Hi folks, thanks for joining the Sacred Headwaters list. If you haven’t read the first issue, you can find it here. Feel free to take part in these discussions or not — I’ll be sending out prompts on off-weeks to discuss the reading from the prior newsletter. So, without further ado…
How did “The Uninhabitable Earth” make you feel? Even for those of us who firmly believe climate science, the harsh contextualization Wallace-Wells provides can be hard to accept and internalize. Do you find yourself more or less supportive of ambitious climate action?
What did you think about Project Drawdown? Which “solutions” surprised you most, and did the overall assessment leave you with a better or worse impression of the path forward?
Finally — I’ve started this newsletter with a bit of a vision in terms of how I see it playing out, but I’d love feedback. What sorts of things would you like to learn about? Does this format work? Is it too much reading, or too little? Any thoughts are welcome. Feel free to send them to me directly or post them here.
Late to the party, and it's been a little since reading, so bear with me. I appreciate this newsletter a lot so far. Huge thanks for putting it together.
The uninhabitable earth drew an organized, well-cited, and as you said, "hard to accept," picture of how ... fucked we are. It was hard to internalize, mostly because it made me feel helpless. It sent a message that we need to take drastic action and even then it may not be enough. I'll be honest, it's hard to feel inclined to action when what seems to be a very solid scientific argument says we are pretty much dunzo. Especially when much of the world, including myself at times, does seem pretty indifferent. But I'm also more hopeful than that. Which is why I appreciate project drawdown and it's likely over-simplified but still scientifically backed action plan for how we can mitigate climate change. Granted, many of the steps offered by Project Drawdown for reducing climate change were societal or governmental, rather than individual choices, which worries me as our world seems to be awful at large scale change.
I was particularly surprised by refrigerant technology being the number one path forward for reducing emissions. I'd love to hear more about green refrigerant technology and the reasons that refrigeration at this point causes so much CO2 capture in the atmosphere.
Hi Jesse! I had the same feeling of helplessness when I first read the uninhabitable earth two years ago, but I have a few thoughts on it that I've developed since then that I'll add...
I think Wallace-Wells' focus on the worst-case scenario is really valuable (and necessary) to fully understand what is at stake if we don't make serious changes. But at the same time, there is a HUGE difference between the worst-case and best-case scenarios, which depend a lot on future emissions pathways. There are definitely unavoidable impacts at this point (including impacts that we're already seeing play out), but I now see a lot of his article as motivation to work as hard as possible to get to the best case scenarios.
I agree that there is a lot of indifference about these issues within the general public, which can be very frustrating. But, I have found that people are increasingly concerned and want to learn more, and I think it's important to encourage discussions about these issues whenever there is an opportunity! (thanks to Nick for starting this discussion!).
There was a paper in Nature recently showing that discussing climate change with family and friends leads to greater acceptance of climate science -- https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14804. A fun sidenote. Although, my target audience for this newsletter is intended to be people for whom acceptance of climate science is not a question -- we're going way beyond that here.
One other thing I'd say re: your thoughts on Wallace-Wells...yes he's laying out worst cases...but much of what he talks about is quickly becoming middle-of-the-road scenarios as we not only fail to take action, but actually emit more. The IPCC released the 2019 Emissions Gap Report that looks closely at what each country is doing, what each country has committed to doing, and how those actions and commitments affect our potential warming. Here's the executive summary, it's worth reading in entirety: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13. We're also seeing cascading effects in feedback loops far earlier than predicted (the arctic just crossed the line to net emitter rather than net sink -- https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card; the Greenland ice sheet melt is happening far faster than expected; etc. etc.). So...I'm 100% on board with your sentiment that we can't let the fear lead to inaction, but I would encourage caution in thinking that the things he discusses are far-off worst-case scenarios. Our worst case scenario today -- in 2020 -- is already much worse than it was when he wrote it in 2017...and so is our best case.
Wallace-Wells article is quite striking and I realized how little I actually know about climate change. This is similar to Daphnee's comment in that I was told my generation will need to find a solution to the problem of climate change but, even as a researcher in natural resources, I am out of touch with the reality. Project Drawdown presents some great solutions to climate change but I still feel powerless. Yes, I compost, recycle, have a large garden with drip irrigation, bike whenever I can, drink almond milk but, these contributions are minuscule in the bigger picture. If I stop eating beef or giving up dairy will that actually make a difference? I don't eat a lot of beef but I do eat a lot of butter. The alternatives are expensive and don't taste as good in cookies.
Thank you for the articles Nick. I think they were very informative and will provide a nice base for additional readings. Mike Bloomberg and Jerry Brown gave a nice talk at AGU about climate change and their efforts to keep the US in the Paris agreement. The talk is on YouTube but it is kind of hand-wavy but it might be worthwhile to look into their foundation. I guess my one request is to make this text box for typing comments in a bit bigger.
Hah I'm with you on the textbox issue, it's super annoying. Substack is apparently a pretty small (three dudes) and responsive company so I will email them...
To your other thoughts. I hesitate to say this because getting bogged down in the nitty gritty takes away from my overall point but -- beef is way worse than the amount of butter you eat in cookies...although I know you eat a lot of cookies. I've looked for butter alternatives too and not only do they suck from a taste perspective, but many of the more prominent ones are made from palm oil which is an environmental disaster.
But my main point there is, I think individual action is important, but it's not important because your choices make a difference in the global situation -- of course they don't. It's important because thinking about these things represents a cultural shift. If everyone is looking at the impacts of their consumer choices -- both in terms of GHG emissions and other things -- then that represents a complete change in the way we orient ourselves with the world. So, while it may feel pointless, it's part of a much bigger and more important cultural evolution that goes far beyond whether or not you as an individual are eating beef.
In terms of the feeling of powerlessness and how to deal with it...I have two thoughts. First off, as a voter in the USA, you're fundamentally empowered. I don't want to get overly political here, but I'll dive in a little bit. You're empowered to make sure people like Mike Bloomberg don't become president -- I appreciate that he gave a talk about climate change, but Bloomberg -- and many other democratic candidates, and of course Donald Trump -- represent an entrenched status quo agenda that are absolutely NOT leading us towards the kind of change we need. Reducing corporate power in government is a critical part of any plan to move towards sustainability and as a voter, you have the power to help build a government that will do that.
My other thought is more regarding individual action and power. As I said earlier, you're obviously right -- you eating or not eating butter in cookies is essentially meaningless. And even globally, each individual action only accounts for so much (although Drawdown makes clear that certain individual actions, when scaled up, are genuinely powerful). But what we have the power to do is try to explore what sustainable living looks like. Drawdown answers a lot of questions about climate change, but it fails to really draw a picture of sustainable civilization in two ways -- first, it fails to answer the question, "how do we implement these solutions politically and culturally?" And second, it fails to account for any issues beyond the climate crisis (of which there are many). It's not necessarily a failure of mission, just a scope question, but I bring it up because I think those two questions are still very much open questions...which is where individual power comes into play. Sustainability isn't about taking things away from the way we live -- it's about coming up with a new way of life that works within the earth system. It's easy to hear me say that and think, oh, so what, are you suggesting we all become some combination of organic farmers and preppers, building bunkers, solar panels, and root cellars? But that's not what I'm saying. Some aspects of all of those things will probably play a role in a sustainable civilization. But the reality is, we don't have the answers to this question right now...and that's where I think individuals are powerful, not powerless. This is a time of exploration and experimentation. We've been put here against our will by the actions of earlier generations which is, no question, a huge bummer...but that doesn't mean it's not exciting and empowering.
Why is beef worse than butter? Just the amount consumed or does it have to do with cow's lifestyle?
I think I understand the angle you are approaching the climate change discussion. Reading the article about Kyrgistan helped me understand how you are not necessarily saying we need to stop traveling, move into tents and become mountain dwellers. It is a cultural shift but it is difficult considering the diversity of the population. Just thinking about Hailey... We have the John Kerry's, Arnolds Schwartzinager, the struggling ski bums, cowboys, Hispanics, ranchers, farmers (organic and not) etc. What I struggle with is trying to figure out how to get everyone on the same page when a large chunk (I want to say 1/3 but I can't remember where I saw that) doesn't even believe in climate change. Pinpointing corporations or larger entities is an easier way to create a change, impacting a large number of people without dealing with a large group of citizens. For example, Sun Valley Ski Resort doesn't recycle (wtf). Rather than having everyone bring their recycling home to put in their bins it makes more sense to go after the resort and develop a recycling program. Another example is the bus system in town. It costs money to bus from Hailey to Ketchum and the bus has terrible hours. Yes, people can carpool but it would make more sense for them to improve the bus system and get more people off the road. These are small examples but I have trouble wrapping my head around a full cultural shift to a more sustainable lifestyle and civilization. I can change my life to be more sustainable and will influence others to acknowledge climate change and their role in it but how do you change the belief system of individuals who haven't changed for many generations? Or people who are just trying to pay their bills and survive? What motivation do these people have to change their belief system about climate change?
