Climate Facts from James Hansen and Makiko Sato Ahead of COP26

From the newsletter of 14th October 2021:

Left are greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, and right are cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, 1751-2018. Don’t think it’s China.

Prior COPs have been characterized by self-delusion so blatant that one of us (JEH) describes the backslapping congratulations at the end of the COPs as a fraud. We cannot blame it all on the political leaders, however. We scientists deserve a large part of the blame.

Scientists were slow to realize how low the targets must be for greenhouse gas (GHG) levels and for global warming to achieve a stable, healthy climate for young people and future generations. We also should have made clearer the effects of lags (delayed responses) in the climate system, as well as the time required to replace energy systems that are the largest source of GHGs.

Political leaders were slow to even set a meaningful goal. At last, with the Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015, they set a goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Global warming had already reached about 1°C, so 1.5°C was believed to be the lowest feasible warming limit. However, the leaders did nothing to realize the two essential actions that the target implied (see below). Instead, they went home and took actions and allowed policies that made the goal unachievable.

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, 14th October 2021
(This is “Figure 2”.)

Quoting again:

The most extraordinary fact revealed in Fig. 2 is probably current emissions by the U.K.  The industrial revolution began in the U.K. and for a long period the U.K. had the highest emissions per capita.  Yet U.K. per capita emissions today are about one-third of those in the United States, and U.K. emissions are declining rapidly.[4]

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, 14th October 2021

I also offer the following from the same post, although I say loudly I completely disagree with it:

Two actions are essential if we are to phase down GHG emissions rapidly.  The first, as described many places, most recently at Can Young People Save Democracy and the Planet?,1 is the need for a rising carbon fee as a foundation that will make all other carbon-reduction policies work faster and more effectively.  The funds (collected from fossil fuel companies) must be distributed uniformly to legal residents – otherwise the public will never allow the fee to rise to the levels needed to rapidly phase down carbon emissions.

The second essential action is whole-hearted support for development and deployment of modern nuclear power.  Otherwise, gas will be the required complement to intermittent renewable energy for electricity generation.  Gas implies pipelines, fracking, air and water pollution, and emission of CH4 and CO2 that would assure climate disaster.  Modern nuclear power, in contrast, has the smallest environmental footprint of the potential energies because of its high energy density and the small volume of its waste, which is well-contained, unlike wastes of other energy sources.

Nuclear power is already the safest of all major energy sources,[13] based on deaths per kilowatt hour, but modern nuclear power is now far superior, with the ability to shut down in case of an anomaly and not require external power to keep the nuclear fuel cool.  Nuclear power has also been the fastest way to deploy power to scale,12 which will be important for phasing out CO2 emissions in places such as China.

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, 14th October 2021

The only way nuclear is a viable alternative is if the peoples of, for instance, New England suburbs — and their environmentalist supporters — continue to insist that solar farms and wind turbine constellations cannot be located close to where they live. If they do that, then modular nuclear power, distributed and small scale, is the only way forward to mitigate climate disruption.

Choose your poison, New England.

Posted in climate denial, climate disruption, climate economics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Open Letter from U.S. Scientists Imploring President Biden to End the Fossil Fuel Era

The following open letter was published on Thursday, 7th October 2021. Here is a link to the PDF original.

Posted in American Association for the Advancement of Science, being carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide, climate disruption, climate emergency | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“It’s the exact opposite.”

Posted in #youthvgov, Greta Thunberg | Leave a comment

Rationale for XR, short term

Posted in #climatestrike, #youthvgov, carbon dioxide, climate change, climate disruption, climate emergency, climate grief, ecocapitalism, Extinction REbellion, Fridays for Future | Leave a comment

“I don’t want my grandchildren to suffer” XR

Posted in #climatestrike, #youthvgov, carbon dioxide, climate activism, climate disruption, climate emergency, Extinction REbellion, Fridays for Future, Greta Thunberg | Leave a comment

Stopping climate disruption and eating cookies

Posted in #climatestrike, carbon dioxide, Climate Adam, Fridays for Future | Leave a comment


Environmentalists’ myths.

Posted in #climatestrike, climate disruption | Leave a comment

Stephen Fry on XR

Posted in #climatestrike, #youthvgov, climate activism, climate disruption, climate education, climate hawk, climate justice, Extinction REbellion, Fridays for Future, zero carbon | Leave a comment

A very recent Bill McKibben on Where We Are

Posted in zero carbon | Leave a comment

“A political dynamic …”


Anger. With love. But setting boundaries.

