Climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson has said Chancellor Rachel Reeves support fora third runway at Heathrow airport is based on “the usual techno babble. You know, ‘sustainable aviation fuel and electric planes.’ These cannot deliver on scale and in timeline for the current aviation, let alone the growth in aviation.”
In an interview conducted before making a presentation at a January 30th public meeting in Glossop, England, Anderson went on to condemn the advice being given to Reeves, and her stance on climate change.
Either she was sufficiently ignorant to not be aware of this, and given she’s had lots of guidance and expertise and all the research expertise that she needs to lay her hands on to understand it, that is concerning. Or she’s been dishonest, but under both those, I think she’s not fit for office, if that’s what she thinks is appropriate. So either she can’t understand the issues well, I’m sorry, you need to get a handle on issues, or you’re not being honest with the population, and I think as an electorate, we should have, we expect should expect – this may be naive – I expect honesty and integrity. I don’t have to agree with them – to expect honesty, integrity of our elected officials. She seems, at the moment, I can see no other way but to say she’s failed on one of those which means she is not fit for purpose.
The interview covered a range of topics, and isl being released in installments. Part one, on the physical impacts we can expect is here. Part two, on “Team Mann vs Team Hansen” and the speed of recent warming is here. . It was conducted by Dr Marc Hudson, who has interviewed Professor Anderson on several occasions over the past 15 years. Dr Hudson runs All Our Yesterdays, an “on this day” website about climate politics, technology, protest that covered events from 1661 to the present day.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the interview can be found below.
You are free (and of course encouraged) to use this material for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Please cite both the source (i.e. that the interview was conducted by Marc Hudson), and the URL of this page.
Stay tuned for Monday’s blog post – is Kevin on the Climate Change Committee and its influence on government and academia.
Which brings us to yesterday, the Labour Chancellor, who, two years ago, said that she was going to be the first green – small g green – Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, came out and said that she favored Heathrow airport expansion, and the BBC coverage was helpfully saying things like, “Can sustainable aviation fuel and electric planes make Heathrow’s third runway green?” And my simple response was, “FFS, no.” But we come to you, Kevin for more than “FFS, no.”
So, can sustainable, aviation fuels and electric planes make Heathrow’s third runway green?
Kevin Anderson 14:15
Well, on the question “Can the third runway be made green through technology”. – here I go back to both Mann and Hansen, and their respective timelines to deliver on Paris. And the answer is a categorical no.
But the answer is a categorical no for the existing aviation demand as well.
So it’s not just about any new aviation promoted and facilitated by the third runway. If you focus on the UK, aviation is quickly returning to about 10% of our national emissions. And as we try to cut the emissions from other sectors, then this proportion is only set to increase. The Government’s own Climate Change Committee envisages almost no change in aviation emissions out to 2050, and possibly beyond. Such an industry, at existing levels of emissions , is completely incompatible with our Paris commitments. The third runway is just a reinforcing nail in the Parisian coffin.
So my concern with what Rachel Reeves, our Chancellor, has said, it’s the usual techno babble. You know, “sustainable aviation fuel, SAF and electric planes” These cannot deliver on scale and in timeline for the current aviation, let alone the growth in aviation. They are simply used as a ruse to allow business as usual to continue. Either she was sufficiently ignorant to not be aware of this, and given she’s had lots of guidance and expertise and all the research expertise that she needs to lay her hands on to understand it, that is concerning. Or she’s been dishonest, but under both those, I think she’s not fit for office, if that’s what she thinks is appropriate. So either she can’t understand the issues well, I’m sorry, you need to get a handle on issues, or you’re not being honest with the population, and I think as an electorate, we should have, we expect should expect – this may be naive – I expect honesty and integrity. I don’t have to agree with them – to expect honesty, integrity of our elected officials. She seems, at the moment, I can see no other way but to say she’s failed on one of those which means she is not fit for purpose.
But of course, she is being supported by Reynolds, the business secretary, and lots of other MPs who all of a sudden have discovered the fact that they can somehow reconcile growth in pretty much the highest carbon activity we can imagine with our climate commitments.
And one of the ways that’s been reconciled is this ruse of “net zero 2050”, because there’s a concern here that you can almost squeeze anything you want into that, because you can just assume that in the future, our children and their children will find ways to remove our carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And that is what’s reliant what the Committee on Climate Change, and indeed, many of the big climate models here now reliant on – a really key aspect of them is this, this removal of carbon dioxide, some big carbon sucking machine that we simply do not have today, that is just assumed to occur in the future.
marc hudson 17:30
So does the net in net zero imply Negative Emissions Technology? See what I did there? Yeah,
Kevin Anderson 17:35
Yeah the net in net zero does imply that.
