Seems to me willful destruction of the earth's climate by the fossil fuel industry and their paid toadies, the Republican Party, is a crime against humanity. It will ultimately kill and harm far more humans than anything the Nazis did.
Thank you! I’m sharing this widely! And love seeing RMI mentioned as contributing to someone’s research. Amory Lovins is one of my heroes (as are you). 👊🌎
CDR and DAC (atmospheric carbon removal) are intended to offset the remaining decades of declining CO2 emissions in order to achieve “Net Zero.” We all agree those prospects are uncertain in any human-relevant time frame.
Let’s talk about the dozens of other carbon sequestration techniques that can plausibly ramp-up to the level needed to offset remaining emissions.
The piece that is not discussed is the assumption that the ocean and land-based vegetation and soil carbon sequestration will continue after we achieve Net Zero, but the ability to a absorb CO2 is declining as equilibrium and saturation are stretching that timeline out to millennia—a far stretch from the couple of decades optimistically projected by now-known-to-be-faulty model assumptions.
Thankfully, Jim Hansen et al. question the IPCC mandated narrow focus mandated by the hierarchy, e.g., “compare 2°C outcomes to 1.5°C outcomes,” both of which are a long shot from the 3°-4°C realistic range of scenarios.
Who back in the ‘60s admonished “question authority”? Jim and company are the only ones I know on the front line with a megaphone and true credibility questioning false climate authority. To go along with the hopium dogma is suicidal.
Thank you for stating the truth — no matter how obvious — and not sugar coating it. As a practicing architect, I rely on the EnergyStar program to educate clients and help me choose the best equipment. It’s criminal to eliminate such a cost-effective and reliable program. It’s really the poster child for how government works for us.
All you are doing is contributing to the burying of us with more raw data. Not helpful. Everyone is already overloaded with continual bombardments of data. On all sides. I know it’s hard to keep it to yourself. Sorry to have to be honest with where I am after reading this. It’s not helpful. We - I - need you or actually lots of people - to digest it, organize the results into actionable chunks: tiers or fields of actionable chunks, along with proposals of actions. Beginning with stopping the rampage of the gangster goons through the china-shop-infrastructure of the federally held personal data of the people. Get us en mass by the millions to D.C. to shut down the city until the ‘players’ (i.e. a/k/a elected officials) sober up from their corporate money soaked delirium. Get movement leaders together off to the side somewhere and coordinate to move millions to D.C. It’s not rocket science.
Hi Bill - just a quick comment to note that the WSJ really needs to be understood as two newspapers - the news, which is good (as good as the FT which you rightly praise) and the editorial pages, which are relentlessly and hard-core ideological. You can generally rely on their news pages, but of course they tend to be quoted less than theeditoral pages (which are often made available outside the paywall)
i think this is right. My Dad worked at the Journal 60 years ago so it's always been revered in our family, which makes the ongoing ugliness of the ed page especially sad to me
💵 Bill Mckibben... I hope he's not a voice in the wilderness, despite residing in the remote Ripton, Vermont . Exhaustive analysis, but also somewhat exhausting 4 the reader @ 20+ 📃 pages !! ?? 🐕🦺🚒 Light 🕯️🚨 a 🔥 fire under the autocracy.
Fantastic analysis - and a simple summary that will support us in talking to others about this would be wonderful too. And the boffins forgot that Iceland gets snow...What hope do we have?!
Good read. For me, key is to reduce power consumption where possible. That is far more economical than carbon capture after the fact. The only carbon capture that makes remotely sense is separating the stuff as part of air separation for industrial gas purposes?
For example, it’s fascinating how efficient electric cars are vs. their ICE competitors - a Lucid Air can get 500 miles of range with just 4 gallons of gas equivalent in the tank.
As storage improves (see battery packs at Honda and elsewhere), I expect electric cars to start costing less to own and operate than ICE equivalents, even in areas with very high electric prices like the NE of the USA.