The problem with convincing people to act on climate change -- especially, as you say, when so many people apparently don't believe in it -- is that it's an impossible frame to sell. "Acting on climate change" is saying, don't do this, don't do that, etc. It's like trying to sell Medicare for All by talking about the tax that will pay for it. Not sure that's a great analogy, but it at least gets at what I'm trying to say. Instead of framing it as stopping climate change (which, even if were to cut emissions by the amounts the IPCC says we need to, would not be enough to steer humanity on to a sustainable track for non-climate reasons), we need to frame it as, let's create a civilization where everyone has what they need, ad infinitum. Set that as the goal and start working towards that, from the ground up. George Lakoff (cognitive linguist) has done a lot of writing on this sort of thing and it's really interesting.
I choose not to worry or think much about the so-called "climate deniers." I think they are a much smaller segment of society than you think they are (and globally, they're much smaller than in the USA), and they're a direct result not of stubbornness or willful ignorance or any personal failing, but of a systemic failing -- one that lead to companies like (but not limited to) Exxon being incentivized to spread disinformation about climate change. That same incentive has led to rising inequality, lower quality of life, and other dire environmental problems. Start to solve that -- the sort of toxic incentive, or the degenerative game theoretic dynamic that our system depends on -- and you solve the issue of climate deniers without just having to yell at them over and over again.
I completely understand what you are saying and personally don't have a strong opinion about any climate change 'solution'. I guess I am a bit all over the place in thoughts because I don't think there is one route when thinking about climate change. I consider it a bottom-up and top-down problem and fairly pessimistic about the issue so I assume we are all screwed without a third world war to completely shift everything. US politics are super messed up and depressing so I have shifted to looking at local problems that are more manageable to think about and actually pursue.
In addition to large corporations, the education system plays a role in climate deniers. It seems like providing funding and bringing in better teachers comes from both government leaders and citizens pushing to improve the educational system thus ground up and top-down problem.
I would love to live in a place where everyone has what they need but what do people need? I would argue I need skis and the person building his house in the Salmon River Headwaters is arguing that he doesn't feel comfortable in houses under 10,000 sq ft. I guess I see this as similar problem to the climate deniers. Yelling at people to change won't work so you need to shift the culture but I am not sure that it is a 100% ground-up problem. The current leadership has a role in how people think (people actually believe Trump).
I wonder if you should define ground-up? I think that would help clarify. I have visions of all the citizens in the world holding hands and singing kumbaya. I consider local issues such as the Ski Resort as lying somewhere between the national/global ground-up and top-down problem. They are owned by a local family and bringing about change at the resort will come from working with the resort leadership and citizens but the government probably won't have a role in the change.
First off if you haven't read the second newsletter yet I think you should as we're getting deep into (and beyond) its content here.
What I'm trying to explain is that human civilization is a complex system (as in, systems thinking). Ground-up and top-down are artificial distinctions. Changing rules at the "top" is part of changing culture at the "bottom" but neither can happen without the other. My secondary point is that our system, as we've built it over the last four centuries, has become extremely brittle. This has caused a loss of resilience (what we are seeing in terms of the climate crisis threatening human existence, rising unrest due to inequality -- these go largely unreported by US mainstream media, but Chile is in major turmoil, Ecuador, Bolivia just had a coup, even France has had major civil unrest over the last two years), and it also makes it harder for the system to adapt. In practical terms, that means "top-down" change -- in the sense of federal level commitments to equality, environmental protection, whatever else, is very hard.
There are basic human needs. When I say, we want to create an economy who's goal is to provide for everyone, I don't mean you get skis and Schwarzenegger gets Paul as a private chef. I mean basic, agreed upon human rights are universally available -- and there is pretty good international consensus on what human rights are, and when asked, "do you want these things for everyone else?" very few people would say no. The premise of the neoliberal global capitalist economy has been, basically, "a rising tide lifts all boats." But we've seen -- in every aspect -- that it doesn't. It's globally lifting a small handful boats to the sky, while simultaneously causing unsurvivable storms (global warming, etc.) to destroy the boats left down low. So, if neoliberal capitalism doesn't achieve its goal of efficiently distributing utility, we need to try something else. The reason I think "trying something else" is not a "top-down" endeavor is because the fundamentals of neoliberal economics are so engrained in our minds and thought processes. Even our language -- the word "consumer" dehumanizes and allows otherwise good people to make decisions that cause huge amounts of harm. And that's just one example. So what I'm saying is, for us to make any progress, we -- you, me, everyone -- need to start questioning the basic assumptions of our lives. And I realize that's hard for us to do, and potentially even harder for many other people to do. But if we're not doing that, we won't be able to solve the systemic issues that incentivize harm-causing, even if we can "solve" climate change.
Re: US politics, pessimism, and local advocacy. First off -- I think local problems are the best place to look. Local governments are the least brittle, most adaptive, and most reflective of local cultures. As you change local government, local policies, and local businesses, you're also changing local attitudes, and vice versa. It's almost exactly what I'm talking about. People have ownership and connection to local policies and government, and that street works in both directions to change minds and change practical things.
Second, re: US politics overall. Yes, Trump's actions on climate (or against climate, I guess) are depressing, and yes, we're basically the only developed country that has an open argument about climate change. But we're not the only developed country who's absolutely failing to meet Paris goals, which aren't even close to enough to mitigate catastrophic harm anyway. The UN published an Emissions Gap Report in 2019, the executive summary is worth a read: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13. The US is bad, but so is just about everyone else. The EU is doing the best and it's still not great. I have argued -- and still think aspects of this are true -- that we're better off with Trump (strictly from an environmental perspective) than with another 4 years of Obama (Clinton) because it's forcing people to realize the immediacy and dire nature of the climate crisis. When you have establishment democrats in power claiming they're doing things while simultaneously overseeing rapid growth and subsidization of the US fossil fuel industry...then people become complacent. If we elect any of the traditional corporate-lobby democrats that are in the running in 2020, we are totally fucked on climate change. Meanwhile in "eco-friendly" Canada, Trudeau bought a $9 billion dollar pipeline expansion project that the original owner (Kinder Morgan) had decided not to build because it didn't make economic sense. BC just passed a law claiming adherence to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), but they actively using military force to kick indigenous people off their land in northern BC in order to build...a pipeline to an LNG export facility, also funded by the Canadian government. The USA isn't the only country that's messed up and depressing, they all are, and it's because of systemic issues that can only be changed by fully reconstructing the network.
Here's a more concrete example of what I mean when I'm talking about systemic brittleness, and why "top-down" change can't happen on its own and needs to work in synthesis with cultural evolution. 67% of Americans oppose drilling the Arctic Refuge and they have since before the tax bill passed (https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/). And yet, here we are, unable to not do it, despite living in a democracy.
You can drill down into the nitty gritty of it -- our politicians are bought and paid for, Trump is Trump, etc. But all those nitty gritty things are aspects of the system, relationships between nodes, and it's a system which doesn't exist in conflict with our worldviews, but rather, because of them. It's self-perpetuating, so as you're getting at -- our worldviews influence the systemic structure, but the structure in turn influences our worldviews. The world wasn't always this way. It's developed this way due to a pattern of thinking originating in the renaissance, a sort of deterministic, human-centric pattern that continued to develop with globalization until it redefined humans as the sort of "rational economic actor" (which empirical evidence has shown we're not). But the belief that we are rational economic actors -- it influences our behavior and makes us more like that belief, and it also influences the systemic structure of our society -- legal and otherwise. I'm getting pretty abstract again here, sorry. My point is that I agree with you -- to the extent that top-down and bottom-up are actually distinct things, we need both. Change at the government level influences change at the individual level. But, I believe we can't see the changes we need at the government level without a fundamental and intentional redesign of civilization, which yes, is an extremely hard challenge.
I don't want to get bogged down in this because I don't think it's really important but -- my assumption has been that butter is better than beef because butter is produced en masse over a cow's lifecycle while the amount of beef is inherently limited to when you harvest the cow. Cow emissions are over an entire lifecycle (primarily from gas produced by the animal), but much more butter can be produced by a cow than beef... But -- without my guesswork, if you honestly want to know, a quick google yielded a bunch of studies. Here's one that looked specifically at butter in 2011 -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22118073. There is a lot of info about beef but it's notably worse in a kilogram-per-kilogram measurement (and I would think you use a lot fewer kilograms of beef...). Cheese is less bad than beef for the same reasoning, confirmed lots of lifecycle analyses (papers) if you google.
To your main thoughts. Apologies if this is rambling, I think (and write) about this stuff a lot and while I like to believe I have my thoughts fairly well laid out, they are constantly evolving and if you asked me this twice you'd probably get two different (but not incompatible) responses. You're also saying a lot of things and I don't want to be too nitpicky so I'll try not to "respond" so to speak to everything.
When you compare changes at a corporate or institutional level with those at an individual level, you are obviously right. Recycling is a bit of a red herring in general but I don't want to go down that road, so I'll just sub something else in instead -- if Sun Valley funded busses, or switched entirely to solar energy, or whatever else, it would make a hell of a lot more difference than if one individual did, or even a somewhat larger collection of individuals. There is no question there. The problem, and the reason we need to be thinking about things on an individual level, is that we can't make the changes we need within the existing value system and incentive structure that are fundamental components of our society. And to change our value system, we need to change the way we -- all, individually and together -- see ourselves, our relationships with each other, and our relationships with the world.
