Mar 26, 2023·edited Mar 26, 2023Liked by Charles Eisenstein
Great video and insights Charles. Jimi's work is awesome!
It's really very simple why carbon became the bogey-man. It was the easiest to monetise and the EU carbon market in the early 90's was the start of it all. Unfortunately, late stage global capitalism and its several money-making sops to Nature (such as ESG etc.) are all about monetising Nature wherever possible. Now that we have monetised the air my greatest fear is that water and earth are next.
So, if you really want Conservation, Regeneration and Detoxification to succeed then you need to figure out how the 1% can monetise them for their own gain. Of course I'm joking but sadly I'm probably not too far from the truth either. At the end of the day we (as a collective global society) will eventually realise our mistakes and start seeing things holistically. Or we will die.
I'm reminded of being an apprentice, which etymology ultimately comes from the PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take hold of." Ultimately an apprentice must observe in order to understand and seize the knowledge. Far too many are pretending to be masters already without doing the work of observing. And for me OBSERVING IS THE WORK, as it leads to the correct understanding, which results in the correct actions. Indeed, the word "observe" itself comes from "ob + servare" meaning "to watch, keep safe, protect."
At the end of the day, I think the old monastic orders understood our symbiotic role with Nature best. Laborare et Orare - To work is to pray. For it is only in doing the work, that we will save our planet, and maybe even save ourselves in the process.
Beautiful, yes! We took observation out of science (and I might add ‘listening,’ and ‘feeling’), by focusing solely on the scientific method. Hypothesis testing, in which the hypotheses are narrow theories that leave out vast fields of information. This has occurred in every field of study, not just ecology.. but I feel the tide is turning. X
Yes! Science started as a way of appreciating and working with God's will. Tenure and government grants and null hypotheses turned science into a way of destroying the entire fucking universe. When the goal of every paper is to prove null, the result is a null universe.
Charles, I hope you might get a chance to mention the work of Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute. He promotes what he calls the "soft energy path". It is actually cheaper to improve energy efficiency than to build new power plants, whether they be solar or coal or nuclear. RMI has demonstrated 200-MPG cars and their HQ is a building that uses no fuel or electricity for heating -- just super-insulation, heat exchanged ventilation, and passive solar. This in Snowmass, CO where temperatures go to minus 30 every year.
Using energy more efficiently is a viable alternative to cutting down forests for "solar farms", and even competes favorably with rooftop solar.
Yes there are lots of technologies like that. None or our environmental problems are technically very difficult to solve. Furthermore, beyond doing what we already do more efficiently, the real solution is to do different things, which requires a different pattern of life. For example, smaller homes in denser communities with vibrant public life.
Yes, Charles, and reducing consumption. Not only do we need more efficiency; we need lower demand. My daytime heating is set at 64 degrees F. (that's 18 C.), off at night; in summer I rely on trees and breeze for cooling. I fly only in my dreams, and I drive (mostly on renewable electricity) about 3000 miles per year.
Thank you for mentioning Lovins’ work. His book ‘Natural Capitalism’ was hugely influential in my outlook on how to solve our environmental problems. I’ve always thought he should serve in a presidential cabinet.
Agree with all of it. However I don't believe it is the flawed science or a limited eco perspective that truly prevents us from taking care of our precious earth home. it is the basic culturally embedded arrogance caused by a dominator 'master of the universe' model adopted and reinforced for multiple generations. We naturally. instinctually and biologically know how to work and live and survive in harmony with the planet who gave birth to us. We have simply been trained and domesticated out of that knowlege with a multi-generational ponzi scheme of epic proportions. The only way forward I see at this point is for the individual human to consciously choose to stop listening to our supposed 'leaders' and take back our own sovereignty. So the burning question for me these days is why oh why are so many still willing to follow these insane alphas over the edge of the cliff ??? We can now prove up one side and down the other why we should absolutely NOT being doing what most of our leaders are telling us to do. Yet here we all are anyway. If I could only understand why so many choose to follow bad leaders rather than claim their own power and soveregnty, I might be know what best actions to take. I realize there are lots of legitimate causes of this follow the leader shit, but surely surely surely at the end of the day when the survival of our entire species is threatened, some gentic/concsiousness switch will kick in and we can alter our behavior. At least I used to hope so.
Yes! My comment echoes much of what you say here before I read through the (largely illuminating) comments -- I would toss in one more bespoke nugget, a term I coined a few years ago: can we intentionally engender the emergence (return?) of Homo Correctus -- a species that would not be dominated by domination tendencies but operate from a depth of understanding of symbiosis, systems and flows. It's kind of a new brain we need to grow, that is yes much more spiritually rooted (right-brain/left-brain balance adjusted?) -- in many cases, I don't feel the cognitive capabilities are actually in place today in us in order to truly perceive very much of what we only glimpse here and there -- and yet deeper wisdom and vaster perception was common here and there in previous homo sapiens cultures.....a mysterious dip to the dark side, we seem to have taken
I vote for Homo Correctus! I find the evolutionary biology perspective helpful and am fascinated by the illuminating ( and humane!) social experiments done with various species and groups of primates. Especially in the past few decades, the results of these experiments have certainly convinced me that we have the deeply encoded inherent genetic proclivities for both aggression/domination and peace/cooperation. Which way a primate group goes hugely depends on both environment and the dominant group energy. For example, the more peaceful primate groups generally live in resource rich rainforests with little competition for food and relatively few predators. Conversely the more aggressive primates generally live in areas where they must compete more fiercely for food and defend themselves against more predators. Pretty basic adaptive biology. However here is where it gets very interesting; when a few members of say an aggressive group are introduced into a closely related species group that is more peaceful, the few aggressive primates quickly adapt themselves to the peaceful behavior of the larger group. Vice versa also appears to be true. So one could extrapolate that if the majority of humanity determined to become peaceful and cooperative, the rest would naturally follow along, irregardless of early training. But. and this is a huge obstacle in my mind, the surrounding environmental factors would also need to promote peaceful/cooperative behaviorial responses and realisticlly Nature can be a very harsh mistress at times. So I believe there are valid survival as well as psycho-social reasons to keep our warrior protector side in healthy balance with our healer peacekeeper side. Going all peace love and light defies the laws of our day and night universe. Yet as we know dominating everything in sight is out of balance too. So as always, I ineveitably come back to my tribal ancestral teachings that the purpose of human beings is to balance the opposing cosmic forces; both withn and without.
really helpful ! thinking about peaceful primates lifts my spirits -- and, yes Balance, amen. This is what the Ch'an/Taoists were on about in their own nature-rooted way as well, as well as the great George Clinton: https://youtu.be/UatXfWIIv7A
I so appreciate this dialogue. Not listening to our supposed leaders isn't as easy as one thinks withh government curruption, there are bad bills that eliminate NEPA and CEQA (environmental review) on the state and federal level, regulatory agency capture -the FDA for example is violating its own laws, right now so many bad bills in the hopper with "federal and state pre-emption," where the hands of local leaders can be tied. I would like to know of organizations that are not in service to the Green Economy at the expense of conservation- I worked at one as a volunteer only to have my hopes dashed by the top-down hierachy that doesn't allow the entire organization to speak on any environmental issue that wasn't approved by their Board of six or so people. We had radio silence on the "elephant in the room," . Local communities get money from developers to build slums of the future with no green spaces to grow food, the buildings are actually not green, and are creating artificial urban corridors, but on these "soul les buildings" is are on grid solar supposedly to make this earth friendly when it is not.