Anger is about defeated expectations.


Posted in zero carbon | Leave a comment

Meet Solkjøring


Solkjøring is a 2022 Nissan LEAF SV Plus. Claire named her Tesla 3 Greta, for obvious reasons, and to honor Maphiyata echiyatan hin wini. I searched for an appropriate name for the LEAF. I was tempted to name it “Svante” after Svante Arrhenius, but I thought “Too many first names.”

Solkjøring and Greta

We have an electric home, powered mostly by solar PV panelsii. The exceptions are (a) a gasoline-powered water pump in case the neighboring wetlands and latent streams flood, never used, but just in case, (b) a propane-powered emergency backup generator, again seldom used, and (c) a propane grille. The rest of it, from stoves, to laundry to heat pumps heating and cooling, our hot water heat pump hot water heater, even our lawnmower, are all electric. There is an orphaned oil furnaceiii which exists in case temperatures drop below -23^\circCiv.

I’ve written before about our arrangement.

Solkjøring means “sun riding” or “sun driving” in Norwegian. Since the LEAF is charged primarily using electricity from our solar panels, I thought that idea a compact description in a single word. I mean there’s the German sonne fahren but that’s not as compact.

So Solkjøring it is!

The only downside of the name I found is that the Nissan USA portal and app use a database which store words in ASCII. They don’t even use ISO 8859-x, let alone Unicode UTFv. Accordingly when I entered the name as properly spelled it was rejectedvi. So I chose to approximate it Solkjoering in those places, but Solkjøring is what the name is, properly spelled.

i “Woman who came from the heavens.”

ii We’re planning to power the remaining by getting more panels later this year or early 2022. More on that later.

iii Ironically as climate warms, that’s becoming less likely, even around Boston.

iv One for which we’ll probably never need to buy oil again.

v WordPress accepts them.

vi I’m used to such corruptions as my given name is “Jan.”

Posted in climate emergency, Greta Thunberg, Nissan LEAF, solar democracy, solar domination, solar power, solar revolution, Solkjøring, Svante Arrhenius, Tesla, vehicle emissions, zero carbon | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Greta, YouthCOP, 2021

Posted in #climatestrike, #youthvgov, climate activism, climate emergency, climate hawk, climate justice, Fridays for Future, greenhouse gases, Greta Thunberg, Our Children's Trust | Leave a comment

First Contact, and the Long Now Foundation

Since I was 15 years old, I have been convinced that, basically, humanity is hopelessly oriented to the short term, even if its own long term success or even survival was in the balance. In those days, as I worked through high school and college, majoring in Physics, I was delivered to a point where I needed to choose a graduate school path. I consulted. My choices were Artificial Intelligence or SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Major players advised me away from SETI, and while AI, in 1974, was a long sought capability, at least the skills attending the software and algorithms and engineering and computer science could earn me a living. For SETI, I would be a marginal astronomer or astrophysicist or, worse, exobiologist with engineering creds, and these would not make a living.

In the end I chose MIT and AI, but SETI has never been far from my mind.

And in the intervening years, with threat of nuclear war receding, and despite threat of impact of climate change increasing, posing a threat which could be much worse, I hoped humanity might get its act together.

I was deeply disappointed. It hasn’t. The slipshod international response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic of 2019-2022 demonstrates how badly off we collectively are.

So, I revert to my opinion of 1967: Humans are hopelessly short sighted. While we might blunder our way into some kind of equilibrium with climate disruption and eventually find some mix of curtailment, direct air capture, and suffering with which we can survive, it is far less an impressive performance by a group of hominids who think they are king of the hill in technology and science than those claims would suggest.

The hope in 1967, and increasingly now, is that a First Contact experience might shock us collectively into realizing where our place is, and the perspective we need to adopt. I do not mean an indirect inference of an extraterrestrial civilization as in Carl Sagan‘s Contact book and movie, but, instead, direct, in person contact, even if the extraterrestrials do not stick around for a long time.

The goals I have for such an encounter are similar to those of the Long Now Foundation. It’s not surprising that some of the principals of the Long Now also hold strong positions and are active at trying to deal with climate disruption due to human emissions of fossil fuels.

