I think it's possible that Harris might be even better.
And, yes, as you say, except that I'd call it the frigid reaches of space that Reagan created. Reagan should never have gained the White House. I remember how Reagan fired the air traffic controllers early in his presidency. It was only years later, well after my father had died, that I found out that during WWII, my father had been an air traffic controller on a base in what was then the Soviet Union, and is now Ukraine--which somehow gave me a more distinct sense of solidarity with the air traffic controllers that Reagan fired. But I wish they'd had a union.