I mean, the net is slightly different, the way it’s been….
Unfortunately we use this term in two ways, the net zero. In other words, we will find ways to remove carbon dioxide that will compensate for some of the emissions that are still put into the atmosphere, and particularly for the Committee on Climate Change, it’s aviation. Very large. Round about for total emissions, about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in 2050. That’s more emissions per person in 2050 than the Kenyan emits today. So it’s completely incompatible with Paris.
But the other part about the net is we use this language of net, as in negative emission technologies. Now that term just trips off our tongue because we’ve used it so often. but in fact, they don’t really exist.
These are, these are in such a small level that they’re little more than sort of unicorns in this storyline. They’re sort of made-up technology, because they exist in that they capture a few 1000 tons, and yet atmospherically, we’re putting out about 37 billion tons. So these are completely different in scale to what we’d require.
And so the Chancellor and indeed, many of her sycophantic MPs and ministers are completely reliant on these ruses to allow their Business As Usual to continue. The physics will continue, regardless of any political machinations. And most worryingly is that the repercussions for poor people around the world – typically very low emitters, and also typically, often people of color who have very little political influence – their lives will be willing be increasingly damaged, ripped apart, their livelihoods destroyed by the sorts of decisions that people like the Chancellor’s making over here.
And she’s obviously just dismissed the concerns, any concern for those people. But she’s also dismissed the concern for the children of the electorate in the UK who will suffer the repercussions of her ill-informed decision.
Climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson has said that the impacts of climate change that scientists had previously thought would only happen at higher global temperatures in fact “look set to be significantly worse at lower temperatures than previously thought.”
“some of the others such as the risk of rapid dieback in the Amazon, or indeed in the Congo, where we have very little detailed information. If some of the tipping point issues play out in the way that some analysis suggests they could significantly accelerate the rate of the impacts that we anticipate from the standard headline framing of the IPCC.
“Another major tipping point issue relates to the ongoing weakening and even potential collapse of AMOC – which in the UK some may think of as the “Gulf Stream”, but that’s just one small part of it. AMOC is a much more global driver of weather and indeed climate. It’s a thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards…. and if climate change continues unchecked there is a very real risk that AMOC will be significantly weakened if not collapse. Much of the world, would in various serious ways be impacted, from changes in Monsoon rainfall, and hence food production, through to dire weather implications for much of Europe.
The interview covered a range of topics, and will be released . It was conducted by Dr Marc Hudson, who has interviewed Professor Anderson on several occasions over the past 15 years. Dr Hudson runs All Our Yesterdays, an “on this day” website about climate politics, technology, protest that covered events from 1661 to the present day.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the interview can be found below.
You are free (and of course encouraged) to use this material for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Please cite both the source (i.e. that the interview was conducted by Marc Hudson, and the URL of this post.
Tomorrow’s interview excerpt – is Kevin on “Team Mann” or “Team Hansen”?
TRANSCRIPT
Let’s start with developments since last we interviewed, which I think is quite a long time ago. We had the Paris Agreement, and everyone held hands and said, “We’re aiming for two degrees”. And then they were forced to say, “well, 1.5” because otherwise the poor nations weren’t going to stay on board. You, at the time, said that this was a farce, as did James Hansen, whom I trust, and we’ll talk about later. As did I, you know? So the three titans of climate climate commentary said this.
[Laughter]
Then, you know, the pandemic happened. So the COP got canceled for the first time, and then they all met in Glasgow and cried in order to “”keep 1.5 alive.” Now that was four years ago. There about and here we are with the US saying it’s going to pull out of the Paris Agreement again, with a 3.6 PPM increase in concentrations last year, which is a new record. I think so. It might be that the sinks are failing as much as
the El Nino,as well
yep. So where are we going to be gazing into your crystal ball – not with the politics, because no one can tell what the politics are going to be – where do you think we will be first with atmospheric concentrations? Do you see three PPM as kind of what we should expect as a ‘new normal’, and where will we perhaps be with impacts five years from now? The conch is being handed over.
Kevin Anderson 3:07
In terms of ppmv. What I’ve read on various scientific forums since the report came out from Richard Betts and colleagues at the UK’s Met Office just a couple of weeks ago, [BBC, Guardian] is that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere will likely not remain at 3ppmv per year, but will likely fall again to more typical annual levels of increase. That said, the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue its relentless rise until we stop emitting.
