Doing something a little different this week. Feel free to discuss systems thinking and issue #4 (and read it if you haven’t yet)…or answer these questions:
What do you feel like you’re getting out of this newsletter? What would you like to get out of this newsletter? Are there topics you’d like to see covered here in the future?
I'll chime in with my perspective here, too, which is likely to be a bit different.
On the one hand, I'm of course learning by putting these together -- it's forcing me to read more books, and to try to organize my thoughts in a consistent way.
On the other hand, I'm learning from conversations I'm having with all of you, generally outside Substack. There's a broad range of perspectives and attitudes.
Some of our conversations have been deeply personal, illuminating the sort of omni-present depression that many people who take these issues seriously suffer from. That's been sad, but it's also been inspiring. To hear how many people are already so far along in their thinking on these topics is really great. Tackling those psychological effects is a challenge, but it's also an opportunity to reframe action as finding a new, better way of life instead of fighting an old one.
Other of our conversations have made clear to me how far we have to go, and made me feel like this newsletter is a viable and valuable approach. There is a large segment of the population that "believes in climate change" (whatever that really means) and is acutely aware of the impacts of our ongoing global failure to act. But they're not aware of the myriad of other ecological issues we face. And they're not aware of the deep interconnection between all these biophysical problems and the social problems in our civilization. My goal here is to help draw that connection and to encourage everyone to ask more questions, because a reductive approach that fails to account for the entire system -- ecological and human -- will inevitably fail.
Hey Nick I like the newsletters and think this is indeed a valuable approach to getting more people to think and talk about climate change and biodiversity loss and all the factors involved. I like how you approach these issues with a holistic viewpoint. In my opinion the big shift to sustainability needs among many things a massive cultural shift. It would be awesome if there was more political leadership leading the charge but it seems to be lacking (maybe theres some examples to prove otherwise, i'll admit I don't pay much attention to politics). So maybe not only as individuals but more importantly as communities we can make changes where we live in our community systems (more local food sourcing, promoting local activities to discourage so much air travel, etc.) Anyways enough ranting.. I'd love to see some newsletters telling us how we can make or affect change in our communities to become more sustainable. Basically how can we get a bunch of people who care about the future of our planet to get on board on achievable goals for our community.. And maybe some examples of other places where this may be happening. Cheers dude and hope to paddle with you again soon!
Nick, I am learning a huge amount from your newsletter, the sources recommended and especially the discussions. thank you.
One topic I was wondering about as a possible future newsletter would be water including a discussion on rivers. Damming rivers, controlling flow etc has long been a technique of generating "sustainable" power but has caused so many other environmental problems. I know that vast reservoirs are terrible evaporators and hence endanger water supplies even as they are meant to save water, and that some dams are being dismantled to regenerate river health. But I would be curious to learn more about the science of rivers, the future of the world's water, what it means that more of the world's water will be freed from ice into the sea even as land masses lose their supplies of water due to melting snowcaps. And would like to know more about the science of water conservation and use and projections of managing water supply to increasingly desertified areas of earth surface.
Thank you! great discussion so far. Last night I attended Robert J. Klee's talk based on his paper "Searching for a New Deal on Climate? Look to the States." an article series from Clean Energy Finance Forum of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Yale School of Management. The talk was cosponsored by CT Audubon Society. link here: (https://www.cleanenergyfinanceforum.com/series/searching-for-new-deal-on-climate-look-to-the-states).
While he spoke of many of the issues you have discussed in Sacredheadwaters, including electrification, clean energy, partnering between states and business....in discussing the many states that are embracing up to 40 % clean energy by 2030 and 80 % by 2040....the focus lacked several important things I have been wondering about and wonder if you have researched them, Nick.
1. Wind Power - Klee (former commissioner of CT Dpt Energy and Environmental Protection) showed the great progress on offshore wind power systems along Ct and MA coast - and talked about how many many more will be built. There was no mention of the potential problems of this technology on bird migration patterns, on whale feeding grounds, on fish routes, on the noise leading to whale communication confusion and so on - not to mention sound pollution for humans, bird deaths and I am sure so much more.
2. the hydro questions already raised in this discussion
3. clean energy procurement - and the incentives to power companies etc was much discussed (though he did not dwell on nuclear power which has to be in the mix) - as was need to modernize electric grid discussed - but there was no discussion of the process of electrification of buildings - large urban buildings, individual homes - most of which rely on fossil fuels for heat, and cooking. What incentives for landlords and homeowners on a large scale in cities and country will it take to totally transform heat systems in the current building stock, as well as to legislate full electrification in all new building stock? .
4. And Yes - there was discussion of need to electrify transport grid - and individual cars - but not really about the massive incentives and perhaps legislation that will phase out all fossil fuel transport on a time scale that matches the sources of electricity supply. just for eg. a lot of people now who own and are quickly buying up (apparently) huge gas guzzling cars and trucks will likely keep them running for more than the mere 10 years up to 2030. Are we going to legislate removing them - I imagine we will be no more successful than trying to legislate removing guns. Are we going to close all gas stations and make gasoline unavailable for retail use any time soon? Are we going to stop taking up land and soil to make more "biofuel"so people can keep running their giant combustion engines on the roads?