Posted in zero carbon | 1 Comment

Vineyard Sound, Rhode Island Sound, August, 2021

Posted in zero carbon | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Last ICE car gone from our ownership

Welcome to our new 2022 Nissan LEAF SV Plus! Still need to pick a name for it …. Our Tesla 3 is called “Greta.” I was thinking of “Svante” but Claire thought that was too obscure.

Our Nissan dealer is Milford Nissan in Milford, Massachusetts, and the sales manager is Guy Bedau. Excellent experience!

Posted in electric vehicles, EVs, Nissan LEAF, Svante Arrhenius, Tesla, zero carbon | Leave a comment

Jeremy Grantham credits Greta Thunberg and XR for pressuring governments to finally do something to cut emissions

The Energy Transition Show with Chris Nelder has recently become my favorite podcast. I eagerly await each new episode and, as a paying subscriber, I enjoy the delightfully long and geeky assessments, analyses, and opinions from really stellar guests.

There are educational episodes as well, introducing audiences to how the electrical grid actually works, and how, recently, grid forming inverters work.

Episode 144 featured Jeremy Grantham, the billionaire investor and co-founder of GMO, a Boston-based asset management firm, who spoke about market bubbles and, of course, the energy transition. Mr Grantham has been working to stop climate change as well, referring to it as “the race of our lives” and calling for a Marshall Plan to deal with climate change (possible paywall at link).

Mr Grantham was asked a lot of things by Mr Nelder relating to finance, China, and Carbon pricing. In one segment Mr Grantham credits Greta Thunberg and XR for pressuring governments like never before to act on cutting emissions, and praising their success. That segment is linked below, and I urge you to listen to the entire interview.

I also recommend subscribing to The Energy Transition Show. It is entirely listener supported and it is a fabulous piece of journalism, far better than many other assessments of energy and climate I know.

Posted in #climatestrike, #youthvgov, Bloomberg Green, children as political casualties, climate disruption, energy transition, George Monbiot, Greta Thunberg, Jeremy Grantham, zero carbon | Leave a comment

ASES Webinar: Educating and Inspiring the Inclusion of Solar Energy for Homeowners

From the American Solar Energy Society

29th September 2020

Register here.

Posted in American Solar Energy Society, solar democracy, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution | Tagged | Leave a comment

James O’Brien changes his mind : XR is changing minds!

Posted in #youthvgov, climate disruption, Extinction REbellion, Fridays for Future, XR | Leave a comment

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Linked in U.N. Climate Report

Source: Climate Change and Extreme Weather Linked in U.N. Climate Report

Posted in climate disruption | Leave a comment

Youth Climate Anthem: “Long Forgotten Road”

The song was written by Scilla Hess, Ellie Wyatt,  and Jonathan Owes-Yianomah:


Welcome to the world
Every boy, every girl
This is your life your big adventure
and your ticket is free

they send you to school
they’re gonna teach you the rules
you’ll find out things are not quite what they seem
take it from me

the book they wrote is full of lies
they says right is wrong and wrong is right
so don’t believe the black and white
cuz everything is shades of grey
we got to learn from our mistakes


We got to pick up the pieces
put them back together
it’s down to us
if we wanna make it better
And try to find our long forgotten road

pick up the pieces
put them back together
it’s down to us
if we wanna make it better
I’ll see you on the long forgotten road

Welcome to the plan
Every woman, every man
They tell you there’s no price tag on your life
they’ll have you believe

That you have a voice
You think that you have a choice
Meanwhile they sell our future for a dollar,
to a den of thieves

We’re all under the same skies
they got no answers to all our whys

We speak the truth to all their lies
Now we gotta gotta do what it takes
And learn from our mistakes


We got to pick up the pieces
put them back together
it’s down to us
if we wanna make it better
And try to find our long forgotten road

pick up the pieces
put them back together
it’s down to us
if we wanna make it better
I’ll see you on the long forgotten road

If we wanna
Then we gotta
try to find our long forgotten road

If we wanna
then I’m gonna
see you on the long forgotten road

now we’re writing the book
we’re not frightened to look
see it with our eyes wide open
we’re making our own rules

Now we’re taking control
old ways gotta go
see it with our eyes wide open
we’re making our own rules

We’re making our own rules

We’re making our own rules

Pick up the pieces
Put them back together
It’s down to us
If we wanna make it better
I’ll see you on the long forgotten road

If we wanna
Then we gotta
try to find our long forgotten road

If we wanna
then I’m gonna
see you on the long forgotten road

Gotta gotta do what it takes
And learn from our mistakes

Gotta gotta do what it takes
And learn from our mistakes

Posted in climate activism, climate change, climate disruption, climate emergency | Leave a comment

