Climate change is so important that to see well-meaning efforts going into reducing supply of fossil fuels project by project instead of badgering politicians to "screw their courage to the sticking place" and just pass a tax on net CO2 emissions, is very disheartening.
It feels like we need to do several things--and when people manage to block projects, one of the things they do is weaken the fossil fuel industry politically, making your job on a carbon fee easier. It's a big broad movement.
The Line 5 pipeline “as grotesque and scary as seeing someone with a bone sticking out of their shoulder after a bike crash” was discovered by accident —70 yrs & ticking!
Thank you Bill for exposing the horror of Line 5 at Bad River. The Bad River movie is a must see!
Please you only use the natives when it suites an agenda. That paternalistic attitude has led to poverty and problems for indigenous communities in Canada but many native leaders are now taking charge of the economic their economic futures through ownership of resource development and economic prosperity for their communities. They realize the only path to reconciling the social problems they have endured is through economic prosperity for all. They will manage resource extraction with reasonable environmental goals. These are not nor have ever been the goals of the "large" environmental organizations that equate to "economic hitmen" Are the oil companies saints...no but no less than the wind barons and the solar industry (climate industrial complex).
Utopian diatribe supported by huge $ drive the climate industrial complex single narrative.
There are consequences both good and bad to all energy sources and until we can discuss them open and honestly we will just be spending a lot of money and will do nothing for the climate.
I stopped buying rice after I read that other things that grow in rice paddies account for 12% of global methane emissions. But rice can be grown in other ways; I've seen a photo of soldiers crossing a dry rice field in Cambodia. And rice farmers are working to reduce emissions -- I found this link:
This story is near & dear to my heart. I grew up in West Michigan; most of my youth was spent in a house on Smith's Bayou, which flows into Spring Lake, which drains into the Grand River, the largest river in the state, which of course empties into Lake Michigan. After far too many years living in other places, I retired in 2018 to a home that is just 5 miles from that house where I grew up.
The difference between the Michigan of my youth, clogged with foundry dust and putrid chemicals and industrial waste everywhere, and the Michigan of today, where the advertising slogan "Pure Michigan" is beautifully accurate, cannot be overstated. I graduated HS in 1970; at the time we were told that walking around in downtown Muskegon (just north of me) and breathing that wretched air had the same effect as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. There were three major foundries in the city, along with a large paper mill, spewing tons of foundry dust and foul chemical odors into the air constantly. Today the cities & towns along the Lake Michigan shoreline are reclaiming their places as a destination for those seeking clean air & water and the unmistakable beauty of our Great Lakes. I love a local sweatshirt that says, "Lake Michigan - Unsalted & Shark-Free."
When I read about Line 5 I was appalled. I've been following this legal battle for years now, and I've wondered why the press was so focused on Keystone when Line 5 was threatening to destroy the waters of my own neighborhood. Now, I'm delighted to see some light shining on this story. These Native American tribes are often called "Water Protectors;" I believe that, given their David/Goliath stance against the power of the fossils, they might more accurately be called "Earth Protectors." The more people become aware of how horribly the fossils (Big Oil, in this case) have treated the land and the people who have lived on the land for millennia, the more chance we have of winning this battle.
I saw the mention in this post of "Climate North Star" and went to that organization's web site & downloaded their report & started reading. I have been frustrated for quite awhile that a large-scale proposal of this sort has not been described; and now here is what seems a really good attempt to meet that need. And yet . . . I have also done a Google search for coverage of the report & am dismayed. The report was released Jan. 18, and so far has gotten almost zero coverage anywhere; indeed, the mention of it in "Good trouble on the Bad River" is very high up on the list of hits, simply because it is one of the very few hits, period. Maybe I'm naive, but I am surprised that the New York Times et al are (so far) completely ignoring it. Am I over-valuing the significance of the report? I don't know the field well enough to know. Does anyone have a feel for this? If so please let me know; it would be helpful.