I think Exxon's deliberate climate denial campaign -- that's been going on for over forty years -- is a good example of how the problem works at a corporate level, and you can extrapolate it back to the individual level and forward to the government level. Basically, we've built an incentive structure that encourages short-term personal gain at the expense of other people. In terms of advertising campaign's like Exxon, we've also seen it with Phillip Morris (tobacco), Johnson & Johnson (opioids), and now Juul (tobacco again). These are really high profile examples of societal evil orchestrated through advertising (manipulation) for the purpose of shareholder gain. But these didn't happen because some evil overlord was in charge of Exxon or any of the other companies. They happened -- and continue to happen -- because we have a value system that prioritizes accumulation of money with no consideration given to what traditional economists call "externalities." The language of it is an integral part of how we got here -- if you define adverse effects of actions as externalities, then suddenly those things are not your problem.
We've built a value structure that forces every actor on a global scale -- person, corporation, government, or otherwise -- into a game theoretic and degenerative dynamic that ultimately spirals into self-destruction. As Drawdown points out, we basically have the tools to fight climate change. In fact, we've had the knowledge and know-how since James Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony about global warming. So why can't we do anything about it? You can blame "bad actors" at the top, and certainly there are some, but the fundamental issue is a cultural one. We need to question the very assumptions that got us here and work to design a new civilization that's adaptive, distributive, and generative instead of destructive.
Your last few points are really important ones, and they get into why fighting climate change and building sustainability is critically entangled with social justice. One of the readings in Issue 2 really gets into this and the book by the same name (Doughnut Economics) is a good read. I don't expect people who are just trying to pay their bills and survive to have the mental energy required to begin working towards these things...but that inequality, the fact that so much of the world is in that position, is an integral part of the cultural problem that's led to global warming. We need to solve both together. I'm a big advocate for universal basic income (UBI) -- but not of Andrew Yang -- and can send you more readings about that if you're interested. It's one attempt to help solve that problem and free more people to do the important work of transitioning to a generative economy and culture, and also to help heal the cultural indoctrination that keeps us stuck in the terminal status quo.
Whew. Back on the ground here: I think fighting for the examples you're talking about (and many others) is critically important. I'm not saying we should abdicate from real action in favor of deep philosophical discussion and thought. We need to be doing both...and more subtly, I don't think they are actually distinct. Action is a critical part of cultural change, even at an individual level, and vice versa.
Something that has struck me as I've read through these readings and just through discussion about climate change in recent months is two things -- the high level of urgency that's needed to change our society and how easy it is to quickly become out-of-date and complacent with climate change literature and effort. My generation has received the message that we will be the generation that comes to face with climate change and solves the problem -- when I was in high school, it felt like that would be part of my whole adult life, but that we would have time to find solutions and change would happen gradually. Now -- what is outlined in the IPCC report is that we need to reduce emissions by 7% annually by 2030 to avoid catastrophic change, and that has caused a big shift in my frame of mind. I've realized that even though I have a career in the geosciences, I am out of touch with the climate literature and reality, and that is really sobering.
I think that the readings are/will be really important in creating a vision for societal change (at least at a personal level) but I think that the greatest takeaways will come through the discussion board. I hope that everyone participating in the readings can take the time to contribute here as well!
I read Wallace-Wells's article when it first came out, and I'm currently reading the expanded book. Quite sobering to say the least, even for someone who has been steeped in climate change issues for 40 years (yes, I'm of THAT generation!). I'm quite familiar with Project Drawdown through my friendship with both Paul Hawken (who has left the organization, much to my disappointment) and Jon Foley, a climate scientist whom I greatly respect (the current executive director). My complaint with Drawdown is the way it breaks everything down into components, rather than systems. Carbon emissions from the energy consumption of buildings is huge and the benefits from widespread improvement are dramatic—but those savings, as I recall, are broken down into small chunks, so the buildings sector doesn't seem as significant as it really is. Keep up your good work with Sacred Headwaters. -Alex
Thanks Alex, good point about Drawdown. I think their goal (though you'd know better than me) is to try to make things seem more approachable by breaking them down, but it does skew the results somewhat.
I'd be curious to hear what you think of Wallace-Wells' book when you're done. In some ways, it read like a long form version of his article -- good but not adding too much to the table. The latter part of the book felt more insightful, particularly as he got into his rationale for having a daughter and how that impacts his view of where the world goes from here.
"Uninhabitable Earth" didn't really surprise me, but it did provide valuable context for communication. When you talk about how bad climate change will be (and is), even people who understand that fail to conceptualize the degree to which our world will be -- and is being -- upended. I think the concrete changes Wallace-Wells talks about provide a platform for discussing something he doesn’t get into -- the sociopolitical impacts of those changes. When you look at how brittle our economy and governments have been responding to the relatively mild disasters of the last few years, you begin to get really worried about how we’ll respond to what he describes. The potential physical impacts of climate change are disastrous, and the cascading chain of geopolitical impacts that follow will be worse. The article helps make clear that while we need to focus on climate change mitigation and prevention, we’re already -- to some degree -- committed. We need to be focusing on resilience not just in a physical sense (flood-resistant construction, etc.), but also in an institutional sense. Our governments and financial systems need to be restructured to survive the increasing onslaught of acute and chronic natural disasters in order to avoid compounding the damage.
I find Project Drawdown really interesting. On the one hand, it makes fighting climate change seem almost easy -- and in some ways, it is. Their models are, of course, just models, but the science is there: if we implement many of their recommended solutions, we will make real progress towards limiting global warming. My two main issues with Drawdown are first, their emphasis on the technocratic, and second, their defining focus on climate change and, specifically, on greenhouse gas emissions. Many of their solutions transcend these issues -- when they talk about “Conservation Agriculture” (aka regenerative agriculture), “Living Buildings,” reducing waste, and “Cogeneration,” they’re talking about redefining economic value to a more holistic and systems-based perspective -- but they’re hiding that message underneath what seem like “simple” solutions. When you ask, "Should we capture waste heat from industrial manufacturing and use it to heat the local municipality or generate electricity?" Everyone would answer “yes.” The harder question, and the one Drawdown avoids dealing with, is how do we restructure society to ensure that happens? The technology for it exists, but our existing monetary value system doesn’t effectively capture how important it is...so how do we change that? These are the harder questions that Drawdown doesn’t answer. That said, I think the work they’ve done is incredibly valuable. When you quantify how beneficial each of these sort of easy and almost obvious steps would be, it forces readers to begin to ask the questions I’m asking here -- if it’s so simple, why can’t we do it?
Also, have you read The Ends of the World? "The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannen points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet’s major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher." ... I'm curious, when was the world 4C warmer? How come it was warm enough for Vikings to grow grapes in Sweden 1000 years ago? How is our situation different?
I makes me wonder if we should redefine climate change into subsets like "global warming" and "global pollution." Is it possible that the earth may warm anyway, but we can work on making the earth cleaner and healthier for future generations?
I haven't read Ends of the World, but...a few thoughts. First off, yes -- relatively new paleoclimate studies have shown that at times in the earth's past with comparable concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, sea levels were 100s of feet higher. This is actually one of the really scary, not-talked-about-enough realities of climate change. We can model sea level rise...but there are a number of thresholds and feedback systems that make our modeling really challenging. And we don't fully understand why sea level was so much higher at similar points in earth's history. So, when they say "at +2C, we'll have x amount of sea level rise" -- they are doing their best to predict accurately, but the reality is that it could be far more, especially over a longer time horizon. Wallace-Wells talks about this a bit more in his book than in the article, I think.
There's a bit of a scary trope amongst people who don't take climate change seriously -- the idea that, as the earth warms, we'll just move our food growth to higher latitudes and everything will be fine. Unfortunately, that isn't possible -- soil takes thousands of years to develop and northern latitudes just don't have the kind of soil needed to produce food at the rates we need.
Global warming and global pollution are definitely different things, although they are of course interrelated (see Planetary Boundaries framework in issue #2 and systems thinking in issue #4). Working to create a cleaner and healthier earth for future generations is exactly the work we need to do, and it's also exactly the same as fighting anthropogenic climate change. It is very well documented that human GHG emissions are contributing a massive amount to warming of the earth climate. Yes, the earth has been warmer in its past history -- but not significantly in the past 10-12000 years of "advanced" human civilization (the holocene). Yes, the earth's climate changes over time and may "naturally" leave its holocene-era stability -- but that's not what's going on right now. Earth's climate has been in a cycle of glacial-interglacial periods for 2.75 million years (not that long in terms of earth history). Historically, earth would be beginning to enter another period of glaciation right now, or soon. There are multiple theories about why this isn't happening, both anthropogenic (stemming from human agriculture starting ~7000 years ago) and "natural." Either way, in the last 150 years, human-driven changes to GHG -- and in turn, to planet temperature -- have accelerated dramatically. This is an interesting paper on the historic side of things -- i.e. why the holocene is continuing instead of entering a new glacial period -- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000503, though it's perhaps less relevant to our current rapidly accelerating warming. This is a super high level talk about this and I can find more resources for you if you're interested but the basic message is: yes, earth's climate changes over time, but no, human civilization has never existed in a significantly different climate than what we've had over the course of the holocene (10-12k years), and we cannot expect to be able to continue to thrive (or possibly even exist) if the climate changes significantly.
This paper is really important, I think: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252. It talks about anthropogenic climate change and feedback loops and explains how the holocene has been a uniquely stable period -- and that in order to maintain human life, we need to maintain that stability (and start reducing GHGs in the atmosphere).
