To me, over the past decade since I launched my campaign to have coffee with Rex Tillerson (TellRex.com), as you may recall, I pondered and learned from that naive experience and have come to a conclusion that is very complex and beyond my ability to express in an organized way. So, recently, after gaining confidence in the use and guidance with human critical thinking, I solicited the help of Claude AI.
These two queries are simple with only a few steps each, but very lengthy as Claude is quite thoughtful, clear and thorough. Please have patience, but I recommend reading them thoroughly to the very last phrase of both.
I would urge you to reconsider your chatbot use. The data centres that power generative "AI" models use a lot of water for cooling and are often built in drought-prone areas.
Also, if you continue to rely on a chatbot to write for you, your existing writing skills will atrophy, leading to more reliance. Your ability to write will rely on a corporation instead of your own mind. Is that really what you want?
It's certainly what the Tech boys want us to want..........but let's remember. AI desires nothing.......it can't desire, given its a machine and not an organic life form.
Robert Hubbell commented the other day on a livestream about your choice of AI. I respect none of them. Robert had been using AI for source checking. When questioned about in two different situations, 'Claude' apologized for lying to Robert. Given that the new attack locally on us at all levels is data centers, I must Doug openly question this use.
Although I have followed Bill since 1989, I don't always read in detail on this portal. I would be curious what he thinks too. I get AI helped decipher Herculaneum scrolls and helps with some research, as well individuals in specific circumstances, but I guess I am simply out of touch...
There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. Calculating machines, no matter how complex, overloaded with data, and expensive to run, are still calculating machines........
It takes a sentient body an actual human intelligence to create. Having no body with which to know the world, it can only reiterate versions of what human intelligence has programmed into it.
I have found through many test cases that Claude simplifies, organizes and verifies—indeed validates—my personal thoughts, and has even corrected my intentional errors and omission which I subtly laid as traps to test Claude. It conveys my message more articulately that I can possibly document verbally or in writing.
This morning I presented a technical user tracking scheme that Instagram allegedly has built into its URL—a suffix that uniquely identifies the sender eh shares with others—that builds networks of all who share videos. Claude guided through a few alternative means to achieve the subtle addition unbeknownst to us users. I discovered that one of Claude’s suggested processes to work around Instagram included a subtle error, and when I explained, Claude admitted its error and confirmed my fix was correct. You must think critically and have common sense skepticism.
In these two queries ⬆️ I used Claude merely to organize and flesh out my personal knowledge from 44-years of engineering, corporate planning and executive experience.
Have found the same in all AI interactions. No way one should take everything at face value: double and triple checking, calling out errors, careful phrasing and reworking questions are needed to sift through information and verify validity, as far as anything can be validated these days. Logic isn’t always truth, but one gets closer.
It’s so sad that the most liked comment of this great article exposing the evil of big oil is an invitation to use AI, the most power hungry thing out there. Do you know that AI requires a lot of computing power, which is what has exponentially increased the construction of data centers, which use tons of energy, including fossil fuels and are not only destroying the planet but putting lots of money in big oil?
That has always been the modus operandi of our civilization, though: use more technology to pretend th solve more problems in an arms race, with the true objective being to profit off the arms race. That's the much greater evil than big oil. It's the entire foundation of modern Western civilization, which admittedly was always a bit of an instinct in human beings but made efficient and central by capitalism and the industrial revolution. Of course, I hate AI and I think its entire existence is idiotic.
I read both, Doug, and thank you for posting. We are headed for suffering and pain no matter what. Dealing with climate change will mean everybody having less, with still tremendous climate consequences. Not dealing with climate change means the end of civilization and extinction as a species. I believe we need to immediately nationalize the energy industry, and take every dime from the billionaires and their bootlickers who caused all this and profited from spreading disinformation and expanding our reliance on fossil fuels when they knew it would destroy the world, and use that ill-got money to reduce the incredible suffering that is now unavoidable. They -Big Energy, Finance, and much of Tech- are responsible and need to either be nationalized or broken up. And done yesterday. With the fact that 30% of the U.S. population doesn't even think climate change exists, and Big Energy/Finance and all their bootlickers fighting a green transition every step of the way, I think we need a revolution with lots of guillotines ready to go. I'm happy to play Madam DeFarge and knit and cackle as the blade rises and falls.
The use of data and analytics and chatbots and AI to "solve" problems is merely a distraction designed to do nothing and amuse ourselvs, with the ultimate objective of making the rich richer and our destructive industrial civilization stronger. It's reprehensible that anyone thinks that this kind of thing could be useful or relevant.
🙏 I wasn’t quite sure how to respond until just now as I have been in a quandary … I understand the negatives but feel a need to utilize the tool to communicate more effectively. This video from Bernie on his proposed AI Moratorium legislation is compelling:
You don't need the tool to communicate more effectively. It will make you communicate perhaps more clearly within a more narrowly-defined range, but ultimately limit you in the long run as it will reduce your ability to think clearly, as self-formed communication is a tool to sharpen thought. Even if it helps you in the short term, it's just playing the prisoner's dilemma.