The pathological need for more and more and more money rules in America 2023. For some people, there is no genetic/consciouness switch. We tell ourselves cheery stories lie that to avoid feeling the ghastly reality that there are corporate and individual monsters in our midst. We tell ourselves those stories wo we won't have to get off our butts and do the hard work and scary actions. It is taking me five minutes, tops to write this comment while I sit at my comfy desk in my comfy trailer. And, where are our guillotines?The French and American Revolutions weren't won by blogs and social media posts. We are wimpy cowards.
Yes we are wimpy cowards. But hey, good luck going up against armed robots, sonic grenades, microwave weapons and tear gas. Not to mention plain ole guns and tanks, etc. All of which have been used by our fearless leaders to quell the restless masses. There are multiple ways to fight; perhaps even better and sneakier ways. The French and American Revolutions were very different situations than what we are faced with on the ground today. Same with the Civil War, when it was still possible to go up directly against the federal government as an equal force. Today however. we are so outgunned and out propagandized; I don't see how a direct, no holds barred confrontation would serve us. It may come to armed conflict in the end, but folks would have to be alot more desperate than they are now. When desperate WW1 vets marched on the White House during the Great Depression to demand their promised bonus pay; Hoover sent out the military troops against them and they were tear gassed and beaten into submission. First time tear gas, a weapon of war, was used against American Citizens by it's own government. And they used it against veterans no less! They justified this by cleverly painting the protesting veterans as communists and red agitators. Today american law enforcement still uses tear gas even though it has been internationally banned since 1993 as a weapon of war. https://daily.jstor.org/how-tear-gas-became-a-staple-of-american-law-enforcement/
Belle & RMW are right. Instead of surrounding the home of a fearless leader with a few hundred people (anyone see the Israeli protessts last week?) people might simply borrow a few EMPs and call it a day. The Viking battle axe was very effective until someone borrowed one and reverse engineered it. Our brothers and sisters who work for these psychopaths can't see above their monthly bills. Will you help them gaze up?
Very good points Charles. Thank you. Such is the modern binary decision process. If you’re not on board with the WEF DAVOS crowd anticarbon nonsense you must want to destroy the planet. No, we see the horrific negative impact humans are having, and it cannot continue in its present form, but being ruled by self appointed technocrats and herded like sheep is not the answer.
What is your point here? Who are those naughty technocrats and who is herding us sheep? Matter of fact, who are the sheep? When you've been arrested for earth-protectino actions, then you can criticize others. Been there, done that.
Beautifully and succinctly put Charles. Your message is simple and based on intelligent love. Many thanks for having the courage and perspicacity to challenge the current 'zero carbon ' mono narrative.
Mar 26, 2023·edited Mar 26, 2023Liked by Charles Eisenstein
While in principle all of this makes sense, until people feel like they matter they won't treat the Earth's resources as as though they matter. Everywhere you look people are traumatized and acting out there trauma on each other, including and especially the oligarchs. Much of the work you're doing addresses this, but I'm inclined to think that until we find a path to healing that trauma, we'll be fighting against the tide of mutual and self-hatred.
I love the work of Brené Brown who talks about shame and how foundational it is to our sense of / lack of self-worth. The predatory capitalist model is based upon and profits greatly from our sense of inadequacy and fear of the future. They drive this insecurity through advertising and convince people that their only value comes through material acquisition.
As citizens of the world we need to tear down this predatory competitive capitalist model which exploits human vulnerabilities for profit and power. Only by creating a more holistic, cooperative economic system - with the means of production owned by localized communities, not the state or corporations - can we restore wholeness in our psyches which empowers us to restore wholeness to our communities. Then, perhaps we can commit energy to healing our relationship to our home planet Earth.
Thank you so much for this, Charles. This is probably the first and only non-polarising article I have read on climate change. Finally, something that actually makes sense, and means I no longer feel alone.
Thanks for seeing that! I try very hard not to be polarizing. Polarization is what paralyzes society and allows powers unfriendly to public wellbeing to have their way.
I'm very sympathetic to most of Charles' points in this essay. And I'm a huge fan of the Living Earth framing which Charles brings to the table. And I agree that the water cycle factors in global weirding need to be integrated into an expanded paradigm of anthropogenic climate disruption.
BUT... but... I disagree that Charles' essay isn't "polarizing" in a certain sense. After all, Charles has not, as I see it, called for an integration of the CO2 paradigm with the Living Earth / water cycle paradigm, but his writings on these topics have instead leaned more in the direction of proposing a replacement of the CO2 / greenhouse gas paradigm with the water cycle / Living Earth paradigm.
I'm a big fan of Charles' work, and I think he's onto important and valuable things here, but I'm not convinced by Charles' arguments against the CO2 paradigm, as stated. I have no reason to doubt that the mixed and nuanced means of assessing global average temperatures used by the IPCC should be replaced by a restriction of data to satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, instead. IPCC scientists have a very good scientific reason for a blended / mixed approach to temperature data analysis. And so Charles' claim that warming is not accelerating is almost certainly not true. I think Charles does a disservice to his valuable insights about the Living Earth and water cycle factors when he seeks to undercut the CO2 paradigm rather than to expand the overall climate science paradigm to be much more inclusive of these other factors which Charles emphasizes.
To get fully beyond polarization, we have to get into dialogue. Dialogue requires all points of view to receive a fair hearing from all quarters.
James, it's not what Charles argues for or against—and he clearly has strong views. It is the way he expresses those views that I perceive as non-polarising. We don't have to sit on the fence, nor agree with all perspectives to embrace the other. That's what I consistently see Charles doing: embracing the other. This is enemy love. This is what attracts me.
Good point! In my analysis, much of this polarization has to do with another historic polarization: the difficulties of climate scientists to find proof for global warming. While the GHG effect was hypothesized in the early 20th century, proof of its realness only came in 2003, 100 years later. In the late 20th century, many argued that landuse change and desertification were actually responsible for the warming trends that were regionally observable... and it was the GHG advocates who could not yet bring proof. Well, we flipped and forgot about the climate impacts of landuse. The challenge is to see TWO drivers simultaneously. Beats our discipline-based science structure, and the ability of (some) humans to think in complex structures.
This is not correct. The Greenhouse effect was recognized by 1824, and the danger of a runaway greenhouse effect due to industrial civilization was clearly recognized and quantified by the 1970s. James Hansen had enough data to sound an unequivocal alarm in the 1980s - at which point the fossil fuel industry kicked denial propaganda into HIGH gear in an attempt to cover up the danger.
There's a difference between hypothesizing a mechanism, and demonstrating that the mechanism is active and real.
I am not willing to debate when and who discovered the greenhouse effect... 1824 (Fourier), 1856 (Eunice Foote), 1859 (Tyndall), 1896 (Arrhenius), and then again in the earliest 20th century people hypothesized it. James Hansen could not demonstrate the warming, but he could make a strong point that there will be warming. Even though, there were some reasonable doubts that would take too long to get into - CO2 was already saturating atmospheric absorption, so scientists were wondering how more CO2 would make a difference.