100% on board with individual steps! They may not make a difference, per se, but I think they're a critical piece of changing mindsets. Taking daily actions, changing your behavior, etc., forces you to be thinking about this stuff all the time -- which forces action at higher levels (i.e. political ones). The more we are all thinking about how we can live a sustainable life -- and what that even is -- the more likely we are to be able to find answers.
Thanks. I much prefer the idea of fighting anthropomorphic climate change.
Watched the project drawdown video. It’s pretty great! I was going to ask you for GHG emission equivalents for certain lifestyle changes at some point. I love that family planning and education (though it should be men and women’s education since men are the vast majority of policy-makers) are included as steps for drawdown. Fewer people on the globe = less climate change for sure.
The downside of these lifestyle changes is that it’s completely altruistic. If I really get amped about this issue am I willing to opt for vegetarian over a meat meal, try gardening or shopping at a consignment shop? Yes, if I’m mindful and intentional about these changes. What about buying solar panels for my home (~$20,000)? Mmmm,maybe. What about adopt instead of have my own children to help slow the human population forth curve? Ehhhh... idk yet but probably not. A lot of these drawdown topics are so highly politicized in our country anyway. Do we just vote and hope someone who cares more about climate change gets elected? I want to know how to buy in to these issues myself and then get others to buy into them.
Here's another good visualization on real impacts in the next couple decades: https://www.vox.com/a/weather-climate-change-us-cities-global-warming. If you read it, you'll see they are assuming a global rise of +2C by 2040 for their modeling here. The IPCC says we're on track for about +3.2C (later in the century) -- and that assumes that we actually start making progress towards Paris climate goals, which is an optimistic assumption given what we've seen over the last decade.
First off, about "altruism" and your reference to climate change as "this issue" as though it's one among many that a voter or person might care about...it is fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives. Now, in 20 years, in 80 years, and onwards. Regardless of how much progress we're actually able to make towards negative GHG emissions, we are already being dramatically impacted by climate change. In New Mexico (at least in the Rio Grande basin, where you are), you are nearly guaranteed to see a water crisis in the next one or two decades. As in, the city of Albuquerque won't have water. Temperatures in Albuquerque are rising quickly and while they won't become unlivable in our lifetime, they'll become significantly worse, especially in a high emissions scenario. You can explore the modeling of this here:
Look at high emissions scenario for 2050, 2060, onwards. ABQ gets a lot hotter, but the rest of the state is even worse, let alone the rest of the southwest.
This isn't about altruism. It's about necessity (and self-interest). And -- you're talking about having a child. I don't like the narrative that fighting climate change is "for the youth of today" because we're all being impacted by it right now, and will be even more so during our lifetimes -- but it'll be even worse for them. Is doing something for your child's sake altruism?
Second, selling it as a sacrifice is the wrong picture. Vegetarianism isn't the strongest example here but I'll start with it since you did. Humans (and even Americans) didn't used to eat nearly as much meat as we do today. Meat consumption has been rising because of social norms and subsidized costs. Eating vegetarian (or mostly vegetarian) is from a general standpoint both healthier and cheaper. Avoiding red meat at the very least fits that bill -- and beef is the worst offender by far when it comes to soil degradation, land use change, and direct GHG emissions.
Run the numbers on solar. It's not a $20,000 donation. If you finance it, you may actually be earning money (over your current utility bill) right off the bat. If you pay cash, it pays for itself relatively quickly. New Mexico (I only know this because I recently read NM's state climate action strategy -- https://www.climateaction.state.nm.us/documents/reports/NMClimateChange_2019.pdf) has a program that allows homeowners to finance home solar installations through financing at the county-level that is then paid back over time through property tax. Not sure if it is active in Albuquerque as I think it's county-by-county.
I disagree with some of the conclusions Klein and Griffith reach at the end of their interview, but this podcast episode puts a framing on sustainable transition that we don't hear often enough -- that it's not about sacrifice, but it's about building a better world. The actual things we're talking about are not polarizing issues, but the debate has been invented and polarized in order to maintain the status quo (this is me talking, not them).
I also think Saul's points about individual actions at the end of the podcast are good. Make the infrastructural changes you can to reduce your impact. His things are -- where you live, where you work, what car you drive (or better yet, none), and your diet. Those are the biggest impacts you have that you have control over. Personally, I believe it's important to engage in smaller individual actions because it keeps people activated -- if you're not thinking about sustainability in your daily life, it doesn't feel as important to you. But in terms of actual differences, Griffith's point is spot on. Change the big stuff.
And yes, vote. But don't just hope. Do your research, vote for the right people, talk to friends about it. And engage in local government. Way more exciting stuff is happening at the local level (read the NM climate strategy I linked above!). Sustainable communities can't be designed from the federal level, they can just be facilitated. What exactly sustainable community infrastructure (energy grid, food production, etc.) looks like depends on where you live.
I think you misunderstand me. My point was not that i think this is “an issue” or that isn’t not worthy of my attention and focus NOW. I wouldn’t be reading this or discussing it with you if it wasn’t. Like it or not, our society is not constructed to have a large number people follow in your footsteps or the footsteps of the most environmentally conscious people on earth. It takes money, education, and conscious decision making to do so. The majority of our society doesn’t have or practice that actively. About many topics. And in order to have a significant enough impact to generate drawdown, or change policies etc, many more people need to “buy in.” So my question was, what can I do to help generate focus and care about this issue? I will certainly do what I can to lead by example but I will likely do so within reason. After all I have professional and personal responsibilities just like anyone else.
I am posing social, not scientific questions here. You can obviously throw scientific articles at me all day long, you obviously know much more about it, and no, I cannot participate in citing articles back at you on this topic. The application of this science I can consider and bring up for discussion comes down to social changes. After all, isn’t it social human behavior that got us here?
Also, if I didn’t know you I’d consider your responses quite socially agressive. Are you trying to get people to engage with you to argue them? I’m not down for that. I think you want to make this knowledge accessible and digestible for a wide audience. I’ll participate in that.
And no, I'm not trying to get people to engage so I can argue with them. I literally lose sleep over conversations I've had through this newsletter. I'm trying to make a difference, not trying to get in fights. I think the internet is a horrible venue for discussion but it's what we have, so here we are.
Thanks. No hard feelings. I’ll continue happy to keep reading and discuss with you. I think it’s worth the effort. Don’t loose sleep, you’re doing your best and you’re doing a novel thing!
I'm sorry, I certainly don't mean to be aggressive. Earlier in our conversation, I was posting scientific links because you suggested that the climate is warming on its own -- I know you didn't intend it this way, but that's a really dangerous piece of misinformation that contributes to social inaction. It's also rooted in 40 years of deliberate misinformation spread by fossil fuel companies (Exxon).
In my most recent comment, the links weren't "scientific." They're specifically about social context. My point was to try to dispel the -- you're right, very common -- myth that action and lifestyle change is altruism. It's not altruism because we're all being fundamentally impacted by climate change (why I sent the climate modeling visualization), and it's not altruism because building a better, more sustainable world actually improves all of our lives (why I sent the Vox podcast). It's cast as altruism and sacrifice by vested interests that want the status quo to stay in place. So yes, it's a social issue -- this is the entire reason I'm running this newsletter. It's a social issue because we're fighting a system -- both political and information-based -- that is essentially trying to prevent us from taking action. So we need to fight misinformation and we need to sell the (true) narrative that the world can actually become a better place as we fight climate change -- and that it must, because otherwise we're all (humanity) going to die, basically.
I really liked that podcast you recommended. I'll have to listen to it again, it was so jam-packed with information. I especially liked how he reframes eco-friendly lifestyle changes to be positive. Switching to electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, eating plant-based, and radiant floor heating all lead to a better quality lifestyle (not just altruistic). I also got a few solar quotes for our home. Comes out to about $12,000, which is less than I expected.
Ok, cool. I appreciate that you point out “the earth naturally warms and environmentalism is aulturism” as a paradigm. It helps me understand where you were coming from. I’ll listen to the podcast sometime soon and re-read your comment.
This is such a big topic, you've given lots of homework and it's not my field. I'm unsure of what I can contribute to this discussion. I've always "cared" about environmental issues and preserving the planet, but I'm facing this issue more now than I ever had before (which is why I set aside my anesthesia periodicals to read your blog). I'm about to get married and for the first time ever, I'm thinking about having a family in the future. The future earth that the Wallace-Wells article describes is not one I'd want my children to see. More densely populated areas, inescapable heat, food shortages, drought, disease, smog, war... It seems downright irresponsible and unfair to bring them into this world.
This article has made me more ambitious about taking feasible action. I'm starting Suzy Cameron's OMD plan (one meal a day of plant-based food), I will take fewer trips that require a flight (especially global travel which many millennials, like myself, have thought is the norm), I will try out my green thumb and plant a small garden, and buy used and environmentally friendly items.
Perhaps if these things become really cool and Instagram-able there would be enough traction to make an impact?
I'm also thinking about our trip to Canada... Why travel all that way to ski some snow if 3 square meters of arctic ice are lost in the process?
Looking forward to more discussion. I'm quite sure you can broaden and deepen my knowledge on this topic. Will get to the next articles and questions in a bit. Thanks.
Late to the party, and it's been a little since reading, so bear with me. I appreciate this newsletter a lot so far. Huge thanks for putting it together.
