It's a great piece! Thanks for sharing. Lots of useful information in there. For what it's worth, as an ecologist and biodiversity scientist, I believe in nature-based solutions / natural climate solutions. We absolutely must be rolling out such solutions as rapidly as possible. But, I don't think they'll be sufficient on their own. The amount of carbon we've pumped into is so far beyond natural that natural systems won't be sufficient to strip them back out. We need to throw everything we can at it, but nature-based solutions should be priority #1 for now, while scalable tech develops. Focusing on natural solutions has win-win benefits for both the climate and biodiversity. I write a lot about this in my newsletter.
I agree that it isn't enough if we expect to live as the status quo. But I am hopeful this and living more simply is a good combination. And accepting that that "the end of the world as we know it, is not the end of the world full stop". That is a quote from Dougald Hine author of "At Work in the Ruins" https://substack.com/@dougald
I'd love it if that were true. My concern is that there is so much inertia in terms of turning around a destabilised climate system. There is just so much extra CO2 in the air that trees and natural solutions are not enough on their own anymore. They are fundamentally important, but I worry they're not enough on their own, even combined with living more simply. I say this as an ecologist who is pushing hard for natural climate solutions.
Yes, I’m with you on that: it is unlikely that most of us will voluntarily live more simply. However we may be heading for what Nate Hagens calls a Great Simplification. https://natehagens.substack.com With all the concurrent global systemic problems, it seems to me a matter of how events sequence. IMO, if we are lucky we will have to live more simply and solve problems less technically.
Thanks. Appreciate your work and totally agree with your rules for restoration. Unfortunately, simple tree planting has grabbed the public imagination, but it's a very crude idea as you point out. I'm not sure what you are referring to as "scalable tech." Do you mean carbon capture technology? The other side of this, which I didn't get into, is the need to abandon the growth trajectory.
Oh my gosh! I was about to refer you to the brilliant discussion with Dougald Hine "When Trees No Longer Milk the Sky" when I saw that you are that Rob Lewis! I found that very illuminating and impactful and have integrated it into my psyche. How wonderful to meet you here.
Right. The heart of the matter, really. Letting our numbers fall and reducing our demands on Earth are the obvious path. We're told that's impossible, but where we're headed really is impossible.
I talk all day about regenerating natural ecosystems, so i will take this moment to air a short view on technology.
With Project Drawdown identifying over 80 ways to reduce carbon emissions available with current technology (or no technology) it is astonishing that we are focused on the most destructive path forward- rebuilding the entire growth-based economy on "clean" energy.
Along with natural solutions and tech solutions are behavioral solutions.
For example changing zoning laws, building codes, farming and eating practices, and work schedules would all reduce emissions without any mining or major change of life style.
My personal favorite is composting. Imagine if all packaging was required to be compostable and all food waste was composted. In nature waste is always a resource ...
In my mind, the only real solution is that humanity heals our relationship with nature.
Every paradigm can be remade. That’s the crime of our current actions. Fungi, industrial hemp and the solidarity of the masses to demand science implement climate crisis policy. Not politicians.
Your narrative about renewables is obviously diametrically opposed to truth. It is a must.
Done properly, we can use the resources existing and implement it smartly, resource extraction should be minimal.
Not a damn thing you listed as any consequential effect in a statistically significant manner concerning the eminent climate crisis, or interrupting the sixth grade mass extinction we happen to be existing in.
The only way people can change the dominant paradigm is to change corporate planet and treasury raping entities.
This is an intentionally disingenuous narrative proffered by the fossil fuel planet and treasury rapers.
Obviously, the few intact wilderness places need preserved. We need to restore every single bio regional Eco habitat on every continent.
Those are given for odds above zero of complex lifeforms survival.
Completely different topic than our insane altering of the atmosphere.
There’s not enough space on earth to make that happen, moreover you’re not sequestering it you’re just holding it for a speck of time in a geologic context. A forest the size of New Mexico planted on an annual basis will only remove United States contributions to the atmospheric CO2.
One OMISSION: Reducing energy used for heating of our homes -- used INSULATION! nPlant-based of course
one TYPO: the first sentence.... I think you mean to say...fewer people overall (lower population) with MORE people living closer the land....A more nature-based society will feature fewer people living closer to the land, with a throughput of energy and materials far smaller than is the case in industrialized nations today. We will be less urbanized, more rural. We will rely less on money, and more on community-based cooperation.
Nancy Hazard, climate & renewable energy activist for 40 years. Nature activist for the last 8 years.
It's a great piece! Thanks for sharing. Lots of useful information in there. For what it's worth, as an ecologist and biodiversity scientist, I believe in nature-based solutions / natural climate solutions. We absolutely must be rolling out such solutions as rapidly as possible. But, I don't think they'll be sufficient on their own. The amount of carbon we've pumped into is so far beyond natural that natural systems won't be sufficient to strip them back out. We need to throw everything we can at it, but nature-based solutions should be priority #1 for now, while scalable tech develops. Focusing on natural solutions has win-win benefits for both the climate and biodiversity. I write a lot about this in my newsletter.