An AI Moratorium is not compelling at all to me. Only it's complete destruction would be compelling.
I read both replies to the end and am astounded, not just by the comprehensive depth and breadth of the answers but also by the unexpected routine throughout of Claude using discovered comparative information to draw rational conclusions and then –truly impressive– spontaneously asking its OWN questions about potential outcomes & giving logical answers ... without being asked to do so. But trained to do so with surprising success. It's a bit amusing that Claude has been instructed to mention repeatedly that it is responding honestly to queries, It does seem to be the case. Thanks for sharing this.
True, but the flip side is that if we do not buy it they can't sell it, so there are also a lot of people so spoiled by modern conveniences that they are also dooming themselves.
Yes, big oil had hidden the truth from the public and their lies are mostly to blame for the delay, but even those who do now know and knew better then are often unwilling to give it up.
I am not talking about employees stuck between a rock and a hard place who have to commute to work and who can not afford a car payment to swap out that old ICE, but I am talking about most who still make those long recreational drives or simply hop in an ICE "whenever" or plan a flight for a vacation.
JUST STOP!
These excess non-essential trips do matter when they are all added up.
Sadly, according to Krugman and Brooks, the price elasticity of demand is not very high for gasoline (in the short run) meaning people will often not change their lifestyles or consumption by much even when the price goes up.
So how about people taking some personal responsibility and doing as much as possible?
I worry that some who simply blame oil companies for filling their demand for gasoline as the bad boogieman, are like addicts who ONLY blame the dealer or perhaps a bad childhood. However, if one does that, there may be no hope for recovery.
Own it!
Stop using.
Waiting for government to act and do more will doom us all. We are out of time.
I also can't afford a car payment so I mark on my calendar whenever I have to go to the gas station how many gallons I bought to make sure every time there is less used per week. One can always find ways to do better and better and use less and less. Traveling on a plane is also simply not done. I love dogs but will not get another since they may add as much to global warming as an ICE vehicle (I read anyway maybe not true) and on and on.
It is up to us to do whatever we can do - then vote blue
Remember, modern air travel has been around for less than a century, so one can certainly do without. This is true even more so now with the internet. If you work for an organization that prides itself on being liberal, but requires you to fly across the globe or nation to attend or lecture, please point this fossil fuel use contradiction out to them. You can appear on the big screen instead. I have not noticed any difference in the quality of dialogue when Brooks or Capehart have to appear on screen on the PBS NewsHour on a Friday, etc. It is still the same. This can be true for all of these conferences. Yes, I also hate not being able to travel, but every single ounce you put in the air will be there for decades and will hasten our doom and that is a simple fact. It is not leaving the atmosphere.
Hi PipandJoe. I've read your thoughtful comment and it reminds me of the overt ways I've taken and can still take to help the Earth survive. I've also cultivated my "inner catalytic converter" so that, despite what I use, my "emissions" of thought and deed will be less toxic and kinder. That matters to the Earth, too.
My realization about an inner catalytic converter came to me through my relationship with dogs. Their ability to recycle the love and convert the abuse we humans throw at them has proven over and over that, despite any contribution to global warming (minuscule at best, comparatively), it is more than compensated for by their healing companionship and ability to keep their humans literally grounded to Earth.
Point of logic: A dog you adopt would not affect global warming any more than that dog would languishing in a facility.
And there is evidence that it was wolves who chose to be "domesticated" by humans, not vice versa. Check out a NOVA (PBS) special, "Dogs Decoded" (2010). I believe their need to be in a human family pack derives from their strong socializing skills, which their human "owners" and their community benefit from.
In the meantime, Google "Al Pacino: The Puppy Interview." Please don't deny yourself even the vicarious delight of carefree canine cheer. You deserve it.
I get what you are saying, but neither we or future pet companions will have a future if we do not get things under control. My pet image in the corner by my name is a dog from the pound that I got after a family member passed away long ago to help us deal with that crisis, so I do get your point, and he was pure joy, but things are out of control these days.
Many people have animals they know they can not even care for properly. The stench around here is horrific as many do not have yards and have to have them use whatever green space they can find as a toilet and I even live in a suburb, but homes have been overbuilt and yards vanish and apartment dwellers seem to think having huge dogs is workable (but they have to assume they will be able to simply use others limited green space in order to make that assumption).
Thus people have started putting up front yard fences to keep the huge number of dogs out. The expense of the damage they do is quite a lot due to the huge number of them, and I can't afford a fence either. This is not good for anyone.
Many of the pets around here are so fat from a lack of exercise that they can barely walk. So, I think there is a debate to be had and something needs to be done to make sure these adoptions are humane ones, as well.
Our children and grand children's futures matter too.
So personally, I can't do this with a clear conscience right now, and I am spending so much on repairing damage from others dogs that I can't even afford one at the moment, but others will have their own opinions on what to prioritize. I may simply put nothing but rocks down as this seems to deter them and would save on watering and replanting all the dead stuff. It would be nice to be able to open my door and have it not smell like a a dirty kennel. But the main reason I do not get one is climate change and the cost.