The uninhabitable earth drew an organized, well-cited, and as you said, "hard to accept," picture of how ... fucked we are. It was hard to internalize, mostly because it made me feel helpless. It sent a message that we need to take drastic action and even then it may not be enough. I'll be honest, it's hard to feel inclined to action when what seems to be a very solid scientific argument says we are pretty much dunzo. Especially when much of the world, including myself at times, does seem pretty indifferent. But I'm also more hopeful than that. Which is why I appreciate project drawdown and it's likely over-simplified but still scientifically backed action plan for how we can mitigate climate change. Granted, many of the steps offered by Project Drawdown for reducing climate change were societal or governmental, rather than individual choices, which worries me as our world seems to be awful at large scale change.
I was particularly surprised by refrigerant technology being the number one path forward for reducing emissions. I'd love to hear more about green refrigerant technology and the reasons that refrigeration at this point causes so much CO2 capture in the atmosphere.
Hi Jesse! I had the same feeling of helplessness when I first read the uninhabitable earth two years ago, but I have a few thoughts on it that I've developed since then that I'll add...
I think Wallace-Wells' focus on the worst-case scenario is really valuable (and necessary) to fully understand what is at stake if we don't make serious changes. But at the same time, there is a HUGE difference between the worst-case and best-case scenarios, which depend a lot on future emissions pathways. There are definitely unavoidable impacts at this point (including impacts that we're already seeing play out), but I now see a lot of his article as motivation to work as hard as possible to get to the best case scenarios.
I agree that there is a lot of indifference about these issues within the general public, which can be very frustrating. But, I have found that people are increasingly concerned and want to learn more, and I think it's important to encourage discussions about these issues whenever there is an opportunity! (thanks to Nick for starting this discussion!).
There was a paper in Nature recently showing that discussing climate change with family and friends leads to greater acceptance of climate science -- https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14804. A fun sidenote. Although, my target audience for this newsletter is intended to be people for whom acceptance of climate science is not a question -- we're going way beyond that here.
One other thing I'd say re: your thoughts on Wallace-Wells...yes he's laying out worst cases...but much of what he talks about is quickly becoming middle-of-the-road scenarios as we not only fail to take action, but actually emit more. The IPCC released the 2019 Emissions Gap Report that looks closely at what each country is doing, what each country has committed to doing, and how those actions and commitments affect our potential warming. Here's the executive summary, it's worth reading in entirety: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13. We're also seeing cascading effects in feedback loops far earlier than predicted (the arctic just crossed the line to net emitter rather than net sink -- https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card; the Greenland ice sheet melt is happening far faster than expected; etc. etc.). So...I'm 100% on board with your sentiment that we can't let the fear lead to inaction, but I would encourage caution in thinking that the things he discusses are far-off worst-case scenarios. Our worst case scenario today -- in 2020 -- is already much worse than it was when he wrote it in 2017...and so is our best case.
Wallace-Wells article is quite striking and I realized how little I actually know about climate change. This is similar to Daphnee's comment in that I was told my generation will need to find a solution to the problem of climate change but, even as a researcher in natural resources, I am out of touch with the reality. Project Drawdown presents some great solutions to climate change but I still feel powerless. Yes, I compost, recycle, have a large garden with drip irrigation, bike whenever I can, drink almond milk but, these contributions are minuscule in the bigger picture. If I stop eating beef or giving up dairy will that actually make a difference? I don't eat a lot of beef but I do eat a lot of butter. The alternatives are expensive and don't taste as good in cookies.
Thank you for the articles Nick. I think they were very informative and will provide a nice base for additional readings. Mike Bloomberg and Jerry Brown gave a nice talk at AGU about climate change and their efforts to keep the US in the Paris agreement. The talk is on YouTube but it is kind of hand-wavy but it might be worthwhile to look into their foundation. I guess my one request is to make this text box for typing comments in a bit bigger.
Hah I'm with you on the textbox issue, it's super annoying. Substack is apparently a pretty small (three dudes) and responsive company so I will email them...
To your other thoughts. I hesitate to say this because getting bogged down in the nitty gritty takes away from my overall point but -- beef is way worse than the amount of butter you eat in cookies...although I know you eat a lot of cookies. I've looked for butter alternatives too and not only do they suck from a taste perspective, but many of the more prominent ones are made from palm oil which is an environmental disaster.
But my main point there is, I think individual action is important, but it's not important because your choices make a difference in the global situation -- of course they don't. It's important because thinking about these things represents a cultural shift. If everyone is looking at the impacts of their consumer choices -- both in terms of GHG emissions and other things -- then that represents a complete change in the way we orient ourselves with the world. So, while it may feel pointless, it's part of a much bigger and more important cultural evolution that goes far beyond whether or not you as an individual are eating beef.
In terms of the feeling of powerlessness and how to deal with it...I have two thoughts. First off, as a voter in the USA, you're fundamentally empowered. I don't want to get overly political here, but I'll dive in a little bit. You're empowered to make sure people like Mike Bloomberg don't become president -- I appreciate that he gave a talk about climate change, but Bloomberg -- and many other democratic candidates, and of course Donald Trump -- represent an entrenched status quo agenda that are absolutely NOT leading us towards the kind of change we need. Reducing corporate power in government is a critical part of any plan to move towards sustainability and as a voter, you have the power to help build a government that will do that.
My other thought is more regarding individual action and power. As I said earlier, you're obviously right -- you eating or not eating butter in cookies is essentially meaningless. And even globally, each individual action only accounts for so much (although Drawdown makes clear that certain individual actions, when scaled up, are genuinely powerful). But what we have the power to do is try to explore what sustainable living looks like. Drawdown answers a lot of questions about climate change, but it fails to really draw a picture of sustainable civilization in two ways -- first, it fails to answer the question, "how do we implement these solutions politically and culturally?" And second, it fails to account for any issues beyond the climate crisis (of which there are many). It's not necessarily a failure of mission, just a scope question, but I bring it up because I think those two questions are still very much open questions...which is where individual power comes into play. Sustainability isn't about taking things away from the way we live -- it's about coming up with a new way of life that works within the earth system. It's easy to hear me say that and think, oh, so what, are you suggesting we all become some combination of organic farmers and preppers, building bunkers, solar panels, and root cellars? But that's not what I'm saying. Some aspects of all of those things will probably play a role in a sustainable civilization. But the reality is, we don't have the answers to this question right now...and that's where I think individuals are powerful, not powerless. This is a time of exploration and experimentation. We've been put here against our will by the actions of earlier generations which is, no question, a huge bummer...but that doesn't mean it's not exciting and empowering.
Why is beef worse than butter? Just the amount consumed or does it have to do with cow's lifestyle?
I think I understand the angle you are approaching the climate change discussion. Reading the article about Kyrgistan helped me understand how you are not necessarily saying we need to stop traveling, move into tents and become mountain dwellers. It is a cultural shift but it is difficult considering the diversity of the population. Just thinking about Hailey... We have the John Kerry's, Arnolds Schwartzinager, the struggling ski bums, cowboys, Hispanics, ranchers, farmers (organic and not) etc. What I struggle with is trying to figure out how to get everyone on the same page when a large chunk (I want to say 1/3 but I can't remember where I saw that) doesn't even believe in climate change. Pinpointing corporations or larger entities is an easier way to create a change, impacting a large number of people without dealing with a large group of citizens. For example, Sun Valley Ski Resort doesn't recycle (wtf). Rather than having everyone bring their recycling home to put in their bins it makes more sense to go after the resort and develop a recycling program. Another example is the bus system in town. It costs money to bus from Hailey to Ketchum and the bus has terrible hours. Yes, people can carpool but it would make more sense for them to improve the bus system and get more people off the road. These are small examples but I have trouble wrapping my head around a full cultural shift to a more sustainable lifestyle and civilization. I can change my life to be more sustainable and will influence others to acknowledge climate change and their role in it but how do you change the belief system of individuals who haven't changed for many generations? Or people who are just trying to pay their bills and survive? What motivation do these people have to change their belief system about climate change?
Oh god I woke up and had more to say. Here goes.
The problem with convincing people to act on climate change -- especially, as you say, when so many people apparently don't believe in it -- is that it's an impossible frame to sell. "Acting on climate change" is saying, don't do this, don't do that, etc. It's like trying to sell Medicare for All by talking about the tax that will pay for it. Not sure that's a great analogy, but it at least gets at what I'm trying to say. Instead of framing it as stopping climate change (which, even if were to cut emissions by the amounts the IPCC says we need to, would not be enough to steer humanity on to a sustainable track for non-climate reasons), we need to frame it as, let's create a civilization where everyone has what they need, ad infinitum. Set that as the goal and start working towards that, from the ground up. George Lakoff (cognitive linguist) has done a lot of writing on this sort of thing and it's really interesting.
I choose not to worry or think much about the so-called "climate deniers." I think they are a much smaller segment of society than you think they are (and globally, they're much smaller than in the USA), and they're a direct result not of stubbornness or willful ignorance or any personal failing, but of a systemic failing -- one that lead to companies like (but not limited to) Exxon being incentivized to spread disinformation about climate change. That same incentive has led to rising inequality, lower quality of life, and other dire environmental problems. Start to solve that -- the sort of toxic incentive, or the degenerative game theoretic dynamic that our system depends on -- and you solve the issue of climate deniers without just having to yell at them over and over again.