I was working at Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in 2003, among the leading research centres. PIK scientists accepted the following paper as first statistical evidence that there is an anthropogenic greenhouse effect that is warming the troposphere (more precisely, elevating the boundary of the lower troposphere):
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
Sorry, but the evidence that there is extremely dangerous human GHG driven warming happening right now, which is putting us on the precipice of a Permian level extinction event, is absolutely undeniable - so undeniable that even the IPCC, which is being hammered by *massive* manipulation under fossil fuel industry influences, is showing *even* in its watered down analysis, that we are in deep shit. Period. The most recent analysis of Hansen and his team is far more independent and robust, and shows a far more alarming picture, at: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
The evidence s that global warming is taking dangerous levels. The GHG connection is hypothesized based on models. And maybe the causality is - well, not totally wrong, but very incomplete.
The current climate models mesh together the impacts from landuse change and the increase of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases, and call them 'greenhouse gas effect'. This way, what we experience is sold as 100% greenhouse gas driven, but in reality much of what we experience is landuse change driven. Recently, Anastassia Makarieva found a bug that is probably active across all climate models. And all the "evidence" you are quoting is based on these models. Unfortunately, climate change science is very much unaware of meteorologcal discussions.
Point taken. Call it 'strong corroboration' then. 2003 was when data measurements could, the first time ever, demonstrate with very high certainty that the Earth is warming globally from atmospheric GHGs, not just in multiple regions with landuse change. (some statisticician from Frankfurt, Germany, delivered that - a mathematician ;-) ). I participated in the eariest champagne celebrations of my life, at Potsdam Institute for Climate Adaptation Research: were finally knew with great certainty that we were not wrong about global warming. A fear became observable reality.
I'd be pleased, Thorsten, if you could provide links to any articles or papers on what happened then in 2003. I'm curious.
It seems to me that only very rarely, if ever, do the phenomena in our world have singular causes. Usually, events (I tend strongly toward process-relational ontology) have multiple -- and often many -- causal factors behind them, so to speak. This means our world (nature) is highly complex. It seems to me not to include the water cycle more fully in climate science -- which is not to include the role of forests, of groundwater, of soil..., renders the paradigm of climate science inadequate. And not just a little bit inadequate!
The practice of science is always, in various senses, political in nature. (I define 'politics' simply as 'decision making in groups'). I think the time has come to include living systems much more fully into climate systems in relation to climate science. This will be very challenging, not merely because of the inertia embedded in the current established systems of climate science, but also because it's so much easier to measure and predict simpler systems than more complex ones.
I agree with Charles' premise that thriving, intact ecosystems result in a far more adaptive and resilient Earth system as a whole. So "carbon reductionism" is, indeed, a bit of a catastrophe. And it's ultimately a political catastrophe, with politics defined as "decision making in groups'. Among these 'groups' are those who comprise the group known as the community of climate scientists themselves.
I don't have citations at hand right now, but can do so next week.
The scientific thrust, back then, was to single out GHG-driven global warming from the complex overall system of Gaia. Which certainly is a valid analysis. It's a bit like being a specialized heart surgeon. Doing heart surgery does not invalidate that the liver is important as well. I am glad we have specialized heart surgeons. They should just not be our only doctors... We have to be careful not to fall into an "anti-carbon rhetoric" in response to the emerging "carbon carbon over everything else" rhetoric. For some regions, global warming is the ONLY driving force of the planetary crisis - ocean acidification, coral bleaching, antarctic and arctic ice melting have no other driver than global warming. In others, its different. Context matters - Holistic Management 101.
Mar 26, 2023·edited Mar 26, 2023Liked by Charles Eisenstein
Water is the lifeblood. Had dinner with a friend who wanted to move to a pretty town in the South that I'd also considered. I said it was great on the surface but had a dark past -- and an active nuclear cleanup site. He didn't know because he hadn't considered the waters.
It's the first thing I ask before moving: how clean is the water? The soil and the wells? What will I drink every day? Where I am now, I drink artisan spring water that is 99% pure.
I lived in a gold standard state for environmentalism and moved to one that is stuck in the 80s. Incredible beauty -- everything you mentioned about insects, birds and vegetation exists here -- but litter lines the roads and crusts the waters. Plastic bags in trees and gutters. A rep from the Forest Service advised a local friend to spray Roundup on her vast acreage (which she refused). The people are genuinely nice, yet I can't understand how this treasure is taken for granted and trashed by some.
However, I am not separate from "some". I am that person when I thoughtlessly buy plastic, overshop, ignore litter or curse those who trash the planet. I was "some" before my 5th grade teacher taught me about the Earth and why we shouldn't litter. I am that person because I write on a laptop that could have been built by a slave.
However, things are slowly changing as we all grow conscious, heal our traumas and open to love. I live in a stunning natural landscape that will endure beyond our lives. My addition provides a picture of a healthier future, even as I choose to move on. We don't have to live anywhere permanently to leave our mark. The state I moved from was nearly deforested in the 1800s by sheep farms. It's coated in trees now.
"A more beautiful world" exists in the our consciousness before any physical protest or movement. The world I'm in now -- this present physical state -- will change in the next 5 years, in no small part from my imprint. I come to bless the waters, the animals and insects, love the people -- even if litter blows my mind -- it will improve. It already has. It was only a few decades ago that I thought my mom was crazy for recycling milk jugs!
This planet is changing for the better and I may not be alive to see how wonderful it will become, I still hold the vision.
Almost exactly right. The regenerative word, like sustainable, is now also being reappropriated like regenerating the Borg.
I know of holdings where the caretaker has implemented a designed planting that feeds wildlife and its working to produce an increase in the diversity and amount of life. If enough people pitched in this would be fixed quickly.
Any word we use will be coopted. I kinda like the old word "organic" as Rodale used it. Before the FDA got a hold of it, it was all about soil. Not using chemical fertilizers and pesticides was not the core principle (though still important because of what those do to soil). Rodale called it "organic" because it was about organic molecules in the soil. I.e, carbon.
Yes, Charles. I grew up in southern California, and subscribed to Rodale's magazine, Organic Farming and Gardening (which later dropped "Farming" from its title). I moved north, because Oregon Tilth was certifying organic farms, requiring onsite inspections of all their operations. Some years later, USDA took over "organic" certification, and shifted it from principles and procedures to (sampled) laboratory testing of products. Now, instead of all materials and operations being done with life-sourced stuff applied in earth-wise and labor-intensive ways, the term "organic" officially means "does not exceed allowable limits" of poisons, herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertilizers.
I've read the old composting book, quite enlightening.
Yes, when the carbon declines to a low point the agribusiness crowd abandons the land. With the economic problems increasing less profits will accelerate their problems. Two main issues one is to stop this practice of cut burn and poisoning the land, the other is how to restore what thy ruined. People are accustomed to buying food and soon they will have to learn how to restore a small area so they have something to eat. Best in a small community as those who will actually restore the land will need help apart from this task (instead of requiring money). I've watched your work for awhile and realize you know most of this already.
I participated in a permaculture design course and been practicing & experimenting, my holdings are growing with life and more food than I can eat as well (by myself but with money).