I am so sorry to hear about the burden your "neighbors" are putting on you. You are doing more than your share. The details in your message illustrate how caring for the Earth, and fighting the effects of climate change, can bring out the "she-ro." And yes, I believe your sweet dog is an angel on your shoulder.
Thanks, I agree about the angel too. It is not just about the "burden" I could buckle down with that, if people at least made an effort, but when I ask them not to do this nicely they actually fly into a rage. It is very weird. I have had many dogs in my life and I never once let them trespass or destroy a garden, but they actually let them and watch as they do it. I even have cameras and that does not stop anyone. If I had a rambunctious dog, I would even walk him out in the road to make sure they did not do damage, but here people seem to think it is how it is supposed to be and that I am interfering with their rights and that they have a right to do this. I even grew up here, but times and people have really changed a lot. In addition, if I say something suddenly a bunch more dogs will show up so they must have some kind of online thing where they attack properties of homeowners who complain.
As an artist, I, have, in the past, sometimes supplement my income by running high end catering events in the homes of the wealthiest people in NYC and The Hamptons. I can tell you many horrifying stories about Charles Koch, Bruce Kovner, and all the rest. But you kind of expect that. The openly view most of humanity and tinder to burned on the altar of their absolute greed and arrogance.
But I have also worked in the homes of a few “Centrist Democrat” billionaires. One, Marc Lasry, of Avenue Capital, hosts evenings in his home where he, and a small group of like-minded hedge fund and private equity billionaires, in Lasry’s living room, basically interview Centrist Democrat politicians who hope to have the billionaires write checks.
The prospective pol has to, after giving a shout out to Schumer and/or Pelosi/Jeffries for getting them in the room, then praise the billionaires to the skies (the worst suck up was Ritchie Torres).
Then, it seems like they have to say 4 things:
1) they will never raise taxes on the super wealthy
2) they will never regulate the financial industry
3) they will never get in the way of the financial industry making money off of fossil fuels
4) they will never, ever criticize Israel
If they say these things, and say them enthusiastically, these guys write checks.
The enthusiasm seems important. I was there one night when Hilary Clinton brought three Emily’s List candidates into the room. One of the three seemed uncomfortable being there and saying what she was supposed to say.
The billionaires did not appreciate her lack of deference.
I used to petition and lobby with Food and Water Watch. I was an active member of 3rd Act. These organizations are valuable. But I am spending my time with Climate Defiance these days.
I have decided to not go gentle into this apocalyptic night.
The only politicians we can hope will even remotely address climate change are true progressive Dems and Dem Socialists (esp). Politically speaking, they are our only hope.
That and nationalizing the fossil fuel industry, and taking ever damn dime from The Big Energy, Finanace, and Tech billionaires and their bootlickers who got us here in the first place, and use that money to help defray the incredible suffering that is barreling towards us all.
Hi Sandra! Another “funny” story from my years running events for billionaires, this time regarding Mitt Romney. Charles and David Koch held a fundraiser for Mitt when he was running for president. The event was held at their ocean front estate in the Hamptons. I can’t tell you how I know this, but believe me the following is true: Charles Koch has a small army under his employ. If there were any security “issues” during the Mitt funfaising event, Koch’s security team, unbeknownst to the Secret Service and Mitt, would spray the room with automatic weapon fire, killing anyone and everyone if necessary, in order to Charles and David out to a speedboat that would whisk them safely away.
Basically this gives you everything you need to know about these billionaires: they will kill anyone and everyone if it benefits, profits, enriches them.
Your post reminds me of a fundraiser I attended 15 years ago in Aspen. I found myself making small talk with a guy who said he was buying up water rights. I immediately understood that I was talking to a guy who was hoping to sell water to people dying of thirst in the future and I excused myself. Greed is, and always has been, a deadly vice.
Cindy, have written a climate justice musical audio drama called Metra: A Climate Revolution with Songs, a limited series podcast (you can find it anywhere you get podcasts. As a writer, I do a tremendous amount of research. The only conclusion I can come to is that, unless we address the corruption of late-stage Capitaism, we are doomed.
My hope is that is we scream loud and long enough the truth of how we got here, who is responsible, and what we have to do to survive, there may come an inflection point as the world around us collapses that we will have the clear choice between sliding into total barbarism or embracing a better future not reliant on endlesss growth and maximizing profit.
I have shared a jail cell with Bill McKibben prior to Trump’s second term and watched him break down in tears of desperation at the prospect of Trump 2 (an attitude he does not betray in public, and I’m sorry I’m betraying that now)I have become a friend of the former director of Compliance at the EPA who quit because he sees what is coming and how little the EPA was doing about it.
Climate Defiance at least calls out the complicity of so many. Bill, by nature, is kind, polite, and tries to be optimistic. That day is long gone. I’m glad you joined Climate Defiance.