If you are curious, here is the Yale Climate Opinion study (USA, 2019): https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/. But again -- I don't think it's actually that important, and the trends are in positive directions.
I completely understand what you are saying and personally don't have a strong opinion about any climate change 'solution'. I guess I am a bit all over the place in thoughts because I don't think there is one route when thinking about climate change. I consider it a bottom-up and top-down problem and fairly pessimistic about the issue so I assume we are all screwed without a third world war to completely shift everything. US politics are super messed up and depressing so I have shifted to looking at local problems that are more manageable to think about and actually pursue.
In addition to large corporations, the education system plays a role in climate deniers. It seems like providing funding and bringing in better teachers comes from both government leaders and citizens pushing to improve the educational system thus ground up and top-down problem.
I would love to live in a place where everyone has what they need but what do people need? I would argue I need skis and the person building his house in the Salmon River Headwaters is arguing that he doesn't feel comfortable in houses under 10,000 sq ft. I guess I see this as similar problem to the climate deniers. Yelling at people to change won't work so you need to shift the culture but I am not sure that it is a 100% ground-up problem. The current leadership has a role in how people think (people actually believe Trump).
I wonder if you should define ground-up? I think that would help clarify. I have visions of all the citizens in the world holding hands and singing kumbaya. I consider local issues such as the Ski Resort as lying somewhere between the national/global ground-up and top-down problem. They are owned by a local family and bringing about change at the resort will come from working with the resort leadership and citizens but the government probably won't have a role in the change.
First off if you haven't read the second newsletter yet I think you should as we're getting deep into (and beyond) its content here.
What I'm trying to explain is that human civilization is a complex system (as in, systems thinking). Ground-up and top-down are artificial distinctions. Changing rules at the "top" is part of changing culture at the "bottom" but neither can happen without the other. My secondary point is that our system, as we've built it over the last four centuries, has become extremely brittle. This has caused a loss of resilience (what we are seeing in terms of the climate crisis threatening human existence, rising unrest due to inequality -- these go largely unreported by US mainstream media, but Chile is in major turmoil, Ecuador, Bolivia just had a coup, even France has had major civil unrest over the last two years), and it also makes it harder for the system to adapt. In practical terms, that means "top-down" change -- in the sense of federal level commitments to equality, environmental protection, whatever else, is very hard.
There are basic human needs. When I say, we want to create an economy who's goal is to provide for everyone, I don't mean you get skis and Schwarzenegger gets Paul as a private chef. I mean basic, agreed upon human rights are universally available -- and there is pretty good international consensus on what human rights are, and when asked, "do you want these things for everyone else?" very few people would say no. The premise of the neoliberal global capitalist economy has been, basically, "a rising tide lifts all boats." But we've seen -- in every aspect -- that it doesn't. It's globally lifting a small handful boats to the sky, while simultaneously causing unsurvivable storms (global warming, etc.) to destroy the boats left down low. So, if neoliberal capitalism doesn't achieve its goal of efficiently distributing utility, we need to try something else. The reason I think "trying something else" is not a "top-down" endeavor is because the fundamentals of neoliberal economics are so engrained in our minds and thought processes. Even our language -- the word "consumer" dehumanizes and allows otherwise good people to make decisions that cause huge amounts of harm. And that's just one example. So what I'm saying is, for us to make any progress, we -- you, me, everyone -- need to start questioning the basic assumptions of our lives. And I realize that's hard for us to do, and potentially even harder for many other people to do. But if we're not doing that, we won't be able to solve the systemic issues that incentivize harm-causing, even if we can "solve" climate change.
Re: US politics, pessimism, and local advocacy. First off -- I think local problems are the best place to look. Local governments are the least brittle, most adaptive, and most reflective of local cultures. As you change local government, local policies, and local businesses, you're also changing local attitudes, and vice versa. It's almost exactly what I'm talking about. People have ownership and connection to local policies and government, and that street works in both directions to change minds and change practical things.
Second, re: US politics overall. Yes, Trump's actions on climate (or against climate, I guess) are depressing, and yes, we're basically the only developed country that has an open argument about climate change. But we're not the only developed country who's absolutely failing to meet Paris goals, which aren't even close to enough to mitigate catastrophic harm anyway. The UN published an Emissions Gap Report in 2019, the executive summary is worth a read: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13. The US is bad, but so is just about everyone else. The EU is doing the best and it's still not great. I have argued -- and still think aspects of this are true -- that we're better off with Trump (strictly from an environmental perspective) than with another 4 years of Obama (Clinton) because it's forcing people to realize the immediacy and dire nature of the climate crisis. When you have establishment democrats in power claiming they're doing things while simultaneously overseeing rapid growth and subsidization of the US fossil fuel industry...then people become complacent. If we elect any of the traditional corporate-lobby democrats that are in the running in 2020, we are totally fucked on climate change. Meanwhile in "eco-friendly" Canada, Trudeau bought a $9 billion dollar pipeline expansion project that the original owner (Kinder Morgan) had decided not to build because it didn't make economic sense. BC just passed a law claiming adherence to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), but they actively using military force to kick indigenous people off their land in northern BC in order to build...a pipeline to an LNG export facility, also funded by the Canadian government. The USA isn't the only country that's messed up and depressing, they all are, and it's because of systemic issues that can only be changed by fully reconstructing the network.
Here's a more concrete example of what I mean when I'm talking about systemic brittleness, and why "top-down" change can't happen on its own and needs to work in synthesis with cultural evolution. 67% of Americans oppose drilling the Arctic Refuge and they have since before the tax bill passed (https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/). And yet, here we are, unable to not do it, despite living in a democracy.
You can drill down into the nitty gritty of it -- our politicians are bought and paid for, Trump is Trump, etc. But all those nitty gritty things are aspects of the system, relationships between nodes, and it's a system which doesn't exist in conflict with our worldviews, but rather, because of them. It's self-perpetuating, so as you're getting at -- our worldviews influence the systemic structure, but the structure in turn influences our worldviews. The world wasn't always this way. It's developed this way due to a pattern of thinking originating in the renaissance, a sort of deterministic, human-centric pattern that continued to develop with globalization until it redefined humans as the sort of "rational economic actor" (which empirical evidence has shown we're not). But the belief that we are rational economic actors -- it influences our behavior and makes us more like that belief, and it also influences the systemic structure of our society -- legal and otherwise. I'm getting pretty abstract again here, sorry. My point is that I agree with you -- to the extent that top-down and bottom-up are actually distinct things, we need both. Change at the government level influences change at the individual level. But, I believe we can't see the changes we need at the government level without a fundamental and intentional redesign of civilization, which yes, is an extremely hard challenge.
I don't want to get bogged down in this because I don't think it's really important but -- my assumption has been that butter is better than beef because butter is produced en masse over a cow's lifecycle while the amount of beef is inherently limited to when you harvest the cow. Cow emissions are over an entire lifecycle (primarily from gas produced by the animal), but much more butter can be produced by a cow than beef... But -- without my guesswork, if you honestly want to know, a quick google yielded a bunch of studies. Here's one that looked specifically at butter in 2011 -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22118073. There is a lot of info about beef but it's notably worse in a kilogram-per-kilogram measurement (and I would think you use a lot fewer kilograms of beef...). Cheese is less bad than beef for the same reasoning, confirmed lots of lifecycle analyses (papers) if you google.
To your main thoughts. Apologies if this is rambling, I think (and write) about this stuff a lot and while I like to believe I have my thoughts fairly well laid out, they are constantly evolving and if you asked me this twice you'd probably get two different (but not incompatible) responses. You're also saying a lot of things and I don't want to be too nitpicky so I'll try not to "respond" so to speak to everything.
When you compare changes at a corporate or institutional level with those at an individual level, you are obviously right. Recycling is a bit of a red herring in general but I don't want to go down that road, so I'll just sub something else in instead -- if Sun Valley funded busses, or switched entirely to solar energy, or whatever else, it would make a hell of a lot more difference than if one individual did, or even a somewhat larger collection of individuals. There is no question there. The problem, and the reason we need to be thinking about things on an individual level, is that we can't make the changes we need within the existing value system and incentive structure that are fundamental components of our society. And to change our value system, we need to change the way we -- all, individually and together -- see ourselves, our relationships with each other, and our relationships with the world.
I think Exxon's deliberate climate denial campaign -- that's been going on for over forty years -- is a good example of how the problem works at a corporate level, and you can extrapolate it back to the individual level and forward to the government level. Basically, we've built an incentive structure that encourages short-term personal gain at the expense of other people. In terms of advertising campaign's like Exxon, we've also seen it with Phillip Morris (tobacco), Johnson & Johnson (opioids), and now Juul (tobacco again). These are really high profile examples of societal evil orchestrated through advertising (manipulation) for the purpose of shareholder gain. But these didn't happen because some evil overlord was in charge of Exxon or any of the other companies. They happened -- and continue to happen -- because we have a value system that prioritizes accumulation of money with no consideration given to what traditional economists call "externalities." The language of it is an integral part of how we got here -- if you define adverse effects of actions as externalities, then suddenly those things are not your problem.