I agree with what you say but I would add that we need another dynamic to add to love of nature. I think it’s indisputable that most people are not primarily motivated by this spiritual approach and live their lives in a more practical way. They need a society that enables them to make a living in a way that doesn’t use too many resources etc.So it’s a question of economic equality and distribution of power - how do we achieve that?
Definitely. I wasn't going to attempt to answer that in this article, though I did attempt it in a 400 page book back in 2011. But yes, right now our destructive ways are built into the physical and economic infrastructure of society.
And what may be worse, Charles, is that those "destructive ways" are built into our career prospects; our means of achieving a degree of success in this competitive culture. Unless we're in the mixed-blessing position of inheriting a bundle from some exploiter of the past, or we make a fresh fortune out of crying on the radio about a lost love, or we happen to grow 7 feet tall and learn how to shoot hoops, we are left to collaborate instead of compete. What was that about "the meek shall inherit" ...?
Weirdly enough, many people deny that they are spiritual, but their emotions echo the structures of Christianity. The original sin, fear of hell, good vs. evil is as prevalent in "new atheists" as it is in Christians.
If you don't believe it - let's all get naked and dance! Most people will die of shame, including the non-religious ones.
Yes, many of the core themes of the culture we call "Western civilization" and "modernity" have roots in Christianity. That should hardly be surprising, as the Christian church/s essentially defined Western civilization for a great many centuries.
One example of the continuity of the traditional Christian worldview into the modern era in Western Civ is the present near ubiquity of anthropocentrism -- which I would argue is straight out of the book of Genesis.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
When early modern science appeared during the 'Enlightenment', it took features of the Genesis story and wove them into the new scientific mythos. It was a story which features man (humanity) as the source of all meaning and value, and explained that humans ought to dominate the world -- to have "dominion" over all of the Earth. What is more, it was the task of humans to perfect the world by intervening into everything -- e.g., building dams and canals so we could grow fruits and vegetables in what had been a patch of desert.
Anyway, anyone who wants to get naked and dance together can count me in!
Just saying ecological campaigner not environmental campaigners would help a lot seeing us as part of that ecology not observers of it.
Added to that we should have a big category for emotional health not mental health. A large number of depressions are not 'mental' issues but ones of loss of connection and meaning
I agree Chris. I notice that media and people in general often speak of "the" environment. A simple change to "our" environment might help change some attitudes.
The trouble with using "our" environment is that "our" implies ownership. Ownership is one of the most basic mistakes humans have been making for millennia ....
I live in LA in a high-fire area. At a community meeting one of the head fire chiefs spoke. I caught up with him afterward and asked if a policy could be implemented in the valley of LA, which can have very high urban temperatures, for homeowners to be subsidized for watering and caring for the large trees that provide a canopy and thus shade. I swear to God he wanted to pat me on the head for an idea from a 'good little girl.' He was not white. And I do not attribute the attitude to sexism per se, but to the attitudes by our officials. I have also written officials to ask why in the world LA uses asphalt for all its roads increasing temperatures and pollution. Driving to Palm Desert from LA and encountering the massive windmills, you don't have to be a scientist to think they are not a good idea. UCLA is now partnering with the government and private entities to carbon capture using the ocean. What could go wrong? Hmmm. Maybe the death of sea life? This is what happens when busybodies, who don't actually do the work, create plans. Natural Gas is a great interim source. Pushes to enhance the gas combustibles' efficiency would be far more effective than solar farms. But common real-world solutions are not the goal.
LA draws lots of its water from the Owens Valley, which it has basically desertified. Meanwhile most of its rainwater runs into the ocean. It is crazy. They need more sane ideas like yours.
I cringe, cringe, cringe when I see rainwater going into the sewer system knowing filthy water is going into the ocean, polluting the water for sea life, instead of being captured and processed for use. If you drive up highway 5, you see billboards on farms begging for more water. Meanwhile, there are the Resnicks and their water control for their almond investments. Then there are the wineries - one owned by the governor. I love California wine but hearing about a dried-up aquifer where water is used for local wineries has made me rethink this love. California is full of extremely wealthy people who get very very rich saying they are working for the poor while they line their own pockets or the pockets of their cronies. Unfortunately, while the emperors have no clothes, and they know they do not, no one is willing, to tell the truth.
Thank you K.E. Cronin, I'm also very concerned about the death of sea life, including the potential elimination of tens of millions of years of sea nodules due to deep sea mining for EV batteries. You mentioned UCLA partnering with the government for carbon capture in the ocean. Is this the paper UCLA published? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08561 Currently whales, a keynote species, is the ocean's natural way of mitigating carbon, are we trading this out for an artificial method in service to the Green Economy? Technologies often do harm marine life, internet communications use sonar in the oceans. LA County recently approved new changes to the LA County Code that violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) increases the risk of fire and takes away citizen right. LA County wasn't taking fire risk seriously. A group called Fiber First LA is taking action.
Interesting, I was talking to an old friend just earlier today and he mentioned how they were mining the ocean floor for metals used in electric vehicles and such. I hadn’t heard about that, and now confirmed twice in the same day. Not exactly “sustainable”...
It really just puts the lie to all the claims of saving the planet or doing good for the environment. What controllers (i.e. the ones determining the direction of research and business funding, education, finance, technology, etc.) want most of isn't money, it's more control. And the more efficient the control the better. And that's why they want to steer everyone into 15-minute cities and over EV-only roadways with all traffic monitored.
Right now the big hype is how cool Chat GPT and AI is. This will get lots of people adopting it to "make life easier" and even in some cases to make art. Then, I reckon we have at most two years before some sort of "deep fake" false flag or fake Russian cyber attack is carried out so that a verified digital ID must be used to get "preferred" internet access. Of course, this will come with strings attached, like being updated on one's quackcines.
All truth. This is pretty easy to witness if you work in any of these industries. Misanthropes who survive on control don't know anything else. The sleeping workers who fear they can't pay their bills don't know anything else. My neighbors and work together (for free of course) on the local problems we share. The conversations are absolutely stirring!
Charles, you might be interested in my essay linked below, where I came to very similar conclusions (minus practical suggestions) without being aware of your work on these issues, based on my observations of German environmentalism, which in many ways had been ground zero for the disenchanted, technocratic version of "environmentalism" now ruling the world.
Great video and insights Charles. Jimi's work is awesome!
It's really very simple why carbon became the bogey-man. It was the easiest to monetise and the EU carbon market in the early 90's was the start of it all. Unfortunately, late stage global capitalism and its several money-making sops to Nature (such as ESG etc.) are all about monetising Nature wherever possible. Now that we have monetised the air my greatest fear is that water and earth are next.
So, if you really want Conservation, Regeneration and Detoxification to succeed then you need to figure out how the 1% can monetise them for their own gain. Of course I'm joking but sadly I'm probably not too far from the truth either. At the end of the day we (as a collective global society) will eventually realise our mistakes and start seeing things holistically. Or we will die.
I'm reminded of being an apprentice, which etymology ultimately comes from the PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take hold of." Ultimately an apprentice must observe in order to understand and seize the knowledge. Far too many are pretending to be masters already without doing the work of observing. And for me OBSERVING IS THE WORK, as it leads to the correct understanding, which results in the correct actions. Indeed, the word "observe" itself comes from "ob + servare" meaning "to watch, keep safe, protect."