Biomes are too dynamic and intertwingled to be managed with simple political slogans: The case of Gnetum luofuense

Corners of the Environmentalist Establishment voice shrieks regarding what they call a biodiversity emergency, prompting even skilled journalists to claim the trend poses “as great a risk to humanity as climate change.” We went through the “insect apocalypse” fiasco, which turned out to be argued using bad evidence, specifically, insufficient sampling and improper statistics, including confirmation bias and sampling bias. Even UNEP shouts out about a “biodiversity emergency,” putting in hand-in-hand with the “climate emergency.”

A lot of this results from bad definitions and expectations. As Daniel Botkin observes in his book The Moon in the Nautilus Shell — Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered, many of our notions regarding species extinction and invasive species are grounded in myths regarding how biomes operate and interact:

… Environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s was essentially a disapproving and in this sense negative movement, focusing on aspects of our civilization that are bad for our environment. It played an important role by awakening people’s consciousness, but it didn’t provide many solutions to our environmental problems, or even viable approaches to solutions. That environmentalism was based on ideas of the industrial age — the machine age — ideas that developed in the eighteenth century and expanded in the nineteenth, ideas that I will argue in the rest of this book are outmoded.

That environmentalism has been perceived as opposing technological progress, but both those arguing for progress and those arguing for protection of the environment have shared a worldview, hidden assumptions, and myths about human beings and nature that dominated the industrial era. In the large, neither science nor environmentalism has gotten to the roots of the issues, which lie deep in our ideas and assumptions about science and technology, and go even deeper in myths and ancient worldviews.

(pages 8-9, Botkin, The Moon in the Nautilus Shell, 2012)

This is a growing opinion among professional biologists. It’s understandable why. A flawed understanding of how biomes work impedes proper conservation and management, and is often antithetical to the very idea of natural management. As Botkin argued in his earlier book, Discordant Harmonies, many of us have this idea that if people did not interact with natural systems, or interacted minimally, they would return to an equilibrium wherein “native species” would thrive. Botkin quotes George Perkins Marsh:

In countries untrodden by man, the proportions and relative positions of land and water, the atmospheric precipitation and evaporation, the thermometric mean, and the distribution of vegetable and animal life, are subject to change only from geological influences so slow in their operation that the geographical conditions may be regarding as constant and immutable.

(G. P. Marsh, Man and Nature, 1864)

Botkin isn’t the only advocate of this view. There’s Peter Del Tredici, both in his article, “The flora of the future,” and in his book Wild Urban Plants of the Northeast — A Field Guide (2nd edition, 2020). There’s the late Steven Vogel’s Thinking Like a Mall — Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature where Vogel argues the very concept of “nature” itself is flawed.

Tanner Smida, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

There’s a lot of concern about honey bees (Apis mellifera). No doubt with ubiquitous use of pesticides like neonicotinoids, habitat destruction, and fungal pathogens make life difficult. But honey bees are not the only natural pollinators, even though most popular discussion considers “natural pollinators” synonymous with Apis mellifera. There are bumblebees, stingless bees, mason bees, carpenter bees, leafcutter bees, and sweat bees, as well as various moths. While environmental pressures create what are effectively “dead zones” for honey bees and some other bees, the general pattern is that wild bees thrive in other areas, even if these are inconveniently situated, at least from the perspective of farmers or apiaries. (See monitoring measures here and here.) Bee populations respond to some of these threats, including developing associations with bacteria like Bombella apis which suppress fungal pathogens.

Like so much else in biosphere dynamics, loss of species in one area is complemented by emergence or migration of other species in their place. This species rotation is typical, and should be expected due to phenological changes imposed by climate disruption. Even in the case of bees, climate disruption is apparently the most significant pressure, more than changes in landscapes or landscape quality, per

Kammerer, Melanie, Sarah C. Goslee, Margaret R. Douglas, John F. Tooker, and Christina M. Grozinger. “Wild bees as winners and losers: Relative impacts of landscape composition, quality, and climate.” Global Change Biology 27, no. 6 (2021): 1250-1265.

That suggests that if honey bees are to be protected, the best first step is to limit climate disruption by getting off fossil fuels and shutting their extraction and use down, even if that means conversion of some existing habitats to others, like felling trees to create solar fields.