I don't think the FF industry is worried about being weakened politically, if by weakened you mean in the eyes of the public. What the public thinks may cause them some PR concern, but their operations are not majorly affected. Yes, loosing a pipeline approval or an LNG terminal approval matters to them and to investors, but the big picture is that FFs are the sine qua non energy for everything we do, making their protection a matter of economic & national security for decision makers. Knowledge that these fuels cause tremendous harm is not leading to reduction in production or use. It's the opposite. Production & use are accelerating to meet rising demand, with the steadfast support of virtually all governments, regardless of promises to reduce emissions.
I doubt the industry is much bothered by renewables buildout given that FFs are 80% of total energy, and the power sector, 20% of total energy, remains dominated by coal & gas generation, with wind, solar & hydro contributing ~20% of electricity. The math is that renewables are just 4% of total energy. If there re solutions to decarbonizing the economy, I could wish, but don't believe, that renewables are an important one.
I think this is belied by the events of the last two years---we are finally seeing the transition starting to happen, as renewable installations have soared this year.
And if you think this doesn't bother the fossil fuel industry, I am certain you are wrong, because they are spending big and lobbying hard to slow the transition at every turn.
It's not a walk in the park, but we are definitely at a moment of serious change; we shall see if it goes anywhere near fast enough
Thank you Bill, TH!RD ACT, 350, along will all pipeline fighter colleagues. Ultimately, some 750 refineries worldwide MUST be shuttered. Jim Hansen admonished a 6%/year decline in CO2 emissions along with biochar CO2 removal and sequestration in his December 2013 paper, (Bit.ly/HansenPLOS) which prompted me to create for a visual demand to Rex Tillerson and his ilk: #RetireRefineries #OnePerWeek.
But the fossil fuel industry is only one “front” in this battle to restore Holocene atmospheric <350ppm concentration and restore oceanic pH suitable for crustaceans and coral.
I don’t think I need to remind you—but for others reading who may not know the breadth of this battlefield—the other serious “fronts” are the Arctic ice cap (albedo loss), Antarctic ice sheet (Thwaites and West Antarctic Peninsula collapse), Himalaya (Asia’s water source), Greenland ice sheet (sea level rise), AMOC* shutting down (exacerbating Greenland and Atlanticification of the Arctic Seas), to name the greatest tipping point threats.
We don’t have the luxury of time to “wait and see.” Direct cooling to preserve and restore the ice albedo is crucial while CO2 and CH4 emissions decline to pre-industrial “zero” and some two trillion tons are removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in the oceanic abyss. Reduction and removal will take several decades, so that is the transitory period required for all hands on deck cooling of the specific regions mentioned above: locally, contained regionally (not global), controlled, measured and monitored with a mandate for quick shut down if results vary in the negative, vis-a-vis research and test results.
It’s time to put this conversation and action transparently and vigorously into the public and political discourse. Scientists, engineers and inventors are assessing the plausibility of dozens of measures, ready to start testing.
What is needed to start defending those tipping point “fronts” in this new climate war (to expand Dr. Mann’s book title) is license and governance.
Your voice can most definitely help, Bill! 🙏
* AMOC is Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Thanks for your reply, Bill. You may be right about industry consternation, but I don't see corresponding political will for regulation that would actually reduce total emissions. It's true that wind & solar provide valuable buffer power for local grids, e.g. California, Texas, Michigan, and they may even reach 100% of power generation around 2040 or later. But that still leaves us with fossil fuels as 80% of total energy and no drop-off in emissions. There is also the reality of having to replace all wind/solar/ installations in 10 to 20 years at further cost to the environment and diminishing resources, all accomplished by burning fossil fuels. It's not what any of us want to be true, but renewables can't significantly replace fossil fuels.