Here are some strategies that use Sun Tzu's "Art of War" principles for use re climate activism:
Strategic Plan for Influencing U.S. Climate Policy (2025)
1. Intelligence & Strategic Positioning (Know Your Enemy & Yourself)
Understand the administration’s stance:
o Identify key decision-makers, allies, and blockers within the government (Congress, EPA, DOE, industry lobbyists).
o Track corporate interests (fossil fuels, renewables, tech) that are shaping policy behind the scenes.
o Exploit divisions and weaknesses:
o Highlight contradictions in policy (e.g., promoting green energy while subsidizing oil and gas).
o If factions within the administration differ on climate policy, push internal disputes into the public sphere to create pressure.
o Use data to expose hidden costs of inaction (climate disasters, healthcare burdens, economic losses).
2. Shaping Public Perception (The Supreme Art is to Subdue Without Fighting)
Reframe the climate narrative:
o Move the conversation away from partisan battle lines by tying climate action to:
o National security (climate-related instability fuels migration, military conflicts, and resource wars).
o Economic competitiveness (China and the EU are leading in renewables—will the U.S. fall behind?).
o Job creation (green tech industries create more jobs than fossil fuels).
o Instead of focusing on “climate change,” use economic-friendly terms like “energy independence” and “resilient infrastructure.” In fact, this is crucial in 2025 in the USA, as certain phrases such as “climate change” are being physically removed from government web sites.
Use unconventional messengers:
o Engage groups that conservatives and moderates respect:
o Military leaders discussing national security risks.
o Farmers affected by drought and extreme weather.
o Business leaders investing in clean energy.
o Religious groups framing environmental responsibility as moral stewardship.
Leverage disruptive events:
o Act immediately after major climate disasters (wildfires, hurricanes, droughts) to push policy urgency.
o Show local economic impacts (cost to homeowners, insurance rates, food prices) to make it personal.
3. Tactical Disruption (Make the Opposition React to You)
Expose hypocrisy & corporate influence:
o Investigate and publicize fossil fuel lobbying efforts that are influencing policy.
o Track where campaign donations are coming from and push transparency measures.
o Highlight inconsistencies (e.g., politicians advocating for "energy security" while blocking renewables).
o Slow down harmful policies, accelerate good ones:
o Use legal challenges to block rollbacks on environmental regulations.
o A well-coordinated legal campaign can:
Delay or block anti-climate policies through the courts,
Create financial and legal risks for polluters and investors,
Force the government to enforce existing climate laws,
Turn legal victories into political momentum for stronger policies.
o Push for executive orders when legislative action stalls.
o Get state governments to adopt stronger climate policies if federal action is weak (California, New York, etc.).
4. Strategic Adaptation (Be Like Water, Move Where There is No Defense)
Exploit market shifts & economic trends:
o The renewable energy sector is already outpacing fossil fuels in growth—use market momentum to argue that climate action is inevitable.
o Promote climate-friendly investment strategies (ESG funds, clean tech startups) to make green policy seem like a financial necessity.
o Create Win-Win Policy Solutions:
o Push bipartisan-friendly solutions that appeal to conservatives:
o Carbon capture (instead of outright fossil fuel bans).
o Nuclear energy expansion as a bridge solution.
o Rural solar and wind subsidies for farmers and landowners.
5. Speed & Timing (Strike Where They Are Unprepared)
Introduce policies when opposition is weak:
o Act after election cycles when political risks are lower.
o Capitalize on economic downturns to push green infrastructure as a job-creation solution.
o Use international pressure (if the EU or China takes action, push U.S. competitiveness concerns).
Exploit unexpected allies:
o If opponents expect climate activists to be the only ones pushing, bring in:
o Tech CEOs framing AI and green energy as the future.
o Veterans arguing for clean energy independence.
o Wall Street investors demanding long-term sustainability.
Seems to me willful destruction of the earth's climate by the fossil fuel industry and their paid toadies, the Republican Party, is a crime against humanity. It will ultimately kill and harm far more humans than anything the Nazis did.