In addition, and this is more or less the the point of this blog post, honey bees can be harmful to some plants. Consider the gymnosperm Gnetum luofuense. It evolved before bees so, as Alun Salt tells in his Botany One blog post about them,

It’s no surprise that the plant has no use for them. However, they still produce pollen, a food that bees like to eat.

Salt summarizes the report

Yang, Min, Tao Wan, Can Dai, Xiao‐Chun Zou, Fan Liu, and Yan‐Bing Gong. “Modern honeybees disrupt the pollination of an ancient gymnosperm, Gnetum luofuense.” Ecology (2021): e03497.

His subtitle tells the whole story:

Some people fixate on honey bees as essential for pollination. Reality is more complicated. For one species, honey bee visits actively harm its chances of pollinating a partner.

Gnetum luofuense
Gnetum luofuense

If active measures to promote biodiversity are taken, managers ought to understand matters first and well before stumbling into a place where they don’t know what they are doing. And people with concern for biomes and the general environment ought to appreciate that while slogans like “biodiversity emergency” might make great rallying cries to gain membership and financial support, their relevance to biological reality is limited.

Posted in Aldo Leopold, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Anthropocene, Apis mellifera, bacteria, being carbon dioxide, Bill McKibben, biology, Botany One, climate disruption, climate emergency, climate policy, complex systems, control theory, Cult of Carbon, Daniel B Botkin, ecomodernism, ecopragmatism, Gnetum luofuense, gymnosperms, Steven Vogel | 4 Comments

safest form of energy

To see this image clearer, right-click, and elect open image in a new tab. Simply close that tab and return to tab with blog to continue reading.
Posted in zero carbon | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“100 % renewables is possible, here’s how”

zentouro and Raya Salter look at The Question, beginning with the work of Professor Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford University and colleagues. The report to which they refer is now summarized in a book by Professor Mark Z Jacobson. I’ve posted about Professor Jacobson’s work and his book a few times at this blog.

Posted in Mark Jacobson, zero carbon | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

We Are Here

This is written from the perspective of New England, particularly southern New England, but the argument made by these charts is a bounding one. Namely, as CleanTechnica the original source of the story noted, “Germany has solar resources comparable to Alaska’s (not a joke).” The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE) noted here is done for Germany, not New England. But LCoE is free of subsidies, and Germany is a big, wealthy OECD country, so the results are comparable. (No one, to my knowledge, has done such a study specifically for New England.) New England is snowy, but not, in principle, as snowy as Germany.

Basically, we are here. That means that solar, wind, and storage are already cheaper than any fossil fuel source.

The second argument, presented in a single cost, is that EVs have matched the cost of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, and that sales of ICE vehicles have peaked. The perspective is international, of course, with an emphasis upon Europe, and not southern New England.

On EVs, I think people need to remember there are five drivers of take-up of EVs, setting aside their benefits for reducing emissions:

  1. Capital cost of EV after whatever incentives apply.
  2. Lifetime operating cost of EV relative to ICE vehicle, including energy and maintenance, primarily tires.
  3. Density of the charging network in driving areas of interest.
  4. Battery power density capacity for EV, meaning giving range of EV.
  5. Reliability of EV.

#3 and #4 are in tension. It’s long been expected that the 2020-2030 decade will see two or more breakthroughs on energy storage and capacity. As that happens, and these get rolled out to the marketplace, the pressure to provide dense charging networks will lessen. Similarly, the push to provide charging networks will lessen the pressure on battery innovation, and that froth of innovation will be applied to making EVs cheaper and being better vehicles.

I need to drop something in here. I have read, and I have heard from some so-called environmentalists that they are opposed to EVs, preferring electricity-powered mass transport. Why? They don’t like where and how the Lithium for EV batteries is sourced and where it is. They don’t bring up the obvious comparison question, given that people are not going to do without personal vehicles, where are the materials making the components of ICE vehicles sourced?

Here’s another gloss on Lithium production.

So moving on to zero Carbon energy and storage …

And sales of ICE vehicles have apparently peaked:

Posted in Bloomberg Green, climate disruption, climate economics, electric vehicles, solar domination, solar energy, solar power, solar revolution, wind energy, wind power, zero carbon | Leave a comment

Discordant harmonies in views of natural systems by The Sierra Club and others

This essay was first publish at the blog of the Green Congregation Committee, First Parish in Needham, on the Parish Realm Web site and communications board. The views obviously are those only of its author, not of First Parish or the Green Congregation Committee. It is republished here in part to reach a broader audience.

