Thanks yet again Bill. I too found it interesting that The Guardian reported this extremely important story while it was hard to find in the American media🙄

Expand full comment

Hi Bill,

If you are an advocate of personal action, perhaps you could do a special edition on topics like 'No Mow May', and other ways that individuals can help to turn the corner on CO2 levels. Give people ownership instead of despair.

We produced a short video a couple of years ago to encourage homeowners to plant clover in their lawns. The concept seems to have taken root! (pun intended)


Thank you for continuing to focus and write. Your voice is needed.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Bill, for your great summary, as usual. A long time ago, I saw a movie called "The Day After Tomorrow". Some of it was typical Hollywood melodrama, but it made me uneasy at the time, Tomrrow is evidently. here now.

Margaret, I think American media "newspapers" are now "opinionpapers". I read 2 British media outlets pluds Heather Cox Richardson, with a small smattering of WaPo and NYT.

Mardi, I think it's a great idea to launch a push for No Mow May. I'm converting my front lawn into a pollinator garden this year.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Bill, for the real news 📰 we must read to act. You’d think by this late date, every human being on Earth 🌍 would be on board to FIGHT for our future. It’s not as if bizarre weather patters go unnoticed; they freaking kill people every day; MANY PEOPLE. The hurricanes, cyclones, desertification, loss of drinking 💦 water, wildfires, loss of food and shelter, habitat for so many species it is heartbreaking 💔 and truly gut wrenching to observe the lack of urgency in the FIGHT TO REFORM FOSSIL FUEL USE. Appreciate so much your efforts. Keep writing, please! 😘🕊️

Expand full comment

Bill, you're prolific, indefatigable, perspicacious and relentless! Thank you

Expand full comment

Great. An important post.

Expand full comment


Graham Readfearn begins with this:

<<Melting ice around Antarctica will cause a rapid slowdown of a major global deep ocean current by 2050 that could alter the world’s climate for centuries and accelerate sea level rise, according to scientists behind new research.>>

Your quotes follow that with the ominous hypothetical “if” humanity fails to reduce emission, cascading oceanic dominoes will quickly wreak havoc. But, I take a contrarian view that humanity will, in time, decarbonize—given the opportunity—as determined by the temperature trajectory toward ocean-atmospheric equilibrium and the triggering of catastrophic tipping points.

The conundrum is that James Hansen et al. have updated their previous estimate of “global warming in the pipeline” from 3°C to 10°C based on a different more informed approach. The good news is we will most likely never approach that conceptual mathematical end point (asymptotic trend) because we will strive our best not to. The bad news is we are on a steeper upward temperature trajectory at this moment. Hansen concludes the rate of temperature rise during the next couple decades will be twice the rate during the past four decades (0.36°C vs 0.18°C per decade).

(continued ...)

Expand full comment

Excellent! How can this be moved into the letters to PA legislators and administrators?

I'll copy the substack url and hope that connects.

Expand full comment

From your quote from The Guardian, "If greenhouse gas emissions continue"

If the climate conversation is to have any hope of breaking out of its current infinite loop of promises made and promises broken, social activism needs to lean to think less like politicians, and more like engineers.

Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from? They come from the combustion of hydrocarbons. That is the root cause of the climate problem. That is where we have to look for solutions.

When we do, we find that energy extraction from hydrocarbons is really a kind of energy theft from Nature, because that energy already has a job that Nature has given it. It is not just sitting around waiting for us clever people to figure out how to use it.

The job Nature has for the energy in hydrocarbons is keeping the habitats on earth within ranges within which modern human can keep ourselves ongoing. By taking energy away from that job, we are also take away the habitats in which we can keep ourselves ongoing.

To preserve our own habitats, we also have to preserve energy in hydrocarbons.

Which means we have to replace energy extraction from hydrocarbons with new energy technologies. That will cost money. Money with the mission, the duty and the scale to be there in the future in a future that will be worth being there in. Fiduciary Money. Pensions and Endowment money.

And that money can't be spent in protest. It has to be spent on action, organizing and underwriting a global replace-to-retire, commission-to-decommission strategy for rapidly redesigning and reconstructing the global energy economy.

Money for action is what we need.

Expand full comment