5. in the Q and A , psychology and denial did come up - but we will have to go much further than overcoming denial about climate change - we will have to change people's minds on a huge scale about the role they should assign to their governments - including the role of a world body that will have to be co-ordinating efforts to "save the planet" ecosystems. This psychological/philosophical project is at least as daunting (it seems much more daunting to me) as the development of the technologies to go to zero carbon emission and to start the drawdown of carbon already built up in the atmosphere.
The newsletter is fantastic but I just made it through #3 so I am a bit behind. The articles and links to visuals are extremely informative... I have a lot of random thoughts about topics I would like to learn about. I like Jo and Harold's recommendations. Local issues tend to be easier for me to digest and I am trying to avoid national politics.
Obviously I like water related issues and want to get back into the policy side of water rights. As you know the Colorado River has loads of interesting water related issues but the Columbia River US-Canada treaty is up for renewal in 2024. It would be interesting to dive deeper into how these agreements are made and if climate change is discussed during the treaty renewal, the US-Canda relationship, upstream mines, dams, flood protection etc. The Columbia River treaty has been on my list to look into for over a year but the farthest I ever get is https://www.state.gov/columbia-river-treaty/. Maybe not the most climate change focused topic but still relevant to some of the issues such as water resources in a changing climate. What the allocation amounts are and whether they considered climate change or are over allocated.
Additionally, around here the conservation groups are driving me crazy because they have two opinions about the Hells Canyon hydro power complex on the Snake. A) it blocks fish migration, remove it asap, B) it is great clean energy, yay hydropower and I receive 50% of my energy from this complex. I am curious as to where we would get our energy from if the dams were removed and a little more about how "clean", clean energy actually is. If we changed our energy to wind, how long does that windmill need to be in place to offset its production? Similar question with solar power. I know there are loads of resources discussing this but there are also lots of blogs, and business advertisements to wade through.
On another random note, Idaho power keeps its cloud seeding project on the down-low. Apparently, as an experiment, they just released a lot of propane into the air. Anyways, cloud seeding is kind of interesting. I am not sure what states or countries use cloud seeding or what the ramifications are.
some local communities - eg. Berkeley have managed to bring in legislation to ban gas hook-ups in new construction. While there is push back from the real estate industry (eg. Cambridge) there is more progress in this area at the city level than I was aware of.
I'll chime in with my perspective here, too, which is likely to be a bit different.
On the one hand, I'm of course learning by putting these together -- it's forcing me to read more books, and to try to organize my thoughts in a consistent way.
On the other hand, I'm learning from conversations I'm having with all of you, generally outside Substack. There's a broad range of perspectives and attitudes.
Some of our conversations have been deeply personal, illuminating the sort of omni-present depression that many people who take these issues seriously suffer from. That's been sad, but it's also been inspiring. To hear how many people are already so far along in their thinking on these topics is really great. Tackling those psychological effects is a challenge, but it's also an opportunity to reframe action as finding a new, better way of life instead of fighting an old one.
Other of our conversations have made clear to me how far we have to go, and made me feel like this newsletter is a viable and valuable approach. There is a large segment of the population that "believes in climate change" (whatever that really means) and is acutely aware of the impacts of our ongoing global failure to act. But they're not aware of the myriad of other ecological issues we face. And they're not aware of the deep interconnection between all these biophysical problems and the social problems in our civilization. My goal here is to help draw that connection and to encourage everyone to ask more questions, because a reductive approach that fails to account for the entire system -- ecological and human -- will inevitably fail.
Hey Nick I like the newsletters and think this is indeed a valuable approach to getting more people to think and talk about climate change and biodiversity loss and all the factors involved. I like how you approach these issues with a holistic viewpoint. In my opinion the big shift to sustainability needs among many things a massive cultural shift. It would be awesome if there was more political leadership leading the charge but it seems to be lacking (maybe theres some examples to prove otherwise, i'll admit I don't pay much attention to politics). So maybe not only as individuals but more importantly as communities we can make changes where we live in our community systems (more local food sourcing, promoting local activities to discourage so much air travel, etc.) Anyways enough ranting.. I'd love to see some newsletters telling us how we can make or affect change in our communities to become more sustainable. Basically how can we get a bunch of people who care about the future of our planet to get on board on achievable goals for our community.. And maybe some examples of other places where this may be happening. Cheers dude and hope to paddle with you again soon!
Nick, I am learning a huge amount from your newsletter, the sources recommended and especially the discussions. thank you.