At the end of the day, I think the old monastic orders understood our symbiotic role with Nature best. Laborare et Orare - To work is to pray. For it is only in doing the work, that we will save our planet, and maybe even save ourselves in the process.
Ha! Love this Bevan and it really puts into beautiful context being branded as 'Apprentice' the other day by my sheep farming friend. Yes, yes, yes.
Beautiful, yes! We took observation out of science (and I might add ‘listening,’ and ‘feeling’), by focusing solely on the scientific method. Hypothesis testing, in which the hypotheses are narrow theories that leave out vast fields of information. This has occurred in every field of study, not just ecology.. but I feel the tide is turning. X
Yes! Science started as a way of appreciating and working with God's will. Tenure and government grants and null hypotheses turned science into a way of destroying the entire fucking universe. When the goal of every paper is to prove null, the result is a null universe.
they have monetised water... i felt dread when I saw this headline: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-investors-snapping-up-colorado-river-water-rights-betting-big-on-an-increasingly-scarce-resource/
THIS!!!👆👆👆👆👆
Charles, I hope you might get a chance to mention the work of Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute. He promotes what he calls the "soft energy path". It is actually cheaper to improve energy efficiency than to build new power plants, whether they be solar or coal or nuclear. RMI has demonstrated 200-MPG cars and their HQ is a building that uses no fuel or electricity for heating -- just super-insulation, heat exchanged ventilation, and passive solar. This in Snowmass, CO where temperatures go to minus 30 every year.
Using energy more efficiently is a viable alternative to cutting down forests for "solar farms", and even competes favorably with rooftop solar.
Yes there are lots of technologies like that. None or our environmental problems are technically very difficult to solve. Furthermore, beyond doing what we already do more efficiently, the real solution is to do different things, which requires a different pattern of life. For example, smaller homes in denser communities with vibrant public life.
Yes, Charles, and reducing consumption. Not only do we need more efficiency; we need lower demand. My daytime heating is set at 64 degrees F. (that's 18 C.), off at night; in summer I rely on trees and breeze for cooling. I fly only in my dreams, and I drive (mostly on renewable electricity) about 3000 miles per year.
Thank you for mentioning Lovins’ work. His book ‘Natural Capitalism’ was hugely influential in my outlook on how to solve our environmental problems. I’ve always thought he should serve in a presidential cabinet.
Agree with all of it. However I don't believe it is the flawed science or a limited eco perspective that truly prevents us from taking care of our precious earth home. it is the basic culturally embedded arrogance caused by a dominator 'master of the universe' model adopted and reinforced for multiple generations. We naturally. instinctually and biologically know how to work and live and survive in harmony with the planet who gave birth to us. We have simply been trained and domesticated out of that knowlege with a multi-generational ponzi scheme of epic proportions. The only way forward I see at this point is for the individual human to consciously choose to stop listening to our supposed 'leaders' and take back our own sovereignty. So the burning question for me these days is why oh why are so many still willing to follow these insane alphas over the edge of the cliff ??? We can now prove up one side and down the other why we should absolutely NOT being doing what most of our leaders are telling us to do. Yet here we all are anyway. If I could only understand why so many choose to follow bad leaders rather than claim their own power and soveregnty, I might be know what best actions to take. I realize there are lots of legitimate causes of this follow the leader shit, but surely surely surely at the end of the day when the survival of our entire species is threatened, some gentic/concsiousness switch will kick in and we can alter our behavior. At least I used to hope so.
Yes! My comment echoes much of what you say here before I read through the (largely illuminating) comments -- I would toss in one more bespoke nugget, a term I coined a few years ago: can we intentionally engender the emergence (return?) of Homo Correctus -- a species that would not be dominated by domination tendencies but operate from a depth of understanding of symbiosis, systems and flows. It's kind of a new brain we need to grow, that is yes much more spiritually rooted (right-brain/left-brain balance adjusted?) -- in many cases, I don't feel the cognitive capabilities are actually in place today in us in order to truly perceive very much of what we only glimpse here and there -- and yet deeper wisdom and vaster perception was common here and there in previous homo sapiens cultures.....a mysterious dip to the dark side, we seem to have taken
I vote for Homo Correctus! I find the evolutionary biology perspective helpful and am fascinated by the illuminating ( and humane!) social experiments done with various species and groups of primates. Especially in the past few decades, the results of these experiments have certainly convinced me that we have the deeply encoded inherent genetic proclivities for both aggression/domination and peace/cooperation. Which way a primate group goes hugely depends on both environment and the dominant group energy. For example, the more peaceful primate groups generally live in resource rich rainforests with little competition for food and relatively few predators. Conversely the more aggressive primates generally live in areas where they must compete more fiercely for food and defend themselves against more predators. Pretty basic adaptive biology. However here is where it gets very interesting; when a few members of say an aggressive group are introduced into a closely related species group that is more peaceful, the few aggressive primates quickly adapt themselves to the peaceful behavior of the larger group. Vice versa also appears to be true. So one could extrapolate that if the majority of humanity determined to become peaceful and cooperative, the rest would naturally follow along, irregardless of early training. But. and this is a huge obstacle in my mind, the surrounding environmental factors would also need to promote peaceful/cooperative behaviorial responses and realisticlly Nature can be a very harsh mistress at times. So I believe there are valid survival as well as psycho-social reasons to keep our warrior protector side in healthy balance with our healer peacekeeper side. Going all peace love and light defies the laws of our day and night universe. Yet as we know dominating everything in sight is out of balance too. So as always, I ineveitably come back to my tribal ancestral teachings that the purpose of human beings is to balance the opposing cosmic forces; both withn and without.
really helpful ! thinking about peaceful primates lifts my spirits -- and, yes Balance, amen. This is what the Ch'an/Taoists were on about in their own nature-rooted way as well, as well as the great George Clinton: https://youtu.be/UatXfWIIv7A
I so appreciate this dialogue. Not listening to our supposed leaders isn't as easy as one thinks withh government curruption, there are bad bills that eliminate NEPA and CEQA (environmental review) on the state and federal level, regulatory agency capture -the FDA for example is violating its own laws, right now so many bad bills in the hopper with "federal and state pre-emption," where the hands of local leaders can be tied. I would like to know of organizations that are not in service to the Green Economy at the expense of conservation- I worked at one as a volunteer only to have my hopes dashed by the top-down hierachy that doesn't allow the entire organization to speak on any environmental issue that wasn't approved by their Board of six or so people. We had radio silence on the "elephant in the room," . Local communities get money from developers to build slums of the future with no green spaces to grow food, the buildings are actually not green, and are creating artificial urban corridors, but on these "soul les buildings" is are on grid solar supposedly to make this earth friendly when it is not.
The pathological need for more and more and more money rules in America 2023. For some people, there is no genetic/consciouness switch. We tell ourselves cheery stories lie that to avoid feeling the ghastly reality that there are corporate and individual monsters in our midst. We tell ourselves those stories wo we won't have to get off our butts and do the hard work and scary actions. It is taking me five minutes, tops to write this comment while I sit at my comfy desk in my comfy trailer. And, where are our guillotines?The French and American Revolutions weren't won by blogs and social media posts. We are wimpy cowards.