We've built a value structure that forces every actor on a global scale -- person, corporation, government, or otherwise -- into a game theoretic and degenerative dynamic that ultimately spirals into self-destruction. As Drawdown points out, we basically have the tools to fight climate change. In fact, we've had the knowledge and know-how since James Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony about global warming. So why can't we do anything about it? You can blame "bad actors" at the top, and certainly there are some, but the fundamental issue is a cultural one. We need to question the very assumptions that got us here and work to design a new civilization that's adaptive, distributive, and generative instead of destructive.
Your last few points are really important ones, and they get into why fighting climate change and building sustainability is critically entangled with social justice. One of the readings in Issue 2 really gets into this and the book by the same name (Doughnut Economics) is a good read. I don't expect people who are just trying to pay their bills and survive to have the mental energy required to begin working towards these things...but that inequality, the fact that so much of the world is in that position, is an integral part of the cultural problem that's led to global warming. We need to solve both together. I'm a big advocate for universal basic income (UBI) -- but not of Andrew Yang -- and can send you more readings about that if you're interested. It's one attempt to help solve that problem and free more people to do the important work of transitioning to a generative economy and culture, and also to help heal the cultural indoctrination that keeps us stuck in the terminal status quo.
Whew. Back on the ground here: I think fighting for the examples you're talking about (and many others) is critically important. I'm not saying we should abdicate from real action in favor of deep philosophical discussion and thought. We need to be doing both...and more subtly, I don't think they are actually distinct. Action is a critical part of cultural change, even at an individual level, and vice versa.
ugh I said you use fewer kilograms of beef, but I meant fewer kilograms of butter
Maggi, can you just return to substituting one stick of butter with apple sauce? Apples are more environmentally friendly.
Something that has struck me as I've read through these readings and just through discussion about climate change in recent months is two things -- the high level of urgency that's needed to change our society and how easy it is to quickly become out-of-date and complacent with climate change literature and effort. My generation has received the message that we will be the generation that comes to face with climate change and solves the problem -- when I was in high school, it felt like that would be part of my whole adult life, but that we would have time to find solutions and change would happen gradually. Now -- what is outlined in the IPCC report is that we need to reduce emissions by 7% annually by 2030 to avoid catastrophic change, and that has caused a big shift in my frame of mind. I've realized that even though I have a career in the geosciences, I am out of touch with the climate literature and reality, and that is really sobering.
I think that the readings are/will be really important in creating a vision for societal change (at least at a personal level) but I think that the greatest takeaways will come through the discussion board. I hope that everyone participating in the readings can take the time to contribute here as well!
I read Wallace-Wells's article when it first came out, and I'm currently reading the expanded book. Quite sobering to say the least, even for someone who has been steeped in climate change issues for 40 years (yes, I'm of THAT generation!). I'm quite familiar with Project Drawdown through my friendship with both Paul Hawken (who has left the organization, much to my disappointment) and Jon Foley, a climate scientist whom I greatly respect (the current executive director). My complaint with Drawdown is the way it breaks everything down into components, rather than systems. Carbon emissions from the energy consumption of buildings is huge and the benefits from widespread improvement are dramatic—but those savings, as I recall, are broken down into small chunks, so the buildings sector doesn't seem as significant as it really is. Keep up your good work with Sacred Headwaters. -Alex
Thanks Alex, good point about Drawdown. I think their goal (though you'd know better than me) is to try to make things seem more approachable by breaking them down, but it does skew the results somewhat.
I'd be curious to hear what you think of Wallace-Wells' book when you're done. In some ways, it read like a long form version of his article -- good but not adding too much to the table. The latter part of the book felt more insightful, particularly as he got into his rationale for having a daughter and how that impacts his view of where the world goes from here.
I'll kick things off here ;)
"Uninhabitable Earth" didn't really surprise me, but it did provide valuable context for communication. When you talk about how bad climate change will be (and is), even people who understand that fail to conceptualize the degree to which our world will be -- and is being -- upended. I think the concrete changes Wallace-Wells talks about provide a platform for discussing something he doesn’t get into -- the sociopolitical impacts of those changes. When you look at how brittle our economy and governments have been responding to the relatively mild disasters of the last few years, you begin to get really worried about how we’ll respond to what he describes. The potential physical impacts of climate change are disastrous, and the cascading chain of geopolitical impacts that follow will be worse. The article helps make clear that while we need to focus on climate change mitigation and prevention, we’re already -- to some degree -- committed. We need to be focusing on resilience not just in a physical sense (flood-resistant construction, etc.), but also in an institutional sense. Our governments and financial systems need to be restructured to survive the increasing onslaught of acute and chronic natural disasters in order to avoid compounding the damage.
I find Project Drawdown really interesting. On the one hand, it makes fighting climate change seem almost easy -- and in some ways, it is. Their models are, of course, just models, but the science is there: if we implement many of their recommended solutions, we will make real progress towards limiting global warming. My two main issues with Drawdown are first, their emphasis on the technocratic, and second, their defining focus on climate change and, specifically, on greenhouse gas emissions. Many of their solutions transcend these issues -- when they talk about “Conservation Agriculture” (aka regenerative agriculture), “Living Buildings,” reducing waste, and “Cogeneration,” they’re talking about redefining economic value to a more holistic and systems-based perspective -- but they’re hiding that message underneath what seem like “simple” solutions. When you ask, "Should we capture waste heat from industrial manufacturing and use it to heat the local municipality or generate electricity?" Everyone would answer “yes.” The harder question, and the one Drawdown avoids dealing with, is how do we restructure society to ensure that happens? The technology for it exists, but our existing monetary value system doesn’t effectively capture how important it is...so how do we change that? These are the harder questions that Drawdown doesn’t answer. That said, I think the work they’ve done is incredibly valuable. When you quantify how beneficial each of these sort of easy and almost obvious steps would be, it forces readers to begin to ask the questions I’m asking here -- if it’s so simple, why can’t we do it?
Also, have you read The Ends of the World? "The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannen points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet’s major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher." ... I'm curious, when was the world 4C warmer? How come it was warm enough for Vikings to grow grapes in Sweden 1000 years ago? How is our situation different?
I makes me wonder if we should redefine climate change into subsets like "global warming" and "global pollution." Is it possible that the earth may warm anyway, but we can work on making the earth cleaner and healthier for future generations?
Hey Trine,
I haven't read Ends of the World, but...a few thoughts. First off, yes -- relatively new paleoclimate studies have shown that at times in the earth's past with comparable concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, sea levels were 100s of feet higher. This is actually one of the really scary, not-talked-about-enough realities of climate change. We can model sea level rise...but there are a number of thresholds and feedback systems that make our modeling really challenging. And we don't fully understand why sea level was so much higher at similar points in earth's history. So, when they say "at +2C, we'll have x amount of sea level rise" -- they are doing their best to predict accurately, but the reality is that it could be far more, especially over a longer time horizon. Wallace-Wells talks about this a bit more in his book than in the article, I think.
I don't know anything about vikings and grapes...but a cursory google suggests that people are growing grapes in Sweden right now, so I'm not sure that's a notable distinction. https://scandinaviantraveler.com/en/lifestyle/scandinavian-vineyards
There's a bit of a scary trope amongst people who don't take climate change seriously -- the idea that, as the earth warms, we'll just move our food growth to higher latitudes and everything will be fine. Unfortunately, that isn't possible -- soil takes thousands of years to develop and northern latitudes just don't have the kind of soil needed to produce food at the rates we need.
Global warming and global pollution are definitely different things, although they are of course interrelated (see Planetary Boundaries framework in issue #2 and systems thinking in issue #4). Working to create a cleaner and healthier earth for future generations is exactly the work we need to do, and it's also exactly the same as fighting anthropogenic climate change. It is very well documented that human GHG emissions are contributing a massive amount to warming of the earth climate. Yes, the earth has been warmer in its past history -- but not significantly in the past 10-12000 years of "advanced" human civilization (the holocene). Yes, the earth's climate changes over time and may "naturally" leave its holocene-era stability -- but that's not what's going on right now. Earth's climate has been in a cycle of glacial-interglacial periods for 2.75 million years (not that long in terms of earth history). Historically, earth would be beginning to enter another period of glaciation right now, or soon. There are multiple theories about why this isn't happening, both anthropogenic (stemming from human agriculture starting ~7000 years ago) and "natural." Either way, in the last 150 years, human-driven changes to GHG -- and in turn, to planet temperature -- have accelerated dramatically. This is an interesting paper on the historic side of things -- i.e. why the holocene is continuing instead of entering a new glacial period -- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000503, though it's perhaps less relevant to our current rapidly accelerating warming. This is a super high level talk about this and I can find more resources for you if you're interested but the basic message is: yes, earth's climate changes over time, but no, human civilization has never existed in a significantly different climate than what we've had over the course of the holocene (10-12k years), and we cannot expect to be able to continue to thrive (or possibly even exist) if the climate changes significantly.
This paper is really important, I think: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252. It talks about anthropogenic climate change and feedback loops and explains how the holocene has been a uniquely stable period -- and that in order to maintain human life, we need to maintain that stability (and start reducing GHGs in the atmosphere).
100% on board with individual steps! They may not make a difference, per se, but I think they're a critical piece of changing mindsets. Taking daily actions, changing your behavior, etc., forces you to be thinking about this stuff all the time -- which forces action at higher levels (i.e. political ones). The more we are all thinking about how we can live a sustainable life -- and what that even is -- the more likely we are to be able to find answers.