So whilst the annual rise will likely not be as high next year, or the year after that, there is a concern that as we continue to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and therefore the temperature keeps rising, that some of the natural buffering will begin to be lost. Thus far, roughly half of all carbon emissions we put into the atmosphere every year are taken up by a mixture of the oceans and by the land, that is the buffering – its huge service that’s been provided by nature, but as the temperature continues to rise so that buffering may be weakened. If that happens, then more of the carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere each year will remain there and we will start to see a higher annual rise in ppmv each year – that is more rapidly rising concentrations of carbon dioxide
But at the moment, the expectation is that last year was a little bit of an anomaly because of El Nino. But I wouldn’t be too hopeful that we won’t be back up to those sorts of levels within some reasonably short period of time.
4 mins 47
So impacts Physical impacts?
Physical impact? Well, yes, physical impact, if we could isolate them so easily! The physical impacts are damning between 1.5 and two degrees centigrade. This is one of the reasons that 1.5 came out in Paris as we were starting to get a better handle on the rising scale of impacts as the temperature rises. In contrast to the simplistic expectation that policy follows evidence, for 1.5°C, it’s been since Paris, where we’ve really started to understand the difference between 1.5 and 2°C. My take from reading the work of impacts experts is that the impacts look set to be significantly worse at lower temperatures than previously thought. So what we used to think were perhaps the basket of impacts at 2°C and now more likely to occur at just 1.5°C … though this shift is not all neat and linear. Put simply, we expect to see more floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, etc … with these playing out in terms of food and water insecurity – driven in part by devasting reductions in insects/pollinators, … this may then lead to internal and external migration – all set against a potential backdrop of other tensions. In an increasingly fractious world rapidly rising climate impacts are only really set to make things worse.
In addition to this perhaps more conservative view of rising temperatures and impacts, there is increasing concern related to bigger ‘tipping point’ changes – with rapid and accelerating impacts
AMOC?
Well, I was going to come to AMOC – that is one of them, yes. I was also thinking about some of the others such as the risk of rapid dieback in the Amazon, or indeed in the Congo, where we have very little detailed information. If some of the tipping point issues play out in the way that some analysis suggests they could significantly accelerate the rate of the impacts that we anticipate from the standard headline framing of the IPCC.
Another major tipping point issue relates to the ongoing weakening and even potential collapse of AMOC – which in the UK some may think of as the “Gulf Stream”, but that’s just one small part of it. AMOC is a much more global driver of weather and indeed climate. It’s a thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards.
marc hudson 6:32
Wait, are you saying the United Kingdom is not the center of the world?
Kevin Anderson 6:35
Well, to some people it may well be. But if you stand back and look at the planet from outer space. I think you probably would see the UK as a small full stop on the left side of Europe. As for AMOC, it is the thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards. It’s a fundamental mechanism of the global weather system, and if climate change continues unchecked there is a very real risk that AMOC will be significantly weakened if not collapse. Much of the world, would in various serious ways be impacted, from changes in Monsoon rainfall, and hence food production, through to dire weather implications for much of Europe.
marc hudson 7:07
You used the word “dire” in another interview. Do you mean sort of
Catastrophic
Sort of Mad Max ends up looking like the Sound of Music?
Kevin Anderson 7:18
Well Mad Max in reverse … if AMOC collapses or significantly weakens, then Europe could be a lot colder.
This illustrates one of the key challenges of rapid climate change. For example, here in Europe it could get a lot warmer or perhaps, if we lose AMOC, it could get dangerously cold. But wherever in the world, a major weakening or collapse of AMOC will create hazardous instabilities. Such a rapid shift would be catastrophic for human systems and ecosystems.
Now, if you went back 10 years, I think most people say that there’s a very, very low chance of this, the collapse or major weakening of AMOC, happening. If you look at the outputs of those working on AMOC now, it’s clear that there’s a much higher chance of it occurring that we thought previously. There’s a very real chance of major changes in AMOC happening within the next few years and out towards the end of the century. In other words during the lifetime of people listening to this, or the children of those people. That is really damning.
Climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson has said that the impacts of climate change that scientists had previously thought would only happen at higher global temperatures in fact “look set to be significantly worse at lower temperatures than previously thought
I was also thinking about some of the others such as the risk of rapid dieback in the Amazon, or indeed in the Congo, where we have very little detailed information. If some of the tipping point issues play out in the way that some analysis suggests they could significantly accelerate the rate of the impacts that we anticipate from the standard headline framing of the IPCC.
Another major tipping point issue relates to the ongoing weakening and even potential collapse of AMOC – which in the UK some may think of as the “Gulf Stream”, but that’s just one small part of it. AMOC is a much more global driver of weather and indeed climate. It’s a thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards.