Yes we are wimpy cowards. But hey, good luck going up against armed robots, sonic grenades, microwave weapons and tear gas. Not to mention plain ole guns and tanks, etc. All of which have been used by our fearless leaders to quell the restless masses. There are multiple ways to fight; perhaps even better and sneakier ways. The French and American Revolutions were very different situations than what we are faced with on the ground today. Same with the Civil War, when it was still possible to go up directly against the federal government as an equal force. Today however. we are so outgunned and out propagandized; I don't see how a direct, no holds barred confrontation would serve us. It may come to armed conflict in the end, but folks would have to be alot more desperate than they are now. When desperate WW1 vets marched on the White House during the Great Depression to demand their promised bonus pay; Hoover sent out the military troops against them and they were tear gassed and beaten into submission. First time tear gas, a weapon of war, was used against American Citizens by it's own government. And they used it against veterans no less! They justified this by cleverly painting the protesting veterans as communists and red agitators. Today american law enforcement still uses tear gas even though it has been internationally banned since 1993 as a weapon of war. https://daily.jstor.org/how-tear-gas-became-a-staple-of-american-law-enforcement/
Belle & RMW are right. Instead of surrounding the home of a fearless leader with a few hundred people (anyone see the Israeli protessts last week?) people might simply borrow a few EMPs and call it a day. The Viking battle axe was very effective until someone borrowed one and reverse engineered it. Our brothers and sisters who work for these psychopaths can't see above their monthly bills. Will you help them gaze up?
Very good points Charles. Thank you. Such is the modern binary decision process. If you’re not on board with the WEF DAVOS crowd anticarbon nonsense you must want to destroy the planet. No, we see the horrific negative impact humans are having, and it cannot continue in its present form, but being ruled by self appointed technocrats and herded like sheep is not the answer.
What is your point here? Who are those naughty technocrats and who is herding us sheep? Matter of fact, who are the sheep? When you've been arrested for earth-protectino actions, then you can criticize others. Been there, done that.
Beautifully and succinctly put Charles. Your message is simple and based on intelligent love. Many thanks for having the courage and perspicacity to challenge the current 'zero carbon ' mono narrative.
If we define "courage" as posting on the internet, we betray the Earth.
While in principle all of this makes sense, until people feel like they matter they won't treat the Earth's resources as as though they matter. Everywhere you look people are traumatized and acting out there trauma on each other, including and especially the oligarchs. Much of the work you're doing addresses this, but I'm inclined to think that until we find a path to healing that trauma, we'll be fighting against the tide of mutual and self-hatred.
I love the work of Brené Brown who talks about shame and how foundational it is to our sense of / lack of self-worth. The predatory capitalist model is based upon and profits greatly from our sense of inadequacy and fear of the future. They drive this insecurity through advertising and convince people that their only value comes through material acquisition.
As citizens of the world we need to tear down this predatory competitive capitalist model which exploits human vulnerabilities for profit and power. Only by creating a more holistic, cooperative economic system - with the means of production owned by localized communities, not the state or corporations - can we restore wholeness in our psyches which empowers us to restore wholeness to our communities. Then, perhaps we can commit energy to healing our relationship to our home planet Earth.
Thank you so much for this, Charles. This is probably the first and only non-polarising article I have read on climate change. Finally, something that actually makes sense, and means I no longer feel alone.
Thanks for seeing that! I try very hard not to be polarizing. Polarization is what paralyzes society and allows powers unfriendly to public wellbeing to have their way.
I'm very sympathetic to most of Charles' points in this essay. And I'm a huge fan of the Living Earth framing which Charles brings to the table. And I agree that the water cycle factors in global weirding need to be integrated into an expanded paradigm of anthropogenic climate disruption.
BUT... but... I disagree that Charles' essay isn't "polarizing" in a certain sense. After all, Charles has not, as I see it, called for an integration of the CO2 paradigm with the Living Earth / water cycle paradigm, but his writings on these topics have instead leaned more in the direction of proposing a replacement of the CO2 / greenhouse gas paradigm with the water cycle / Living Earth paradigm.
I'm a big fan of Charles' work, and I think he's onto important and valuable things here, but I'm not convinced by Charles' arguments against the CO2 paradigm, as stated. I have no reason to doubt that the mixed and nuanced means of assessing global average temperatures used by the IPCC should be replaced by a restriction of data to satellite measurements of the lower troposphere, instead. IPCC scientists have a very good scientific reason for a blended / mixed approach to temperature data analysis. And so Charles' claim that warming is not accelerating is almost certainly not true. I think Charles does a disservice to his valuable insights about the Living Earth and water cycle factors when he seeks to undercut the CO2 paradigm rather than to expand the overall climate science paradigm to be much more inclusive of these other factors which Charles emphasizes.
To get fully beyond polarization, we have to get into dialogue. Dialogue requires all points of view to receive a fair hearing from all quarters.
James, it's not what Charles argues for or against—and he clearly has strong views. It is the way he expresses those views that I perceive as non-polarising. We don't have to sit on the fence, nor agree with all perspectives to embrace the other. That's what I consistently see Charles doing: embracing the other. This is enemy love. This is what attracts me.
Tobias -
I see what you mean, I think. And I think I'm in basic agreement with you.
Good point! In my analysis, much of this polarization has to do with another historic polarization: the difficulties of climate scientists to find proof for global warming. While the GHG effect was hypothesized in the early 20th century, proof of its realness only came in 2003, 100 years later. In the late 20th century, many argued that landuse change and desertification were actually responsible for the warming trends that were regionally observable... and it was the GHG advocates who could not yet bring proof. Well, we flipped and forgot about the climate impacts of landuse. The challenge is to see TWO drivers simultaneously. Beats our discipline-based science structure, and the ability of (some) humans to think in complex structures.
https://thorstenarnold.com/why-is-our-world-so-blind-to-ways-how-landuse-is-changing-our-climate/
This is not correct. The Greenhouse effect was recognized by 1824, and the danger of a runaway greenhouse effect due to industrial civilization was clearly recognized and quantified by the 1970s. James Hansen had enough data to sound an unequivocal alarm in the 1980s - at which point the fossil fuel industry kicked denial propaganda into HIGH gear in an attempt to cover up the danger.
There's a difference between hypothesizing a mechanism, and demonstrating that the mechanism is active and real.
I am not willing to debate when and who discovered the greenhouse effect... 1824 (Fourier), 1856 (Eunice Foote), 1859 (Tyndall), 1896 (Arrhenius), and then again in the earliest 20th century people hypothesized it. James Hansen could not demonstrate the warming, but he could make a strong point that there will be warming. Even though, there were some reasonable doubts that would take too long to get into - CO2 was already saturating atmospheric absorption, so scientists were wondering how more CO2 would make a difference.