I hope that the increased feasibility and favorable ROI of renewable energy projects means we will soon have a future that less subject to the whims of oil barons. Certainly a good point about fossil costs being linked to higher prices
Bill, since you brought up Michael Mann's success in Court, for the record, he blocked me when I made a clarifying reply to his tweet of your New Yorker piece:
Prof Michael E. Mann | @MichaelEMann | Nov 23, 2022 | 4:28 PM (EST)
"Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We’re Inching Toward It" | Must-read cautionary essay in the @NewYorker about climate desperation and the dangerous lure of "Geoengineering" by my friend @billmckibben: Bit.ly/NYer22Nov22
_____________________
I replied with the following:
UncaDoug | @Doug350 | Dec 3, 2022 | 6:33 PM (EST)
I believe you’re confusing folks as to the difference between geoengineering, solar geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) & Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)—oh yes, and Marine Clioud Brightening (MCB)
1) Geoengineering is the umbrella over all the others
2) Solar geoengineering & SRM are identical, a subcategory under the umbrella
3) SAI & MCB are two distinctly different methods of SRM—MCB close to the ocean & SAI in the upper top of the atmosphere
_______________
I am happy for Michael's winning the lawsuit, but have a sour taste in my mouth from his uncivil treatment of my legitimate question and context, which I intended as constructive criticism. Mann's ego is too big and too fragile, IMHO. Perhaps his promise of a beer is due ... please have a chat with him on my behalf.
He is a scientist, and constructive interrogation and criticism go with the territory.
Please ask him to unblock me and take me seriously—I am not a denier, detractor or enemy of any sort. I am a critical-thinking retired Industrial Engineer, Corporate Planner, Purchasing Manager (Major Capital Procurements), Project Manage (global pricing and logistic systems), and climate activist since 2004 (before <350 was conceived).
I'm sorry, are you upset because a man blocked you on social media to the point of begging other people to ask him to have a conversation? Looks like he was right in blocking you if this is your reaction. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you think it is, and this pettiness shoss why that was the right move
Climate change is so important that to see well-meaning efforts going into reducing supply of fossil fuels project by project instead of badgering politicians to "screw their courage to the sticking place" and just pass a tax on net CO2 emissions, is very disheartening.
It feels like we need to do several things--and when people manage to block projects, one of the things they do is weaken the fossil fuel industry politically, making your job on a carbon fee easier. It's a big broad movement.
The Line 5 pipeline “as grotesque and scary as seeing someone with a bone sticking out of their shoulder after a bike crash” was discovered by accident —70 yrs & ticking!
Thank you Bill for exposing the horror of Line 5 at Bad River. The Bad River movie is a must see!
Please you only use the natives when it suites an agenda. That paternalistic attitude has led to poverty and problems for indigenous communities in Canada but many native leaders are now taking charge of the economic their economic futures through ownership of resource development and economic prosperity for their communities. They realize the only path to reconciling the social problems they have endured is through economic prosperity for all. They will manage resource extraction with reasonable environmental goals. These are not nor have ever been the goals of the "large" environmental organizations that equate to "economic hitmen" Are the oil companies saints...no but no less than the wind barons and the solar industry (climate industrial complex).
Utopian diatribe supported by huge $ drive the climate industrial complex single narrative.
There are consequences both good and bad to all energy sources and until we can discuss them open and honestly we will just be spending a lot of money and will do nothing for the climate.
I stopped buying rice after I read that other things that grow in rice paddies account for 12% of global methane emissions. But rice can be grown in other ways; I've seen a photo of soldiers crossing a dry rice field in Cambodia. And rice farmers are working to reduce emissions -- I found this link:
https://civileats.com/2020/04/23/rice-farming-has-a-huge-carbon-footprint-could-it-become-a-climate-solution/
That's from 2020. I sure hope things have continued and are continuing in a positive direction. I do love eating rice!
This story is near & dear to my heart. I grew up in West Michigan; most of my youth was spent in a house on Smith's Bayou, which flows into Spring Lake, which drains into the Grand River, the largest river in the state, which of course empties into Lake Michigan. After far too many years living in other places, I retired in 2018 to a home that is just 5 miles from that house where I grew up.