Great analysis as always.
Thank you! I’m sharing this widely! And love seeing RMI mentioned as contributing to someone’s research. Amory Lovins is one of my heroes (as are you). 👊🌎
Helpful information. Thanks.
Link to donate to the legal expenses of the nonviolent direction action protesters at the Denniston coal mine: https://chuffed.org/project/129679-support-the-denniston-10
CDR and DAC (atmospheric carbon removal) are intended to offset the remaining decades of declining CO2 emissions in order to achieve “Net Zero.” We all agree those prospects are uncertain in any human-relevant time frame.
Let’s talk about the dozens of other carbon sequestration techniques that can plausibly ramp-up to the level needed to offset remaining emissions.
The piece that is not discussed is the assumption that the ocean and land-based vegetation and soil carbon sequestration will continue after we achieve Net Zero, but the ability to a absorb CO2 is declining as equilibrium and saturation are stretching that timeline out to millennia—a far stretch from the couple of decades optimistically projected by now-known-to-be-faulty model assumptions.
Thankfully, Jim Hansen et al. question the IPCC mandated narrow focus mandated by the hierarchy, e.g., “compare 2°C outcomes to 1.5°C outcomes,” both of which are a long shot from the 3°-4°C realistic range of scenarios.
Who back in the ‘60s admonished “question authority”? Jim and company are the only ones I know on the front line with a megaphone and true credibility questioning false climate authority. To go along with the hopium dogma is suicidal.
Thank you for stating the truth — no matter how obvious — and not sugar coating it. As a practicing architect, I rely on the EnergyStar program to educate clients and help me choose the best equipment. It’s criminal to eliminate such a cost-effective and reliable program. It’s really the poster child for how government works for us.
All you are doing is contributing to the burying of us with more raw data. Not helpful. Everyone is already overloaded with continual bombardments of data. On all sides. I know it’s hard to keep it to yourself. Sorry to have to be honest with where I am after reading this. It’s not helpful. We - I - need you or actually lots of people - to digest it, organize the results into actionable chunks: tiers or fields of actionable chunks, along with proposals of actions. Beginning with stopping the rampage of the gangster goons through the china-shop-infrastructure of the federally held personal data of the people. Get us en mass by the millions to D.C. to shut down the city until the ‘players’ (i.e. a/k/a elected officials) sober up from their corporate money soaked delirium. Get movement leaders together off to the side somewhere and coordinate to move millions to D.C. It’s not rocket science.
Hi Bill - just a quick comment to note that the WSJ really needs to be understood as two newspapers - the news, which is good (as good as the FT which you rightly praise) and the editorial pages, which are relentlessly and hard-core ideological. You can generally rely on their news pages, but of course they tend to be quoted less than theeditoral pages (which are often made available outside the paywall)
i think this is right. My Dad worked at the Journal 60 years ago so it's always been revered in our family, which makes the ongoing ugliness of the ed page especially sad to me
💵 Bill Mckibben... I hope he's not a voice in the wilderness, despite residing in the remote Ripton, Vermont . Exhaustive analysis, but also somewhat exhausting 4 the reader @ 20+ 📃 pages !! ?? 🐕🦺🚒 Light 🕯️🚨 a 🔥 fire under the autocracy.
Bill, outstanding point, with art. A plus.
Well fit 🔝 deeply. Art can speak volumes..
Fantastic analysis - and a simple summary that will support us in talking to others about this would be wonderful too. And the boffins forgot that Iceland gets snow...What hope do we have?!
Good read. For me, key is to reduce power consumption where possible. That is far more economical than carbon capture after the fact. The only carbon capture that makes remotely sense is separating the stuff as part of air separation for industrial gas purposes?
For example, it’s fascinating how efficient electric cars are vs. their ICE competitors - a Lucid Air can get 500 miles of range with just 4 gallons of gas equivalent in the tank.