Thanks. I much prefer the idea of fighting anthropomorphic climate change.
Watched the project drawdown video. It’s pretty great! I was going to ask you for GHG emission equivalents for certain lifestyle changes at some point. I love that family planning and education (though it should be men and women’s education since men are the vast majority of policy-makers) are included as steps for drawdown. Fewer people on the globe = less climate change for sure.
The downside of these lifestyle changes is that it’s completely altruistic. If I really get amped about this issue am I willing to opt for vegetarian over a meat meal, try gardening or shopping at a consignment shop? Yes, if I’m mindful and intentional about these changes. What about buying solar panels for my home (~$20,000)? Mmmm,maybe. What about adopt instead of have my own children to help slow the human population forth curve? Ehhhh... idk yet but probably not. A lot of these drawdown topics are so highly politicized in our country anyway. Do we just vote and hope someone who cares more about climate change gets elected? I want to know how to buy in to these issues myself and then get others to buy into them.
Here's another good visualization on real impacts in the next couple decades: https://www.vox.com/a/weather-climate-change-us-cities-global-warming. If you read it, you'll see they are assuming a global rise of +2C by 2040 for their modeling here. The IPCC says we're on track for about +3.2C (later in the century) -- and that assumes that we actually start making progress towards Paris climate goals, which is an optimistic assumption given what we've seen over the last decade.
Hm. There's a lot to unpack there.
First off, about "altruism" and your reference to climate change as "this issue" as though it's one among many that a voter or person might care about...it is fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives. Now, in 20 years, in 80 years, and onwards. Regardless of how much progress we're actually able to make towards negative GHG emissions, we are already being dramatically impacted by climate change. In New Mexico (at least in the Rio Grande basin, where you are), you are nearly guaranteed to see a water crisis in the next one or two decades. As in, the city of Albuquerque won't have water. Temperatures in Albuquerque are rising quickly and while they won't become unlivable in our lifetime, they'll become significantly worse, especially in a high emissions scenario. You can explore the modeling of this here:
https://crt-climate-explorer.nemac.org/local-climate-maps/?county=Bernalillo%20County&city=Albuquerque%2C%20NM&fips=35001&lat=35.08&lon=-106.65&zoom=7&id=days_tmax_gt_90f&nav=local-climate-maps
Look at high emissions scenario for 2050, 2060, onwards. ABQ gets a lot hotter, but the rest of the state is even worse, let alone the rest of the southwest.
This isn't about altruism. It's about necessity (and self-interest). And -- you're talking about having a child. I don't like the narrative that fighting climate change is "for the youth of today" because we're all being impacted by it right now, and will be even more so during our lifetimes -- but it'll be even worse for them. Is doing something for your child's sake altruism?
Second, selling it as a sacrifice is the wrong picture. Vegetarianism isn't the strongest example here but I'll start with it since you did. Humans (and even Americans) didn't used to eat nearly as much meat as we do today. Meat consumption has been rising because of social norms and subsidized costs. Eating vegetarian (or mostly vegetarian) is from a general standpoint both healthier and cheaper. Avoiding red meat at the very least fits that bill -- and beef is the worst offender by far when it comes to soil degradation, land use change, and direct GHG emissions.
Run the numbers on solar. It's not a $20,000 donation. If you finance it, you may actually be earning money (over your current utility bill) right off the bat. If you pay cash, it pays for itself relatively quickly. New Mexico (I only know this because I recently read NM's state climate action strategy -- https://www.climateaction.state.nm.us/documents/reports/NMClimateChange_2019.pdf) has a program that allows homeowners to finance home solar installations through financing at the county-level that is then paid back over time through property tax. Not sure if it is active in Albuquerque as I think it's county-by-county.
I disagree with some of the conclusions Klein and Griffith reach at the end of their interview, but this podcast episode puts a framing on sustainable transition that we don't hear often enough -- that it's not about sacrifice, but it's about building a better world. The actual things we're talking about are not polarizing issues, but the debate has been invented and polarized in order to maintain the status quo (this is me talking, not them).
https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2019/12/16/21024323/ezra-klein-show-saul-griffith-solve-climate-change
I also think Saul's points about individual actions at the end of the podcast are good. Make the infrastructural changes you can to reduce your impact. His things are -- where you live, where you work, what car you drive (or better yet, none), and your diet. Those are the biggest impacts you have that you have control over. Personally, I believe it's important to engage in smaller individual actions because it keeps people activated -- if you're not thinking about sustainability in your daily life, it doesn't feel as important to you. But in terms of actual differences, Griffith's point is spot on. Change the big stuff.
And yes, vote. But don't just hope. Do your research, vote for the right people, talk to friends about it. And engage in local government. Way more exciting stuff is happening at the local level (read the NM climate strategy I linked above!). Sustainable communities can't be designed from the federal level, they can just be facilitated. What exactly sustainable community infrastructure (energy grid, food production, etc.) looks like depends on where you live.
I think you misunderstand me. My point was not that i think this is “an issue” or that isn’t not worthy of my attention and focus NOW. I wouldn’t be reading this or discussing it with you if it wasn’t. Like it or not, our society is not constructed to have a large number people follow in your footsteps or the footsteps of the most environmentally conscious people on earth. It takes money, education, and conscious decision making to do so. The majority of our society doesn’t have or practice that actively. About many topics. And in order to have a significant enough impact to generate drawdown, or change policies etc, many more people need to “buy in.” So my question was, what can I do to help generate focus and care about this issue? I will certainly do what I can to lead by example but I will likely do so within reason. After all I have professional and personal responsibilities just like anyone else.
I am posing social, not scientific questions here. You can obviously throw scientific articles at me all day long, you obviously know much more about it, and no, I cannot participate in citing articles back at you on this topic. The application of this science I can consider and bring up for discussion comes down to social changes. After all, isn’t it social human behavior that got us here?
Also, if I didn’t know you I’d consider your responses quite socially agressive. Are you trying to get people to engage with you to argue them? I’m not down for that. I think you want to make this knowledge accessible and digestible for a wide audience. I’ll participate in that.
And no, I'm not trying to get people to engage so I can argue with them. I literally lose sleep over conversations I've had through this newsletter. I'm trying to make a difference, not trying to get in fights. I think the internet is a horrible venue for discussion but it's what we have, so here we are.
Thanks. No hard feelings. I’ll continue happy to keep reading and discuss with you. I think it’s worth the effort. Don’t loose sleep, you’re doing your best and you’re doing a novel thing!
I'm sorry, I certainly don't mean to be aggressive. Earlier in our conversation, I was posting scientific links because you suggested that the climate is warming on its own -- I know you didn't intend it this way, but that's a really dangerous piece of misinformation that contributes to social inaction. It's also rooted in 40 years of deliberate misinformation spread by fossil fuel companies (Exxon).
In my most recent comment, the links weren't "scientific." They're specifically about social context. My point was to try to dispel the -- you're right, very common -- myth that action and lifestyle change is altruism. It's not altruism because we're all being fundamentally impacted by climate change (why I sent the climate modeling visualization), and it's not altruism because building a better, more sustainable world actually improves all of our lives (why I sent the Vox podcast). It's cast as altruism and sacrifice by vested interests that want the status quo to stay in place. So yes, it's a social issue -- this is the entire reason I'm running this newsletter. It's a social issue because we're fighting a system -- both political and information-based -- that is essentially trying to prevent us from taking action. So we need to fight misinformation and we need to sell the (true) narrative that the world can actually become a better place as we fight climate change -- and that it must, because otherwise we're all (humanity) going to die, basically.
I really liked that podcast you recommended. I'll have to listen to it again, it was so jam-packed with information. I especially liked how he reframes eco-friendly lifestyle changes to be positive. Switching to electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, eating plant-based, and radiant floor heating all lead to a better quality lifestyle (not just altruistic). I also got a few solar quotes for our home. Comes out to about $12,000, which is less than I expected.
Ok, cool. I appreciate that you point out “the earth naturally warms and environmentalism is aulturism” as a paradigm. It helps me understand where you were coming from. I’ll listen to the podcast sometime soon and re-read your comment.
Maybe someday I’ll graduation to discussion #2 🤣
Hi Nick,
This is such a big topic, you've given lots of homework and it's not my field. I'm unsure of what I can contribute to this discussion. I've always "cared" about environmental issues and preserving the planet, but I'm facing this issue more now than I ever had before (which is why I set aside my anesthesia periodicals to read your blog). I'm about to get married and for the first time ever, I'm thinking about having a family in the future. The future earth that the Wallace-Wells article describes is not one I'd want my children to see. More densely populated areas, inescapable heat, food shortages, drought, disease, smog, war... It seems downright irresponsible and unfair to bring them into this world.
This article has made me more ambitious about taking feasible action. I'm starting Suzy Cameron's OMD plan (one meal a day of plant-based food), I will take fewer trips that require a flight (especially global travel which many millennials, like myself, have thought is the norm), I will try out my green thumb and plant a small garden, and buy used and environmentally friendly items.
Perhaps if these things become really cool and Instagram-able there would be enough traction to make an impact?
I'm also thinking about our trip to Canada... Why travel all that way to ski some snow if 3 square meters of arctic ice are lost in the process?
Looking forward to more discussion. I'm quite sure you can broaden and deepen my knowledge on this topic. Will get to the next articles and questions in a bit. Thanks.