The difference between the Michigan of my youth, clogged with foundry dust and putrid chemicals and industrial waste everywhere, and the Michigan of today, where the advertising slogan "Pure Michigan" is beautifully accurate, cannot be overstated. I graduated HS in 1970; at the time we were told that walking around in downtown Muskegon (just north of me) and breathing that wretched air had the same effect as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. There were three major foundries in the city, along with a large paper mill, spewing tons of foundry dust and foul chemical odors into the air constantly. Today the cities & towns along the Lake Michigan shoreline are reclaiming their places as a destination for those seeking clean air & water and the unmistakable beauty of our Great Lakes. I love a local sweatshirt that says, "Lake Michigan - Unsalted & Shark-Free."
When I read about Line 5 I was appalled. I've been following this legal battle for years now, and I've wondered why the press was so focused on Keystone when Line 5 was threatening to destroy the waters of my own neighborhood. Now, I'm delighted to see some light shining on this story. These Native American tribes are often called "Water Protectors;" I believe that, given their David/Goliath stance against the power of the fossils, they might more accurately be called "Earth Protectors." The more people become aware of how horribly the fossils (Big Oil, in this case) have treated the land and the people who have lived on the land for millennia, the more chance we have of winning this battle.
I saw the mention in this post of "Climate North Star" and went to that organization's web site & downloaded their report & started reading. I have been frustrated for quite awhile that a large-scale proposal of this sort has not been described; and now here is what seems a really good attempt to meet that need. And yet . . . I have also done a Google search for coverage of the report & am dismayed. The report was released Jan. 18, and so far has gotten almost zero coverage anywhere; indeed, the mention of it in "Good trouble on the Bad River" is very high up on the list of hits, simply because it is one of the very few hits, period. Maybe I'm naive, but I am surprised that the New York Times et al are (so far) completely ignoring it. Am I over-valuing the significance of the report? I don't know the field well enough to know. Does anyone have a feel for this? If so please let me know; it would be helpful.
I think "A Hero for Daisy" was about Yale, not Princeton.
re: Bill's reply to Thomas L. Hutcheson
I don't think the FF industry is worried about being weakened politically, if by weakened you mean in the eyes of the public. What the public thinks may cause them some PR concern, but their operations are not majorly affected. Yes, loosing a pipeline approval or an LNG terminal approval matters to them and to investors, but the big picture is that FFs are the sine qua non energy for everything we do, making their protection a matter of economic & national security for decision makers. Knowledge that these fuels cause tremendous harm is not leading to reduction in production or use. It's the opposite. Production & use are accelerating to meet rising demand, with the steadfast support of virtually all governments, regardless of promises to reduce emissions.
I doubt the industry is much bothered by renewables buildout given that FFs are 80% of total energy, and the power sector, 20% of total energy, remains dominated by coal & gas generation, with wind, solar & hydro contributing ~20% of electricity. The math is that renewables are just 4% of total energy. If there re solutions to decarbonizing the economy, I could wish, but don't believe, that renewables are an important one.
I think this is belied by the events of the last two years---we are finally seeing the transition starting to happen, as renewable installations have soared this year.
And if you think this doesn't bother the fossil fuel industry, I am certain you are wrong, because they are spending big and lobbying hard to slow the transition at every turn.
It's not a walk in the park, but we are definitely at a moment of serious change; we shall see if it goes anywhere near fast enough
Thank you Bill, TH!RD ACT, 350, along will all pipeline fighter colleagues. Ultimately, some 750 refineries worldwide MUST be shuttered. Jim Hansen admonished a 6%/year decline in CO2 emissions along with biochar CO2 removal and sequestration in his December 2013 paper, (Bit.ly/HansenPLOS) which prompted me to create for a visual demand to Rex Tillerson and his ilk: #RetireRefineries #OnePerWeek.
But the fossil fuel industry is only one “front” in this battle to restore Holocene atmospheric <350ppm concentration and restore oceanic pH suitable for crustaceans and coral.
I don’t think I need to remind you—but for others reading who may not know the breadth of this battlefield—the other serious “fronts” are the Arctic ice cap (albedo loss), Antarctic ice sheet (Thwaites and West Antarctic Peninsula collapse), Himalaya (Asia’s water source), Greenland ice sheet (sea level rise), AMOC* shutting down (exacerbating Greenland and Atlanticification of the Arctic Seas), to name the greatest tipping point threats.