Your prescient brilliance in The End of Nature changed my life forever in 1989. This is some of your most cogent writing ever, Bill. Such integrated “wide boundary” synthesizing is critical to grasp what we are up against and the irreversible consequences at hand. Gratitude for your tenacity and goodness with a deep bow from Montana.
Sigh. Positively heroic, Bill. We need your voice more than ever. You keep our heads above water, and far from giving up, because, well, we can’t give up. As Samuel Beckett put it, “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”
As you said: "When I started writing about the climate crisis in the 1980s I was in my twenties, and I didn’t fully comprehend that there could be a force on this planet so steeped in greed and power that it would sacrifice the earth and its inhabitants for its own narrow interests." We have had similar paths.
When I started working on proving that teleworking works I was in my forties, embarking on radically changing my career path but also not yet realizing the extent of influence of the fossil fuel companies.
Like you, I am dismayed by the extent to which that influence has even changed the way our supreme court hides its dubious decisions. But the facts are increasingly coming out and the world is increasingly paying attention, thanks to you and all the others who take reality seriously.
As always thank you Bill. Your work is what gives so many of us hope. I have marched behind you several times as have thousands heck millions of others. Please stay strong. I thought of you often as this year in New England we actually had a good x country ski season. I got out many times and hope did too!
Articles like this to give people "hope" is a tool of the technological system to ameliorate the psychological distress caused by the system itself and nothing more. It's nothing more because all of these articles just advocate tuning the system to make its destruction more palatable...
Excellent, Bill, invaluable! Sending to kin in solar biz to keep them informed and hopefully inspire them to follow you and support your work and moving newsletter. .
Bill we are in the same age cohort. I just had my third grandchild arrive last Friday! The feelings are mixed. I wanted to tell you I can remember the first bumper sticker that opened my eyes “the oil will run out but there will always be an Exxon”. Love Joe
What McKibben lays out in this post is genuinely alarming: a picture of Big Oil as a force that has systematically corroded America’s political system, judicial system, and mechanisms of accountability. His indictment is sharp and memorable. The problem with Big Oil is no longer simply that it “emits too much.” It is that, while fully aware of the consequences, it has used war, campaign money, the courts, legislative immunity, and narrative control to drag what could have been an earlier energy transition into a harsher reality, one defined by higher temperatures, deeper inequality, and weaker accountability.
But I think the deeper point worth drawing out is not just how Big Oil “breaks everything,” but how it converts economic power into political power. The truly dangerous part is not merely that oil companies make enormous profits. It is that these are not ordinary market profits. They become a structural form of power, powerful enough to keep buying policy, shaping the legal environment, influencing the tempo of judicial decisions, and redrawing the boundaries of responsibility itself. The American problem is increasingly not just that capital influences politics. It is that economic power and political power are entering into a stable, self-reinforcing relationship. That is one of the clearest pathways by which plutocracy takes shape.
Once an industry can consistently define the default language through which Washington discusses energy, presenting itself as indispensable to “national security,” “energy independence,” “job protection,” “electricity stability,” or “industrial competitiveness,” it ceases to be just another interest group. It begins to participate in setting the national hierarchy of priorities. At that point, policies that should be understood as constraints on industry power are re-described as threats to the national interest itself.
And once an industry is no longer merely influencing individual bills, but is also shaping who gets access to decision-making circles, which issues rise to the top, which risks are downplayed, and which liabilities are waived, it is already approaching the core of plutocracy. Plutocracy does not require judges to openly speak on behalf of capital. It only requires that, at decisive moments, the courts increasingly treat the interests of capital as part of the institutional order that must be protected. McKibben is especially right to focus on the “shadow docket.” His point is that the emergency stay of the Clean Power Plan in 2016 was not just an ordinary ruling. It marked a procedural opening, a faster and more favorable lane through which powerful industries could challenge major public policy.
So the deeper American problem today is not simply that one oil company or another is especially malign. It is that economic concentration is being translated, through legal, semi-visible, and procedural channels, into a long-term capacity to shape the political system itself. In that sense, Big Oil is one of the clearest examples of American plutocracy, but it is not the only one.
🌧️☔ Rain follows the... Solar panel ‼️ Here comes the SUN 🌞, kindly old Sol is losing patience, ready to smite the 🛢️ oil ⛽ companies. Don't let the panel hit 🎯 you in the privates on the way out. ✌️😎
To me, over the past decade since I launched my campaign to have coffee with Rex Tillerson (TellRex.com), as you may recall, I pondered and learned from that naive experience and have come to a conclusion that is very complex and beyond my ability to express in an organized way. So, recently, after gaining confidence in the use and guidance with human critical thinking, I solicited the help of Claude AI.
These two queries are simple with only a few steps each, but very lengthy as Claude is quite thoughtful, clear and thorough. Please have patience, but I recommend reading them thoroughly to the very last phrase of both.
• Bit.ly/KingKiller
• Bit.ly/ClaudeOK
I would urge you to reconsider your chatbot use. The data centres that power generative "AI" models use a lot of water for cooling and are often built in drought-prone areas.