The interview covered a range of topics, and will be released . It was conducted by Dr Marc Hudson, who has interviewed Professor Anderson on several occasions over the past 15 years. Dr Hudson runs All Our Yesterdays, an “on this day” website about climate politics, technology, protest that covered events from 1661 to the present day.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the interview can be found below.
You are free (and of course encouraged) to use this material for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Please cite both the source (i.e. that the interview was conducted by Marc Hudson, and the URL of this page
Tomorrow’s blog post – is Kevin on “Team Mann” or “Team Hansen”?
Let’s start with developments since last we interviewed, which I think is quite a long time ago. We had the Paris Agreement, and everyone held hands and said, “We’re aiming for two degrees”. And then they were forced to say, “well, 1.5” because otherwise the poor nations weren’t going to stay on board. You, at the time, said that this was a farce, as did James Hansen, whom I trust, and we’ll talk about later. As did I, you know? So the three titans of climate climate commentary said this.
[Laughter]
Then, you know, the pandemic happened. So the COP got canceled for the first time, and then they all met in Glasgow and cried in order to “”keep 1.5 alive.” Now that was four years ago. There about and here we are with the US saying it’s going to pull out of the Paris Agreement again, with a 3.6 PPM increase in concentrations last year, which is a new record. I think so. It might be that the sinks are failing as much as
the El Nino,as well
yep. So where are we going to be gazing into your crystal ball – not with the politics, because no one can tell what the politics are going to be – where do you think we will be first with atmospheric concentrations? Do you see three PPM as kind of what we should expect as a ‘new normal’, and where will we perhaps be with impacts five years from now? The conch is being handed over.
Kevin Anderson 3:07
In terms of ppmv. What I’ve read on various scientific forums since the report came out from Richard Betts and colleagues at the UK’s Met Office just a couple of weeks ago, [BBC, Guardian] is that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere will likely not remain at 3ppmv per year, but will likely fall again to more typical annual levels of increase. That said, the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue its relentless rise until we stop emitting.
So whilst the annual rise will likely not be as high next year, or the year after that, there is a concern that as we continue to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and therefore the temperature keeps rising, that some of the natural buffering will begin to be lost. Thus far, roughly half of all carbon emissions we put into the atmosphere every year are taken up by a mixture of the oceans and by the land, that is the buffering – its huge service that’s been provided by nature, but as the temperature continues to rise so that buffering may be weakened. If that happens, then more of the carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere each year will remain there and we will start to see a higher annual rise in ppmv each year – that is more rapidly rising concentrations of carbon dioxide
But at the moment, the expectation is that last year was a little bit of an anomaly because of El Nino. But I wouldn’t be too hopeful that we won’t be back up to those sorts of levels within some reasonably short period of time.
4 mins 47
So impacts Physical impacts?
Physical impact? Well, yes, physical impact, if we could isolate them so easily! The physical impacts are damning between 1.5 and two degrees centigrade. This is one of the reasons that 1.5 came out in Paris as we were starting to get a better handle on the rising scale of impacts as the temperature rises. In contrast to the simplistic expectation that policy follows evidence, for 1.5°C, it’s been since Paris, where we’ve really started to understand the difference between 1.5 and 2°C. My take from reading the work of impacts experts is that the impacts look set to be significantly worse at lower temperatures than previously thought. So what we used to think were perhaps the basket of impacts at 2°C and now more likely to occur at just 1.5°C … though this shift is not all neat and linear. Put simply, we expect to see more floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, etc … with these playing out in terms of food and water insecurity – driven in part by devasting reductions in insects/pollinators, … this may then lead to internal and external migration – all set against a potential backdrop of other tensions. In an increasingly fractious world rapidly rising climate impacts are only really set to make things worse.
In addition to this perhaps more conservative view of rising temperatures and impacts, there is increasing concern related to bigger ‘tipping point’ changes – with rapid and accelerating impacts
AMOC?
Well, I was going to come to AMOC – that is one of them, yes. I was also thinking about some of the others such as the risk of rapid dieback in the Amazon, or indeed in the Congo, where we have very little detailed information. If some of the tipping point issues play out in the way that some analysis suggests they could significantly accelerate the rate of the impacts that we anticipate from the standard headline framing of the IPCC.
Another major tipping point issue relates to the ongoing weakening and even potential collapse of AMOC – which in the UK some may think of as the “Gulf Stream”, but that’s just one small part of it. AMOC is a much more global driver of weather and indeed climate. It’s a thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards.
marc hudson 6:32
Wait, are you saying the United Kingdom is not the center of the world?