Agree re: looking after old-growth forests first. I wrote about this and other rules for reforestation here: https://predirections.substack.com/p/rules-for-reforestation
I agree that it isn't enough if we expect to live as the status quo. But I am hopeful this and living more simply is a good combination. And accepting that that "the end of the world as we know it, is not the end of the world full stop". That is a quote from Dougald Hine author of "At Work in the Ruins" https://substack.com/@dougald
I'd love it if that were true. My concern is that there is so much inertia in terms of turning around a destabilised climate system. There is just so much extra CO2 in the air that trees and natural solutions are not enough on their own anymore. They are fundamentally important, but I worry they're not enough on their own, even combined with living more simply. I say this as an ecologist who is pushing hard for natural climate solutions.
Yes, I’m with you on that: it is unlikely that most of us will voluntarily live more simply. However we may be heading for what Nate Hagens calls a Great Simplification. https://natehagens.substack.com With all the concurrent global systemic problems, it seems to me a matter of how events sequence. IMO, if we are lucky we will have to live more simply and solve problems less technically.
Thanks. Appreciate your work and totally agree with your rules for restoration. Unfortunately, simple tree planting has grabbed the public imagination, but it's a very crude idea as you point out. I'm not sure what you are referring to as "scalable tech." Do you mean carbon capture technology? The other side of this, which I didn't get into, is the need to abandon the growth trajectory.
Thanks Rob. Yes, carbon capture tech but also green tech that radically reduces emissions at the same time.
Oh my gosh! I was about to refer you to the brilliant discussion with Dougald Hine "When Trees No Longer Milk the Sky" when I saw that you are that Rob Lewis! I found that very illuminating and impactful and have integrated it into my psyche. How wonderful to meet you here.
What about the #urbanglacier. How do we stop it from consuming the natural world and driving up energy consumption on a global scale.
Right. The heart of the matter, really. Letting our numbers fall and reducing our demands on Earth are the obvious path. We're told that's impossible, but where we're headed really is impossible.
Appreciate the link to www.bio4climate with a whole website of resources explaining how nature regulates climate.
I talk all day about regenerating natural ecosystems, so i will take this moment to air a short view on technology.
With Project Drawdown identifying over 80 ways to reduce carbon emissions available with current technology (or no technology) it is astonishing that we are focused on the most destructive path forward- rebuilding the entire growth-based economy on "clean" energy.
Along with natural solutions and tech solutions are behavioral solutions.
For example changing zoning laws, building codes, farming and eating practices, and work schedules would all reduce emissions without any mining or major change of life style.
My personal favorite is composting. Imagine if all packaging was required to be compostable and all food waste was composted. In nature waste is always a resource ...
In my mind, the only real solution is that humanity heals our relationship with nature.
I couldn't agree more!
Every paradigm can be remade. That’s the crime of our current actions. Fungi, industrial hemp and the solidarity of the masses to demand science implement climate crisis policy. Not politicians.
Your narrative about renewables is obviously diametrically opposed to truth. It is a must.
Done properly, we can use the resources existing and implement it smartly, resource extraction should be minimal.
Not a damn thing you listed as any consequential effect in a statistically significant manner concerning the eminent climate crisis, or interrupting the sixth grade mass extinction we happen to be existing in.
The only way people can change the dominant paradigm is to change corporate planet and treasury raping entities.
I don’t know where the LD room is, keep looking.
This is an intentionally disingenuous narrative proffered by the fossil fuel planet and treasury rapers.
Obviously, the few intact wilderness places need preserved. We need to restore every single bio regional Eco habitat on every continent.
Those are given for odds above zero of complex lifeforms survival.
Completely different topic than our insane altering of the atmosphere.
There’s not enough space on earth to make that happen, moreover you’re not sequestering it you’re just holding it for a speck of time in a geologic context. A forest the size of New Mexico planted on an annual basis will only remove United States contributions to the atmospheric CO2.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions
Thanks for your comment, Hudson.
I'm well aware of industry narratives. I've risked arrest many times and have been hauled aboard coast guard vessels trying to stop petro infrastructure. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, please read this: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-07-17/millan-millan-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-mediterranean-storms/
Climate is about more than carbon. Always has been.
Sure. Please read my reply, slower this time.
It’s about fossil fuels and direct carbon sequestration!
Because we have fucked it off for so long, we must be the absolute basic survival tenets.
You’re so genuine you won’t even show your face? Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down then
I completely understand where you’re coming from, a place of disingenuous bullshit. Do better.
You should bide your time elsewhere.
This is nothing more than a well-done piece of this information and fossil fuel agitprop bullshit.
Thank you Richard!
I agree with Jonathan Tonkin's comment.
One OMISSION: Reducing energy used for heating of our homes -- used INSULATION! nPlant-based of course
one TYPO: the first sentence.... I think you mean to say...fewer people overall (lower population) with MORE people living closer the land....A more nature-based society will feature fewer people living closer to the land, with a throughput of energy and materials far smaller than is the case in industrialized nations today. We will be less urbanized, more rural. We will rely less on money, and more on community-based cooperation.
Nancy Hazard, climate & renewable energy activist for 40 years. Nature activist for the last 8 years.