One topic I was wondering about as a possible future newsletter would be water including a discussion on rivers. Damming rivers, controlling flow etc has long been a technique of generating "sustainable" power but has caused so many other environmental problems. I know that vast reservoirs are terrible evaporators and hence endanger water supplies even as they are meant to save water, and that some dams are being dismantled to regenerate river health. But I would be curious to learn more about the science of rivers, the future of the world's water, what it means that more of the world's water will be freed from ice into the sea even as land masses lose their supplies of water due to melting snowcaps. And would like to know more about the science of water conservation and use and projections of managing water supply to increasingly desertified areas of earth surface.
Thank you! great discussion so far. Last night I attended Robert J. Klee's talk based on his paper "Searching for a New Deal on Climate? Look to the States." an article series from Clean Energy Finance Forum of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Yale School of Management. The talk was cosponsored by CT Audubon Society. link here: (https://www.cleanenergyfinanceforum.com/series/searching-for-new-deal-on-climate-look-to-the-states).
While he spoke of many of the issues you have discussed in Sacredheadwaters, including electrification, clean energy, partnering between states and business....in discussing the many states that are embracing up to 40 % clean energy by 2030 and 80 % by 2040....the focus lacked several important things I have been wondering about and wonder if you have researched them, Nick.
1. Wind Power - Klee (former commissioner of CT Dpt Energy and Environmental Protection) showed the great progress on offshore wind power systems along Ct and MA coast - and talked about how many many more will be built. There was no mention of the potential problems of this technology on bird migration patterns, on whale feeding grounds, on fish routes, on the noise leading to whale communication confusion and so on - not to mention sound pollution for humans, bird deaths and I am sure so much more.
2. the hydro questions already raised in this discussion
3. clean energy procurement - and the incentives to power companies etc was much discussed (though he did not dwell on nuclear power which has to be in the mix) - as was need to modernize electric grid discussed - but there was no discussion of the process of electrification of buildings - large urban buildings, individual homes - most of which rely on fossil fuels for heat, and cooking. What incentives for landlords and homeowners on a large scale in cities and country will it take to totally transform heat systems in the current building stock, as well as to legislate full electrification in all new building stock? .
4. And Yes - there was discussion of need to electrify transport grid - and individual cars - but not really about the massive incentives and perhaps legislation that will phase out all fossil fuel transport on a time scale that matches the sources of electricity supply. just for eg. a lot of people now who own and are quickly buying up (apparently) huge gas guzzling cars and trucks will likely keep them running for more than the mere 10 years up to 2030. Are we going to legislate removing them - I imagine we will be no more successful than trying to legislate removing guns. Are we going to close all gas stations and make gasoline unavailable for retail use any time soon? Are we going to stop taking up land and soil to make more "biofuel"so people can keep running their giant combustion engines on the roads?
5. in the Q and A , psychology and denial did come up - but we will have to go much further than overcoming denial about climate change - we will have to change people's minds on a huge scale about the role they should assign to their governments - including the role of a world body that will have to be co-ordinating efforts to "save the planet" ecosystems. This psychological/philosophical project is at least as daunting (it seems much more daunting to me) as the development of the technologies to go to zero carbon emission and to start the drawdown of carbon already built up in the atmosphere.
The newsletter is fantastic but I just made it through #3 so I am a bit behind. The articles and links to visuals are extremely informative... I have a lot of random thoughts about topics I would like to learn about. I like Jo and Harold's recommendations. Local issues tend to be easier for me to digest and I am trying to avoid national politics.
Obviously I like water related issues and want to get back into the policy side of water rights. As you know the Colorado River has loads of interesting water related issues but the Columbia River US-Canada treaty is up for renewal in 2024. It would be interesting to dive deeper into how these agreements are made and if climate change is discussed during the treaty renewal, the US-Canda relationship, upstream mines, dams, flood protection etc. The Columbia River treaty has been on my list to look into for over a year but the farthest I ever get is https://www.state.gov/columbia-river-treaty/. Maybe not the most climate change focused topic but still relevant to some of the issues such as water resources in a changing climate. What the allocation amounts are and whether they considered climate change or are over allocated.
Additionally, around here the conservation groups are driving me crazy because they have two opinions about the Hells Canyon hydro power complex on the Snake. A) it blocks fish migration, remove it asap, B) it is great clean energy, yay hydropower and I receive 50% of my energy from this complex. I am curious as to where we would get our energy from if the dams were removed and a little more about how "clean", clean energy actually is. If we changed our energy to wind, how long does that windmill need to be in place to offset its production? Similar question with solar power. I know there are loads of resources discussing this but there are also lots of blogs, and business advertisements to wade through.
On another random note, Idaho power keeps its cloud seeding project on the down-low. Apparently, as an experiment, they just released a lot of propane into the air. Anyways, cloud seeding is kind of interesting. I am not sure what states or countries use cloud seeding or what the ramifications are.
I have just discovered an article in Wednesday, Feb. 4th NYTimes Business Section about building electrification. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/business/all-electric-green-development.html?searchResultPosition=1)
some local communities - eg. Berkeley have managed to bring in legislation to ban gas hook-ups in new construction. While there is push back from the real estate industry (eg. Cambridge) there is more progress in this area at the city level than I was aware of.