We don’t have the luxury of time to “wait and see.” Direct cooling to preserve and restore the ice albedo is crucial while CO2 and CH4 emissions decline to pre-industrial “zero” and some two trillion tons are removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in the oceanic abyss. Reduction and removal will take several decades, so that is the transitory period required for all hands on deck cooling of the specific regions mentioned above: locally, contained regionally (not global), controlled, measured and monitored with a mandate for quick shut down if results vary in the negative, vis-a-vis research and test results.
It’s time to put this conversation and action transparently and vigorously into the public and political discourse. Scientists, engineers and inventors are assessing the plausibility of dozens of measures, ready to start testing.
What is needed to start defending those tipping point “fronts” in this new climate war (to expand Dr. Mann’s book title) is license and governance.
Your voice can most definitely help, Bill! 🙏
* AMOC is Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Thanks for your reply, Bill. You may be right about industry consternation, but I don't see corresponding political will for regulation that would actually reduce total emissions. It's true that wind & solar provide valuable buffer power for local grids, e.g. California, Texas, Michigan, and they may even reach 100% of power generation around 2040 or later. But that still leaves us with fossil fuels as 80% of total energy and no drop-off in emissions. There is also the reality of having to replace all wind/solar/ installations in 10 to 20 years at further cost to the environment and diminishing resources, all accomplished by burning fossil fuels. It's not what any of us want to be true, but renewables can't significantly replace fossil fuels.
I hope that the increased feasibility and favorable ROI of renewable energy projects means we will soon have a future that less subject to the whims of oil barons. Certainly a good point about fossil costs being linked to higher prices
Bill, since you brought up Michael Mann's success in Court, for the record, he blocked me when I made a clarifying reply to his tweet of your New Yorker piece:
Prof Michael E. Mann | @MichaelEMann | Nov 23, 2022 | 4:28 PM (EST)
"Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We’re Inching Toward It" | Must-read cautionary essay in the @NewYorker about climate desperation and the dangerous lure of "Geoengineering" by my friend @billmckibben: Bit.ly/NYer22Nov22
_____________________
I replied with the following:
UncaDoug | @Doug350 | Dec 3, 2022 | 6:33 PM (EST)
I believe you’re confusing folks as to the difference between geoengineering, solar geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) & Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)—oh yes, and Marine Clioud Brightening (MCB)
Pease read Bit.ly/Lockett1Dec22
_______________
and this follow-up:
UncaDoug | @Doug350 | Dec 3, 2022 | 6:39 PM (EST)
Correct me if I’m wrong
1) Geoengineering is the umbrella over all the others
2) Solar geoengineering & SRM are identical, a subcategory under the umbrella
3) SAI & MCB are two distinctly different methods of SRM—MCB close to the ocean & SAI in the upper top of the atmosphere
_______________
I am happy for Michael's winning the lawsuit, but have a sour taste in my mouth from his uncivil treatment of my legitimate question and context, which I intended as constructive criticism. Mann's ego is too big and too fragile, IMHO. Perhaps his promise of a beer is due ... please have a chat with him on my behalf.
He is a scientist, and constructive interrogation and criticism go with the territory.
Please ask him to unblock me and take me seriously—I am not a denier, detractor or enemy of any sort. I am a critical-thinking retired Industrial Engineer, Corporate Planner, Purchasing Manager (Major Capital Procurements), Project Manage (global pricing and logistic systems), and climate activist since 2004 (before <350 was conceived).
Best regards,
@Doug350 on X/Twitter and Facebook
URL links to the three tweets are
1) https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1595529836470099975?s=20
2) https://x.com/Doug350/status/1599185157613039617?s=20
3) https://x.com/Doug350/status/1599186616156794880?s=20
I'm sorry, are you upset because a man blocked you on social media to the point of begging other people to ask him to have a conversation? Looks like he was right in blocking you if this is your reaction. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you think it is, and this pettiness shoss why that was the right move
*shows