Also, if you continue to rely on a chatbot to write for you, your existing writing skills will atrophy, leading to more reliance. Your ability to write will rely on a corporation instead of your own mind. Is that really what you want?
It's certainly what the Tech boys want us to want..........but let's remember. AI desires nothing.......it can't desire, given its a machine and not an organic life form.
Did you not learn something new that otherwise you’d be oblivious to? It is such a complex conundrum and nobody has acknowledged it ❣️
Robert Hubbell commented the other day on a livestream about your choice of AI. I respect none of them. Robert had been using AI for source checking. When questioned about in two different situations, 'Claude' apologized for lying to Robert. Given that the new attack locally on us at all levels is data centers, I must Doug openly question this use.
Although I have followed Bill since 1989, I don't always read in detail on this portal. I would be curious what he thinks too. I get AI helped decipher Herculaneum scrolls and helps with some research, as well individuals in specific circumstances, but I guess I am simply out of touch...
There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. Calculating machines, no matter how complex, overloaded with data, and expensive to run, are still calculating machines........
It takes a sentient body an actual human intelligence to create. Having no body with which to know the world, it can only reiterate versions of what human intelligence has programmed into it.
I have found through many test cases that Claude simplifies, organizes and verifies—indeed validates—my personal thoughts, and has even corrected my intentional errors and omission which I subtly laid as traps to test Claude. It conveys my message more articulately that I can possibly document verbally or in writing.
This morning I presented a technical user tracking scheme that Instagram allegedly has built into its URL—a suffix that uniquely identifies the sender eh shares with others—that builds networks of all who share videos. Claude guided through a few alternative means to achieve the subtle addition unbeknownst to us users. I discovered that one of Claude’s suggested processes to work around Instagram included a subtle error, and when I explained, Claude admitted its error and confirmed my fix was correct. You must think critically and have common sense skepticism.
In these two queries ⬆️ I used Claude merely to organize and flesh out my personal knowledge from 44-years of engineering, corporate planning and executive experience.
Have found the same in all AI interactions. No way one should take everything at face value: double and triple checking, calling out errors, careful phrasing and reworking questions are needed to sift through information and verify validity, as far as anything can be validated these days. Logic isn’t always truth, but one gets closer.
Amen … constant vigilant skepticism and thoughtful engagement and guidance, indeed!
I respect that. Thanks for the response.
It’s so sad that the most liked comment of this great article exposing the evil of big oil is an invitation to use AI, the most power hungry thing out there. Do you know that AI requires a lot of computing power, which is what has exponentially increased the construction of data centers, which use tons of energy, including fossil fuels and are not only destroying the planet but putting lots of money in big oil?
That has always been the modus operandi of our civilization, though: use more technology to pretend th solve more problems in an arms race, with the true objective being to profit off the arms race. That's the much greater evil than big oil. It's the entire foundation of modern Western civilization, which admittedly was always a bit of an instinct in human beings but made efficient and central by capitalism and the industrial revolution. Of course, I hate AI and I think its entire existence is idiotic.
I read both, Doug, and thank you for posting. We are headed for suffering and pain no matter what. Dealing with climate change will mean everybody having less, with still tremendous climate consequences. Not dealing with climate change means the end of civilization and extinction as a species. I believe we need to immediately nationalize the energy industry, and take every dime from the billionaires and their bootlickers who caused all this and profited from spreading disinformation and expanding our reliance on fossil fuels when they knew it would destroy the world, and use that ill-got money to reduce the incredible suffering that is now unavoidable. They -Big Energy, Finance, and much of Tech- are responsible and need to either be nationalized or broken up. And done yesterday. With the fact that 30% of the U.S. population doesn't even think climate change exists, and Big Energy/Finance and all their bootlickers fighting a green transition every step of the way, I think we need a revolution with lots of guillotines ready to go. I'm happy to play Madam DeFarge and knit and cackle as the blade rises and falls.
The use of data and analytics and chatbots and AI to "solve" problems is merely a distraction designed to do nothing and amuse ourselvs, with the ultimate objective of making the rich richer and our destructive industrial civilization stronger. It's reprehensible that anyone thinks that this kind of thing could be useful or relevant.
🙏 I wasn’t quite sure how to respond until just now as I have been in a quandary … I understand the negatives but feel a need to utilize the tool to communicate more effectively. This video from Bernie on his proposed AI Moratorium legislation is compelling:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Co2c4Sxkc/
Thanks
You don't need the tool to communicate more effectively. It will make you communicate perhaps more clearly within a more narrowly-defined range, but ultimately limit you in the long run as it will reduce your ability to think clearly, as self-formed communication is a tool to sharpen thought. Even if it helps you in the short term, it's just playing the prisoner's dilemma.
An AI Moratorium is not compelling at all to me. Only it's complete destruction would be compelling.