I was working at Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in 2003, among the leading research centres. PIK scientists accepted the following paper as first statistical evidence that there is an anthropogenic greenhouse effect that is warming the troposphere (more precisely, elevating the boundary of the lower troposphere):
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
Sorry, but the evidence that there is extremely dangerous human GHG driven warming happening right now, which is putting us on the precipice of a Permian level extinction event, is absolutely undeniable - so undeniable that even the IPCC, which is being hammered by *massive* manipulation under fossil fuel industry influences, is showing *even* in its watered down analysis, that we are in deep shit. Period. The most recent analysis of Hansen and his team is far more independent and robust, and shows a far more alarming picture, at: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
The evidence s that global warming is taking dangerous levels. The GHG connection is hypothesized based on models. And maybe the causality is - well, not totally wrong, but very incomplete.
The current climate models mesh together the impacts from landuse change and the increase of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases, and call them 'greenhouse gas effect'. This way, what we experience is sold as 100% greenhouse gas driven, but in reality much of what we experience is landuse change driven. Recently, Anastassia Makarieva found a bug that is probably active across all climate models. And all the "evidence" you are quoting is based on these models. Unfortunately, climate change science is very much unaware of meteorologcal discussions.
My blog explains the bug, and gives references.
https://thorstenarnold.com/how-anastassia-makarieva-challenges-climate-academics-to-behave-like-scientists/
Actual scientists don't speak of their work in relation to "proof". They leave 'proofs' to mathematicians. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/
Point taken. Call it 'strong corroboration' then. 2003 was when data measurements could, the first time ever, demonstrate with very high certainty that the Earth is warming globally from atmospheric GHGs, not just in multiple regions with landuse change. (some statisticician from Frankfurt, Germany, delivered that - a mathematician ;-) ). I participated in the eariest champagne celebrations of my life, at Potsdam Institute for Climate Adaptation Research: were finally knew with great certainty that we were not wrong about global warming. A fear became observable reality.
I'd be pleased, Thorsten, if you could provide links to any articles or papers on what happened then in 2003. I'm curious.
It seems to me that only very rarely, if ever, do the phenomena in our world have singular causes. Usually, events (I tend strongly toward process-relational ontology) have multiple -- and often many -- causal factors behind them, so to speak. This means our world (nature) is highly complex. It seems to me not to include the water cycle more fully in climate science -- which is not to include the role of forests, of groundwater, of soil..., renders the paradigm of climate science inadequate. And not just a little bit inadequate!
The practice of science is always, in various senses, political in nature. (I define 'politics' simply as 'decision making in groups'). I think the time has come to include living systems much more fully into climate systems in relation to climate science. This will be very challenging, not merely because of the inertia embedded in the current established systems of climate science, but also because it's so much easier to measure and predict simpler systems than more complex ones.
I agree with Charles' premise that thriving, intact ecosystems result in a far more adaptive and resilient Earth system as a whole. So "carbon reductionism" is, indeed, a bit of a catastrophe. And it's ultimately a political catastrophe, with politics defined as "decision making in groups'. Among these 'groups' are those who comprise the group known as the community of climate scientists themselves.
I don't have citations at hand right now, but can do so next week.
The scientific thrust, back then, was to single out GHG-driven global warming from the complex overall system of Gaia. Which certainly is a valid analysis. It's a bit like being a specialized heart surgeon. Doing heart surgery does not invalidate that the liver is important as well. I am glad we have specialized heart surgeons. They should just not be our only doctors... We have to be careful not to fall into an "anti-carbon rhetoric" in response to the emerging "carbon carbon over everything else" rhetoric. For some regions, global warming is the ONLY driving force of the planetary crisis - ocean acidification, coral bleaching, antarctic and arctic ice melting have no other driver than global warming. In others, its different. Context matters - Holistic Management 101.
Yes, agreed. Warming is indeed accelerating. The science shows this.
Water is the lifeblood. Had dinner with a friend who wanted to move to a pretty town in the South that I'd also considered. I said it was great on the surface but had a dark past -- and an active nuclear cleanup site. He didn't know because he hadn't considered the waters.
It's the first thing I ask before moving: how clean is the water? The soil and the wells? What will I drink every day? Where I am now, I drink artisan spring water that is 99% pure.
I lived in a gold standard state for environmentalism and moved to one that is stuck in the 80s. Incredible beauty -- everything you mentioned about insects, birds and vegetation exists here -- but litter lines the roads and crusts the waters. Plastic bags in trees and gutters. A rep from the Forest Service advised a local friend to spray Roundup on her vast acreage (which she refused). The people are genuinely nice, yet I can't understand how this treasure is taken for granted and trashed by some.
However, I am not separate from "some". I am that person when I thoughtlessly buy plastic, overshop, ignore litter or curse those who trash the planet. I was "some" before my 5th grade teacher taught me about the Earth and why we shouldn't litter. I am that person because I write on a laptop that could have been built by a slave.
However, things are slowly changing as we all grow conscious, heal our traumas and open to love. I live in a stunning natural landscape that will endure beyond our lives. My addition provides a picture of a healthier future, even as I choose to move on. We don't have to live anywhere permanently to leave our mark. The state I moved from was nearly deforested in the 1800s by sheep farms. It's coated in trees now.
"A more beautiful world" exists in the our consciousness before any physical protest or movement. The world I'm in now -- this present physical state -- will change in the next 5 years, in no small part from my imprint. I come to bless the waters, the animals and insects, love the people -- even if litter blows my mind -- it will improve. It already has. It was only a few decades ago that I thought my mom was crazy for recycling milk jugs!
This planet is changing for the better and I may not be alive to see how wonderful it will become, I still hold the vision.
I think I lived in the southern town you mentioned! The nuclear leakage and environmental issues are very real there.
Hi Marcy! You are more than welcome to venture a guess but unfortunately, there are so many…
That's true. More than I even could guess! Aiken, SC with the Savannah River site
Close! A bit further north -- TN on the Nolichucky River.
Almost exactly right. The regenerative word, like sustainable, is now also being reappropriated like regenerating the Borg.
I know of holdings where the caretaker has implemented a designed planting that feeds wildlife and its working to produce an increase in the diversity and amount of life. If enough people pitched in this would be fixed quickly.
Any word we use will be coopted. I kinda like the old word "organic" as Rodale used it. Before the FDA got a hold of it, it was all about soil. Not using chemical fertilizers and pesticides was not the core principle (though still important because of what those do to soil). Rodale called it "organic" because it was about organic molecules in the soil. I.e, carbon.
Yes, Charles. I grew up in southern California, and subscribed to Rodale's magazine, Organic Farming and Gardening (which later dropped "Farming" from its title). I moved north, because Oregon Tilth was certifying organic farms, requiring onsite inspections of all their operations. Some years later, USDA took over "organic" certification, and shifted it from principles and procedures to (sampled) laboratory testing of products. Now, instead of all materials and operations being done with life-sourced stuff applied in earth-wise and labor-intensive ways, the term "organic" officially means "does not exceed allowable limits" of poisons, herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertilizers.
I've read the old composting book, quite enlightening.
Yes, when the carbon declines to a low point the agribusiness crowd abandons the land. With the economic problems increasing less profits will accelerate their problems. Two main issues one is to stop this practice of cut burn and poisoning the land, the other is how to restore what thy ruined. People are accustomed to buying food and soon they will have to learn how to restore a small area so they have something to eat. Best in a small community as those who will actually restore the land will need help apart from this task (instead of requiring money). I've watched your work for awhile and realize you know most of this already.