As storage improves (see battery packs at Honda and elsewhere), I expect electric cars to start costing less to own and operate than ICE equivalents, even in areas with very high electric prices like the NE of the USA.
Here are some strategies that use Sun Tzu's "Art of War" principles for use re climate activism:
Strategic Plan for Influencing U.S. Climate Policy (2025)
1. Intelligence & Strategic Positioning (Know Your Enemy & Yourself)
Understand the administration’s stance:
o Identify key decision-makers, allies, and blockers within the government (Congress, EPA, DOE, industry lobbyists).
o Track corporate interests (fossil fuels, renewables, tech) that are shaping policy behind the scenes.
o Exploit divisions and weaknesses:
o Highlight contradictions in policy (e.g., promoting green energy while subsidizing oil and gas).
o If factions within the administration differ on climate policy, push internal disputes into the public sphere to create pressure.
o Use data to expose hidden costs of inaction (climate disasters, healthcare burdens, economic losses).
2. Shaping Public Perception (The Supreme Art is to Subdue Without Fighting)
Reframe the climate narrative:
o Move the conversation away from partisan battle lines by tying climate action to:
o National security (climate-related instability fuels migration, military conflicts, and resource wars).
o Economic competitiveness (China and the EU are leading in renewables—will the U.S. fall behind?).
o Job creation (green tech industries create more jobs than fossil fuels).
o Instead of focusing on “climate change,” use economic-friendly terms like “energy independence” and “resilient infrastructure.” In fact, this is crucial in 2025 in the USA, as certain phrases such as “climate change” are being physically removed from government web sites.
Use unconventional messengers:
o Engage groups that conservatives and moderates respect:
o Military leaders discussing national security risks.
o Farmers affected by drought and extreme weather.
o Business leaders investing in clean energy.
o Religious groups framing environmental responsibility as moral stewardship.
Leverage disruptive events:
o Act immediately after major climate disasters (wildfires, hurricanes, droughts) to push policy urgency.
o Show local economic impacts (cost to homeowners, insurance rates, food prices) to make it personal.
3. Tactical Disruption (Make the Opposition React to You)
Expose hypocrisy & corporate influence:
o Investigate and publicize fossil fuel lobbying efforts that are influencing policy.
o Track where campaign donations are coming from and push transparency measures.
o Highlight inconsistencies (e.g., politicians advocating for "energy security" while blocking renewables).
o Slow down harmful policies, accelerate good ones:
o Use legal challenges to block rollbacks on environmental regulations.
o A well-coordinated legal campaign can:
Delay or block anti-climate policies through the courts,
Create financial and legal risks for polluters and investors,
Force the government to enforce existing climate laws,
Turn legal victories into political momentum for stronger policies.
o Push for executive orders when legislative action stalls.
o Get state governments to adopt stronger climate policies if federal action is weak (California, New York, etc.).
4. Strategic Adaptation (Be Like Water, Move Where There is No Defense)
Exploit market shifts & economic trends:
o The renewable energy sector is already outpacing fossil fuels in growth—use market momentum to argue that climate action is inevitable.
o Promote climate-friendly investment strategies (ESG funds, clean tech startups) to make green policy seem like a financial necessity.
o Create Win-Win Policy Solutions:
o Push bipartisan-friendly solutions that appeal to conservatives:
o Carbon capture (instead of outright fossil fuel bans).
o Nuclear energy expansion as a bridge solution.
o Rural solar and wind subsidies for farmers and landowners.
5. Speed & Timing (Strike Where They Are Unprepared)
Introduce policies when opposition is weak:
o Act after election cycles when political risks are lower.
o Capitalize on economic downturns to push green infrastructure as a job-creation solution.
o Use international pressure (if the EU or China takes action, push U.S. competitiveness concerns).
Exploit unexpected allies:
o If opponents expect climate activists to be the only ones pushing, bring in:
o Tech CEOs framing AI and green energy as the future.
o Veterans arguing for clean energy independence.
o Wall Street investors demanding long-term sustainability.
Thank you!