I read both replies to the end and am astounded, not just by the comprehensive depth and breadth of the answers but also by the unexpected routine throughout of Claude using discovered comparative information to draw rational conclusions and then –truly impressive– spontaneously asking its OWN questions about potential outcomes & giving logical answers ... without being asked to do so. But trained to do so with surprising success. It's a bit amusing that Claude has been instructed to mention repeatedly that it is responding honestly to queries, It does seem to be the case. Thanks for sharing this.
I skimmed one of these. It's too much to bear.
This is impressive.
True, but the flip side is that if we do not buy it they can't sell it, so there are also a lot of people so spoiled by modern conveniences that they are also dooming themselves.
Yes, big oil had hidden the truth from the public and their lies are mostly to blame for the delay, but even those who do now know and knew better then are often unwilling to give it up.
I am not talking about employees stuck between a rock and a hard place who have to commute to work and who can not afford a car payment to swap out that old ICE, but I am talking about most who still make those long recreational drives or simply hop in an ICE "whenever" or plan a flight for a vacation.
JUST STOP!
These excess non-essential trips do matter when they are all added up.
Sadly, according to Krugman and Brooks, the price elasticity of demand is not very high for gasoline (in the short run) meaning people will often not change their lifestyles or consumption by much even when the price goes up.
So how about people taking some personal responsibility and doing as much as possible?
I worry that some who simply blame oil companies for filling their demand for gasoline as the bad boogieman, are like addicts who ONLY blame the dealer or perhaps a bad childhood. However, if one does that, there may be no hope for recovery.
Own it!
Stop using.
Waiting for government to act and do more will doom us all. We are out of time.
I also can't afford a car payment so I mark on my calendar whenever I have to go to the gas station how many gallons I bought to make sure every time there is less used per week. One can always find ways to do better and better and use less and less. Traveling on a plane is also simply not done. I love dogs but will not get another since they may add as much to global warming as an ICE vehicle (I read anyway maybe not true) and on and on.
It is up to us to do whatever we can do - then vote blue
Remember, modern air travel has been around for less than a century, so one can certainly do without. This is true even more so now with the internet. If you work for an organization that prides itself on being liberal, but requires you to fly across the globe or nation to attend or lecture, please point this fossil fuel use contradiction out to them. You can appear on the big screen instead. I have not noticed any difference in the quality of dialogue when Brooks or Capehart have to appear on screen on the PBS NewsHour on a Friday, etc. It is still the same. This can be true for all of these conferences. Yes, I also hate not being able to travel, but every single ounce you put in the air will be there for decades and will hasten our doom and that is a simple fact. It is not leaving the atmosphere.
Hi PipandJoe. I've read your thoughtful comment and it reminds me of the overt ways I've taken and can still take to help the Earth survive. I've also cultivated my "inner catalytic converter" so that, despite what I use, my "emissions" of thought and deed will be less toxic and kinder. That matters to the Earth, too.
My realization about an inner catalytic converter came to me through my relationship with dogs. Their ability to recycle the love and convert the abuse we humans throw at them has proven over and over that, despite any contribution to global warming (minuscule at best, comparatively), it is more than compensated for by their healing companionship and ability to keep their humans literally grounded to Earth.
Point of logic: A dog you adopt would not affect global warming any more than that dog would languishing in a facility.
And there is evidence that it was wolves who chose to be "domesticated" by humans, not vice versa. Check out a NOVA (PBS) special, "Dogs Decoded" (2010). I believe their need to be in a human family pack derives from their strong socializing skills, which their human "owners" and their community benefit from.
In the meantime, Google "Al Pacino: The Puppy Interview." Please don't deny yourself even the vicarious delight of carefree canine cheer. You deserve it.
I get what you are saying, but neither we or future pet companions will have a future if we do not get things under control. My pet image in the corner by my name is a dog from the pound that I got after a family member passed away long ago to help us deal with that crisis, so I do get your point, and he was pure joy, but things are out of control these days.
Many people have animals they know they can not even care for properly. The stench around here is horrific as many do not have yards and have to have them use whatever green space they can find as a toilet and I even live in a suburb, but homes have been overbuilt and yards vanish and apartment dwellers seem to think having huge dogs is workable (but they have to assume they will be able to simply use others limited green space in order to make that assumption).
Thus people have started putting up front yard fences to keep the huge number of dogs out. The expense of the damage they do is quite a lot due to the huge number of them, and I can't afford a fence either. This is not good for anyone.
Many of the pets around here are so fat from a lack of exercise that they can barely walk. So, I think there is a debate to be had and something needs to be done to make sure these adoptions are humane ones, as well.
Our children and grand children's futures matter too.
So personally, I can't do this with a clear conscience right now, and I am spending so much on repairing damage from others dogs that I can't even afford one at the moment, but others will have their own opinions on what to prioritize. I may simply put nothing but rocks down as this seems to deter them and would save on watering and replanting all the dead stuff. It would be nice to be able to open my door and have it not smell like a a dirty kennel. But the main reason I do not get one is climate change and the cost.