A longer review of Botkin’s book will be published on my channel at Goodreads.

From Rangel, Thiago F., Neil R. Edwards, Philip B. Holden, José Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho, William D. Gosling, Marco Túlio P. Coelho, Fernanda AS Cassemiro, Carsten Rahbek, and Robert K. Colwell. “Modeling the ecology and evolution of biodiversity: Biogeographical cradles, museums, and graves.” Science 361, no. 6399 (2018).

(*) I will be writing a detailed review of Botkins book at Goodreads:

(**) S. Tatsumi et al. “Prolonged impacts of past agriculture and ungulate overabundance on soil fungal communities in restored forests”. In: Environmental DNA (2021). URL:

(***) Maybe California Actually Does Have Enough Water

(****) R. L. Ryan and M. B. Wamsley. “Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation measures by residents of fire-prone communities in the Northeast: Survey results and wildland fire management implications.” In: The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp. 11–17. URL:

(*****) A. Szasz. How we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves. University of Minnesota Press, 2007. URL:

(******)  R. H. Whittaker. “Recent evolution of ecological concepts in relation to the eastern forests of North America”. In: American Journal of Botany 44 (1957), pp. 197–206.


Posted in Anthropocene, Association to Preserve Cape Cod, biology, Buckminster Fuller, Carl Safina, civilization, coastal communities, conservation, Daniel B Botkin, discordant harmonies, ecological disruption, ecological services, Ecological Society of America, ecology, environment, field biology, field science, First Parish in Needham, forest fires, fragmentation of ecosystems, Gaylord Nelson, George Sugihara, invasive species, Lotka-Volterra systems, marine biology, Nature's Trust, Peter del Tredici, philosophy of science, population biology, population dynamics, quantitative biology, quantitative ecology, riverine flooding, shorelines, stream flow, sustainability, sustainable landscaping, unreason, water, wishful environmentalism | Tagged | Leave a comment

2019, and big fossil fuel companies and their utility companies learn to encourage suburban friends

Can we send the bills for additional weather and flood insurance to people who oppose zero Carbon energy facilities?

Any environmental organization whose policy inhibits or prohibits solar development wherever it can be placed is unworthy of the adjective “environmental.”

Posted in zero carbon | 1 Comment


Posted in zero carbon | Leave a comment

Cladonia coniocraea in a field of Polytrichum juniperinum

Cladonia coniocraea is a lichen. Polytrichum juniperinum is an acrocarp moss. In any case they are beautiful.

Full size is available by right-clicking the image and electing “open image in new tab.” Try it. It’s worth it.

Posted in bryology, bryophytes, lichenology, lichens, macrophotography, mosses | Tagged | Leave a comment

These are not “climate activists” …

… They are not even “environmentalists.”

(Updated 2nd August 2021.)

The claim that in our present place of climate disruption we have the luxury of choosing how we eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases and especially that we can do it without phasing out fossil fuels is simply ignorance, both scientific ignorance and engineering ignorance.

It is a demonstration of both innumeracy and a selfish pursuit of personal purity instead of trying to solve the most difficult problem humanity has ever faced.

As I recently wrote in part in testimony in support of a utility scale PV array near a Massachusetts suburb:

I find objections raised by the Project opponents regarding forest preservation and natural experiences contravene what is known about forest ecosystems [22, 23]. No forest or natural system is static and notions like “balance of nature” or “forest succession” are really 19th and early 20th century ideas. We now know better about [23, 13, 26, 21]. Many scientific ideas are counter-intuitive and some are unpopular. For example, maintaining a healthy forest means doing so-called “controlled burns.” Suburbanites dislike the idea of a nearby fire threatening their properties [25, 18]. People don’t like wetland restrictions and they don’t like mosquitos from wetlands, yet undisturbed, unsprayed wetlands are far better Carbon sinks than forests [14].

The references cited are given below:

[13] R. M. May. “Biological populations with nonoverlapping generations: stable points, stable cycles, and chaos”. In: Science 186 (1974), pp. 645–647.

[14] A. M. Nahlik and M. S. Fennessy. “Carbon storage in US wetlands”. In:
Nature Communications 7 (2016), pp. 1–9.

