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.
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.
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
"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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.