I am so sorry to hear about the burden your "neighbors" are putting on you. You are doing more than your share. The details in your message illustrate how caring for the Earth, and fighting the effects of climate change, can bring out the "she-ro." And yes, I believe your sweet dog is an angel on your shoulder.
Thanks, I agree about the angel too. It is not just about the "burden" I could buckle down with that, if people at least made an effort, but when I ask them not to do this nicely they actually fly into a rage. It is very weird. I have had many dogs in my life and I never once let them trespass or destroy a garden, but they actually let them and watch as they do it. I even have cameras and that does not stop anyone. If I had a rambunctious dog, I would even walk him out in the road to make sure they did not do damage, but here people seem to think it is how it is supposed to be and that I am interfering with their rights and that they have a right to do this. I even grew up here, but times and people have really changed a lot. In addition, if I say something suddenly a bunch more dogs will show up so they must have some kind of online thing where they attack properties of homeowners who complain.
I will close with this: Be street-smart--back away from the ragers--stay safe. Heart-Heart.
Thanks, but I am a tough old lady. It will be fine.
Just say, "No"
As an artist, I, have, in the past, sometimes supplement my income by running high end catering events in the homes of the wealthiest people in NYC and The Hamptons. I can tell you many horrifying stories about Charles Koch, Bruce Kovner, and all the rest. But you kind of expect that. The openly view most of humanity and tinder to burned on the altar of their absolute greed and arrogance.
But I have also worked in the homes of a few “Centrist Democrat” billionaires. One, Marc Lasry, of Avenue Capital, hosts evenings in his home where he, and a small group of like-minded hedge fund and private equity billionaires, in Lasry’s living room, basically interview Centrist Democrat politicians who hope to have the billionaires write checks.
The prospective pol has to, after giving a shout out to Schumer and/or Pelosi/Jeffries for getting them in the room, then praise the billionaires to the skies (the worst suck up was Ritchie Torres).
Then, it seems like they have to say 4 things:
1) they will never raise taxes on the super wealthy
2) they will never regulate the financial industry
3) they will never get in the way of the financial industry making money off of fossil fuels
4) they will never, ever criticize Israel
If they say these things, and say them enthusiastically, these guys write checks.
The enthusiasm seems important. I was there one night when Hilary Clinton brought three Emily’s List candidates into the room. One of the three seemed uncomfortable being there and saying what she was supposed to say.
The billionaires did not appreciate her lack of deference.
I used to petition and lobby with Food and Water Watch. I was an active member of 3rd Act. These organizations are valuable. But I am spending my time with Climate Defiance these days.
I have decided to not go gentle into this apocalyptic night.
The only politicians we can hope will even remotely address climate change are true progressive Dems and Dem Socialists (esp). Politically speaking, they are our only hope.
That and nationalizing the fossil fuel industry, and taking ever damn dime from The Big Energy, Finanace, and Tech billionaires and their bootlickers who got us here in the first place, and use that money to help defray the incredible suffering that is barreling towards us all.
..has anyone interviewed Mitt Romney lately? I'd be curious about his thoughts..
And John Huntsman/ Huntsmen (sp?) -- an ethical man
Hi Sandra! Another “funny” story from my years running events for billionaires, this time regarding Mitt Romney. Charles and David Koch held a fundraiser for Mitt when he was running for president. The event was held at their ocean front estate in the Hamptons. I can’t tell you how I know this, but believe me the following is true: Charles Koch has a small army under his employ. If there were any security “issues” during the Mitt funfaising event, Koch’s security team, unbeknownst to the Secret Service and Mitt, would spray the room with automatic weapon fire, killing anyone and everyone if necessary, in order to Charles and David out to a speedboat that would whisk them safely away.
Basically this gives you everything you need to know about these billionaires: they will kill anyone and everyone if it benefits, profits, enriches them.
Your post reminds me of a fundraiser I attended 15 years ago in Aspen. I found myself making small talk with a guy who said he was buying up water rights. I immediately understood that I was talking to a guy who was hoping to sell water to people dying of thirst in the future and I excused myself. Greed is, and always has been, a deadly vice.
Now this is depressing!
Thanks for pointing out Climate Defiance. I just joined.
Cindy, have written a climate justice musical audio drama called Metra: A Climate Revolution with Songs, a limited series podcast (you can find it anywhere you get podcasts. As a writer, I do a tremendous amount of research. The only conclusion I can come to is that, unless we address the corruption of late-stage Capitaism, we are doomed.
My hope is that is we scream loud and long enough the truth of how we got here, who is responsible, and what we have to do to survive, there may come an inflection point as the world around us collapses that we will have the clear choice between sliding into total barbarism or embracing a better future not reliant on endlesss growth and maximizing profit.
I have shared a jail cell with Bill McKibben prior to Trump’s second term and watched him break down in tears of desperation at the prospect of Trump 2 (an attitude he does not betray in public, and I’m sorry I’m betraying that now)I have become a friend of the former director of Compliance at the EPA who quit because he sees what is coming and how little the EPA was doing about it.