I participated in a permaculture design course and been practicing & experimenting, my holdings are growing with life and more food than I can eat as well (by myself but with money).
I agree with what you say but I would add that we need another dynamic to add to love of nature. I think it’s indisputable that most people are not primarily motivated by this spiritual approach and live their lives in a more practical way. They need a society that enables them to make a living in a way that doesn’t use too many resources etc.So it’s a question of economic equality and distribution of power - how do we achieve that?
Definitely. I wasn't going to attempt to answer that in this article, though I did attempt it in a 400 page book back in 2011. But yes, right now our destructive ways are built into the physical and economic infrastructure of society.
And what may be worse, Charles, is that those "destructive ways" are built into our career prospects; our means of achieving a degree of success in this competitive culture. Unless we're in the mixed-blessing position of inheriting a bundle from some exploiter of the past, or we make a fresh fortune out of crying on the radio about a lost love, or we happen to grow 7 feet tall and learn how to shoot hoops, we are left to collaborate instead of compete. What was that about "the meek shall inherit" ...?
Weirdly enough, many people deny that they are spiritual, but their emotions echo the structures of Christianity. The original sin, fear of hell, good vs. evil is as prevalent in "new atheists" as it is in Christians.
If you don't believe it - let's all get naked and dance! Most people will die of shame, including the non-religious ones.
Yes, many of the core themes of the culture we call "Western civilization" and "modernity" have roots in Christianity. That should hardly be surprising, as the Christian church/s essentially defined Western civilization for a great many centuries.
One example of the continuity of the traditional Christian worldview into the modern era in Western Civ is the present near ubiquity of anthropocentrism -- which I would argue is straight out of the book of Genesis.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
—Genesis 1:26 (KJV)
https://theheronhouse.substack.com/p/the-devil-the-details-and-the-leopards-4a1
When early modern science appeared during the 'Enlightenment', it took features of the Genesis story and wove them into the new scientific mythos. It was a story which features man (humanity) as the source of all meaning and value, and explained that humans ought to dominate the world -- to have "dominion" over all of the Earth. What is more, it was the task of humans to perfect the world by intervening into everything -- e.g., building dams and canals so we could grow fruits and vegetables in what had been a patch of desert.
Anyway, anyone who wants to get naked and dance together can count me in!
Here is my podcast interview of Charles Eisenstein on the topic of water, climate, and environment, released last week https://climatewaterproject.substack.com/p/charles-eisenstein-water-and-the#details
Just saying ecological campaigner not environmental campaigners would help a lot seeing us as part of that ecology not observers of it.
Added to that we should have a big category for emotional health not mental health. A large number of depressions are not 'mental' issues but ones of loss of connection and meaning
I agree Chris. I notice that media and people in general often speak of "the" environment. A simple change to "our" environment might help change some attitudes.
The trouble with using "our" environment is that "our" implies ownership. Ownership is one of the most basic mistakes humans have been making for millennia ....
I live in LA in a high-fire area. At a community meeting one of the head fire chiefs spoke. I caught up with him afterward and asked if a policy could be implemented in the valley of LA, which can have very high urban temperatures, for homeowners to be subsidized for watering and caring for the large trees that provide a canopy and thus shade. I swear to God he wanted to pat me on the head for an idea from a 'good little girl.' He was not white. And I do not attribute the attitude to sexism per se, but to the attitudes by our officials. I have also written officials to ask why in the world LA uses asphalt for all its roads increasing temperatures and pollution. Driving to Palm Desert from LA and encountering the massive windmills, you don't have to be a scientist to think they are not a good idea. UCLA is now partnering with the government and private entities to carbon capture using the ocean. What could go wrong? Hmmm. Maybe the death of sea life? This is what happens when busybodies, who don't actually do the work, create plans. Natural Gas is a great interim source. Pushes to enhance the gas combustibles' efficiency would be far more effective than solar farms. But common real-world solutions are not the goal.
LA draws lots of its water from the Owens Valley, which it has basically desertified. Meanwhile most of its rainwater runs into the ocean. It is crazy. They need more sane ideas like yours.
I cringe, cringe, cringe when I see rainwater going into the sewer system knowing filthy water is going into the ocean, polluting the water for sea life, instead of being captured and processed for use. If you drive up highway 5, you see billboards on farms begging for more water. Meanwhile, there are the Resnicks and their water control for their almond investments. Then there are the wineries - one owned by the governor. I love California wine but hearing about a dried-up aquifer where water is used for local wineries has made me rethink this love. California is full of extremely wealthy people who get very very rich saying they are working for the poor while they line their own pockets or the pockets of their cronies. Unfortunately, while the emperors have no clothes, and they know they do not, no one is willing, to tell the truth.
Thank you K.E. Cronin, I'm also very concerned about the death of sea life, including the potential elimination of tens of millions of years of sea nodules due to deep sea mining for EV batteries. You mentioned UCLA partnering with the government for carbon capture in the ocean. Is this the paper UCLA published? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08561 Currently whales, a keynote species, is the ocean's natural way of mitigating carbon, are we trading this out for an artificial method in service to the Green Economy? Technologies often do harm marine life, internet communications use sonar in the oceans. LA County recently approved new changes to the LA County Code that violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) increases the risk of fire and takes away citizen right. LA County wasn't taking fire risk seriously. A group called Fiber First LA is taking action.
We should stop geoengineering and see how fast the Earth heals. I think it would help immensely
Yes!
I read this right after I saw an article about deep sea mining for precious metals for electric cars and wind farms. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/26/deep-sea-mining-for-rare-metals-will-destroy-ecosystems-say-scientists
You hit the nail on the head with this one, Charles! It's all been rebranded for more exploitation.
yup
Interesting, I was talking to an old friend just earlier today and he mentioned how they were mining the ocean floor for metals used in electric vehicles and such. I hadn’t heard about that, and now confirmed twice in the same day. Not exactly “sustainable”...
It really just puts the lie to all the claims of saving the planet or doing good for the environment. What controllers (i.e. the ones determining the direction of research and business funding, education, finance, technology, etc.) want most of isn't money, it's more control. And the more efficient the control the better. And that's why they want to steer everyone into 15-minute cities and over EV-only roadways with all traffic monitored.
Right now the big hype is how cool Chat GPT and AI is. This will get lots of people adopting it to "make life easier" and even in some cases to make art. Then, I reckon we have at most two years before some sort of "deep fake" false flag or fake Russian cyber attack is carried out so that a verified digital ID must be used to get "preferred" internet access. Of course, this will come with strings attached, like being updated on one's quackcines.
All truth. This is pretty easy to witness if you work in any of these industries. Misanthropes who survive on control don't know anything else. The sleeping workers who fear they can't pay their bills don't know anything else. My neighbors and work together (for free of course) on the local problems we share. The conversations are absolutely stirring!
I fear you may be right
Indeed, indeed!
Charles, you might be interested in my essay linked below, where I came to very similar conclusions (minus practical suggestions) without being aware of your work on these issues, based on my observations of German environmentalism, which in many ways had been ground zero for the disenchanted, technocratic version of "environmentalism" now ruling the world.
Thanks for writing this up.
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/how-the-new-left-turned-our-sacred
The water rises from many springs