[18] R. L. Ryan and M. B. Wamsley. “Perceptions of wildfire threat and mitigation measures by residents of fire-prone communities in the Northeast: Survey results and wildland fire management implications.” In: The public and wildland fire management: social science findings for managers. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 2006, pp. 11–17. URL:

[21] A. Szasz. How we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves.
University of Minnesota Press, 2007. URL:

[22] S. Tatsumi et al. “Prolonged impacts of past agriculture and ungulate overabundance on soil fungal communities in restored forests”. In: Environmental DNA (2021). URL:

[23] R. H. Whittaker. “Recent evolution of ecological concepts in relation to the eastern forests of North America”. In: American Journal of Botany 44 (1957), pp. 197–206.

[25] G. J. Winter, C. Vogt, and J. S. Fried. “Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: Common concerns in diverse regions.” In: Journal of Forestry 100.1 (2002), pp. 15–21. URL:

[26] L. S.-Y. Wu and D. B. Botkin. “Of elephants and men: A discrete, stochastic model for
long-lived species with complex life histories”. In: The American Naturalist 116 (1980),
pp. 831–849.

We need to get to zero emissions globally by three-fourths through the 21st century. And we cannot do it without zeroing fossil fuel emissions and using large amounts of solar and wind energy, plus storage to make up for the energy lost to fossil fuel curtailment.

Afforestation won’t cut it:

Van Groenigen, Kees Jan, Xuan Qi, Craig W. Osenberg, Yiqi Luo, and Bruce A. Hungate. “Faster decomposition under increased atmospheric CO2 limits soil carbon storage.” Science 344, no. 6183 (2014): 508-509.

Boysen, Lena R., Wolfgang Lucht, Dieter Gerten, Vera Heck, Timothy M. Lenton, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. “The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal.” Earth’s Future 5, no. 5 (2017): 463-474.

Seddon, Nathalie, Alexandre Chausson, Pam Berry, Cécile AJ Girardin, Alison Smith, and Beth Turner. “Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375, no. 1794 (2020): 20190120.

Nave, Lucas E., Grant M. Domke, Kathryn L. Hofmeister, Umakant Mishra, Charles H. Perry, Brian F. Walters, and Christopher W. Swanston. “Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of carbon in US topsoils in a century.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 11 (2018): 2776-2781.

We are running out of time.

Keeling curve update from Friedlingstein, et al (2020)

Above figures and data are from:

Friedlingstein, Pierre, Michael O’sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters et al. “Global carbon budget 2020.” Earth System Science Data 12, no. 4 (2020): 3269-3340.

What are the forest preservers going to do about the emissions going into the oceans, even if they could contain them with forests?

I have a new litmus test for my environmental contributions: Any opposition to solar PV projects means no contribution from me. Doesn’t matter if it is APCC, NRDC, Sierra Club, CLF, ELM, UU Ministry for Earth, or any of its state chapters, or Woodrell Research Center.

Update, 2nd August 2021.

  • It seems the Berkshire Eagle is the only one carrying this. That doesn’t mean the sentiment is restricted to there, nor that the proposed rally itself will be ignored. The rally is still just the beginning, they say. These are not environmentalists. These are anti-corporate extreme socialists who are using climate disruption to advance their social agenda. It is entirely feasible to be in favor of socialism (as I am) and support corporations strongly and want to do everything possible to zero greenhouse gas emissions, now. Stopping subsidies to fossil fuel companies is not done because “corporations are bad” but because practices and behaviors which harm us all are being incentivized. Forests help, sure, but solar energy does more.
  • For example, selective, hypocritical NIMBYism at scale. It’s selective because Heizer’s art work did not receive criticism for disrupting ecosystems. (See quote below.)
  • Texas News Today underscores the other reason why opposing solar is a mistake. Could non-progressive, business-oriented states be a new home for zero Carbon energy?
  • The U.S. Needs to Build More, Faster to Reach Net Zero” : “A new report shows that even with climate-friendly policies, the current rate of development would only get the U.S. halfway there by 2050.”

Heizer was no less active in 1969, when he created Double Negative, a 1,100-by-42-by-30-foot work located at Virgin River Mesa, Nevada, where he and his crew gouged and carved 240,000 tons of rock out of facing cliffs to form two mammoth vertical trenches. The site is so huge that it can only be seen in its entirety by helicopter or plane. Again, its meaning and raison d’être is its own existence—nothing more and nothing less. 

Art News, 26th June 2015.

Posted in carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide sequestration, climate disruption, zero carbon | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Net Zero: Nature doesn’t count?

Posted in carbon dioxide | Leave a comment