Climate Defiance at least calls out the complicity of so many. Bill, by nature, is kind, polite, and tries to be optimistic. That day is long gone. I’m glad you joined Climate Defiance.
See you on the streets.
..appreciate this post, thank you
Your prescient brilliance in The End of Nature changed my life forever in 1989. This is some of your most cogent writing ever, Bill. Such integrated “wide boundary” synthesizing is critical to grasp what we are up against and the irreversible consequences at hand. Gratitude for your tenacity and goodness with a deep bow from Montana.
Ditto, Greg! Well said.
The Roberts court is truly despicable.
Thank you, Bill! Don’t lose heart… There are many of us out here who love and appreciate what you’re doing. You go, guy!
John Lamy
Sigh. Positively heroic, Bill. We need your voice more than ever. You keep our heads above water, and far from giving up, because, well, we can’t give up. As Samuel Beckett put it, “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”
As you said: "When I started writing about the climate crisis in the 1980s I was in my twenties, and I didn’t fully comprehend that there could be a force on this planet so steeped in greed and power that it would sacrifice the earth and its inhabitants for its own narrow interests." We have had similar paths.
When I started working on proving that teleworking works I was in my forties, embarking on radically changing my career path but also not yet realizing the extent of influence of the fossil fuel companies.
Like you, I am dismayed by the extent to which that influence has even changed the way our supreme court hides its dubious decisions. But the facts are increasingly coming out and the world is increasingly paying attention, thanks to you and all the others who take reality seriously.
Murder kills people. Greed kills planets. So what is the bigger crime?
As always thank you Bill. Your work is what gives so many of us hope. I have marched behind you several times as have thousands heck millions of others. Please stay strong. I thought of you often as this year in New England we actually had a good x country ski season. I got out many times and hope did too!
Articles like this to give people "hope" is a tool of the technological system to ameliorate the psychological distress caused by the system itself and nothing more. It's nothing more because all of these articles just advocate tuning the system to make its destruction more palatable...
What you describe is depravity.
Excellent, Bill, invaluable! Sending to kin in solar biz to keep them informed and hopefully inspire them to follow you and support your work and moving newsletter. .
Bill we are in the same age cohort. I just had my third grandchild arrive last Friday! The feelings are mixed. I wanted to tell you I can remember the first bumper sticker that opened my eyes “the oil will run out but there will always be an Exxon”. Love Joe
What McKibben lays out in this post is genuinely alarming: a picture of Big Oil as a force that has systematically corroded America’s political system, judicial system, and mechanisms of accountability. His indictment is sharp and memorable. The problem with Big Oil is no longer simply that it “emits too much.” It is that, while fully aware of the consequences, it has used war, campaign money, the courts, legislative immunity, and narrative control to drag what could have been an earlier energy transition into a harsher reality, one defined by higher temperatures, deeper inequality, and weaker accountability.
But I think the deeper point worth drawing out is not just how Big Oil “breaks everything,” but how it converts economic power into political power. The truly dangerous part is not merely that oil companies make enormous profits. It is that these are not ordinary market profits. They become a structural form of power, powerful enough to keep buying policy, shaping the legal environment, influencing the tempo of judicial decisions, and redrawing the boundaries of responsibility itself. The American problem is increasingly not just that capital influences politics. It is that economic power and political power are entering into a stable, self-reinforcing relationship. That is one of the clearest pathways by which plutocracy takes shape.
Once an industry can consistently define the default language through which Washington discusses energy, presenting itself as indispensable to “national security,” “energy independence,” “job protection,” “electricity stability,” or “industrial competitiveness,” it ceases to be just another interest group. It begins to participate in setting the national hierarchy of priorities. At that point, policies that should be understood as constraints on industry power are re-described as threats to the national interest itself.
And once an industry is no longer merely influencing individual bills, but is also shaping who gets access to decision-making circles, which issues rise to the top, which risks are downplayed, and which liabilities are waived, it is already approaching the core of plutocracy. Plutocracy does not require judges to openly speak on behalf of capital. It only requires that, at decisive moments, the courts increasingly treat the interests of capital as part of the institutional order that must be protected. McKibben is especially right to focus on the “shadow docket.” His point is that the emergency stay of the Clean Power Plan in 2016 was not just an ordinary ruling. It marked a procedural opening, a faster and more favorable lane through which powerful industries could challenge major public policy.
So the deeper American problem today is not simply that one oil company or another is especially malign. It is that economic concentration is being translated, through legal, semi-visible, and procedural channels, into a long-term capacity to shape the political system itself. In that sense, Big Oil is one of the clearest examples of American plutocracy, but it is not the only one.
Excellent, fierce reporting, Bill.
Polluter pays: our local climate action group is working on getting it before the Virginia leg!
🌧️☔ Rain follows the... Solar panel ‼️ Here comes the SUN 🌞, kindly old Sol is losing patience, ready to smite the 🛢️ oil ⛽ companies. Don't let the panel hit 🎯 you in the privates on the way out. ✌️😎