Kevin Anderson 6:35
Well, to some people it may well be. But if you stand back and look at the planet from outer space. I think you probably would see the UK as a small full stop on the left side of Europe. As for AMOC, it is the thermal conveyor belt moving heat from the Southern oceans to the North, and moving the cooler waters of North back southwards. It’s a fundamental mechanism of the global weather system, and if climate change continues unchecked there is a very real risk that AMOC will be significantly weakened if not collapse. Much of the world, would in various serious ways be impacted, from changes in Monsoon rainfall, and hence food production, through to dire weather implications for much of Europe.
marc hudson 7:07
You used the word “dire” in another interview. Do you mean sort of
Catastrophic
Sort of Mad Max ends up looking like the Sound of Music?
Kevin Anderson 7:18
Well Mad Max in reverse … if AMOC collapses or significantly weakens, then Europe could be a lot colder.
This illustrates one of the key challenges of rapid climate change. For example, here in Europe it could get a lot warmer or perhaps, if we lose AMOC, it could get dangerously cold. But wherever in the world, a major weakening or collapse of AMOC will create hazardous instabilities. Such a rapid shift would be catastrophic for human systems and ecosystems.
Now, if you went back 10 years, I think most people say that there’s a very, very low chance of this, the collapse or major weakening of AMOC, happening. If you look at the outputs of those working on AMOC now, it’s clear that there’s a much higher chance of it occurring that we thought previously. There’s a very real chance of major changes in AMOC happening within the next few years and out towards the end of the century. In other words during the lifetime of people listening to this, or the children of those people. That is really damning.
The American author and activist, Bill McKibben has kindly agreed to answer a few questions from All Our Yesterdays. His 1989 book The End of Nature – about the implications of global warming – was groundbreaking, and whose activism since has included 350.org and now Third Act.
1. According to Wikipedia (!) you were born in Palo Alto and then moved to Lexington Massachusetts. There’s a question I ask almost everyone – according to some intriguing research, one thing that applies to many strong advocates of environmental action is that they spent a lot of time in “nature” in unstructured play before the age of 11. Does that apply to you?
To some degree. My father had grown up out west and was a devoted hiker, and we spent a couple of weeks each summer on vacation somewhere fairly wild. But I was a product of suburbia, and my real immersion in the natural world came later, as a young adult, when I moved to a remote part of the Adirondack mountains [You can read more about McKibben’s upbringing in his recent memoir – the Flag, The Cross and the Station Wagon]
2. Can you remember when and how you first heard about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (Presumably it was in the late 1970s? So I am assuming things like Gus Speth at the Carter-era Council on Environmental Quality, or Worldwatch Institute or so on).
It was in the mid-1980s–but I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that really no one had heard much about it outside of closed scientific circles until Hansen’s 1988 testimony. That’s really when the clock started ticking
3. The “End of Nature” was one of the first books to really grapple with what carbon dioxide build-up would mean for societies and people relationships with nature, beyond being an explanation of the science. When was the last time you re-read it, and what did you think?
I’ve reread pieces of it from time to time, most recently this year while writing Here Comes the Sun, which is a kind of bookend to The End of Nature. It seems to me to still be strong–obviously the work of a young man, but there’s not much I’d change. I wish I’d been wrong.
4. Your next book The Age of Missing Information tried to help people understand what I call the datasmog. That datasmog seems to have gotten much worse. You have to be 40, really, to have any memory of the world before the Internet, and 25 to remember the world before smart phones. Does that have implications for how younger people relate to the natural world, to political processes? What do older activists not understand about this change, in your opinion?
I think it’s pretty clear the world is mostly mediated now, for most people most of the time. We just stare down at the thing in our palms. And if it was providing us with intelligence and wisdom that would be one thing, but it clearly mostly is not
5. All Our Yesterdays is devoted to getting people to realise just how long the scientists have been warning and the media too. What lessons do you think have been unlearned or under-learned from the 36 years since your first piece on the topic, in December 1988.
That while it’s important to win the argument, you also have to win the fight–which is about money and power, not reason and data and evidence
6. Pivoting to “now” – there were successful campaigns to stop specific disastrous pipelines and so on, and during the Biden administration there was, along with a lot that was terrible and inadequate, some things that might give a squinting optimist cause for hope (Climate Corps.)
Well, now what?!
I keep track as best I can on my free newsletter, The Crucial Years. We’re in the midst of two great trends–the very rapid warming of the earth, and the very rapid fall in the price of clean energy. It’s hard to know which will prove stronger; we need to do all we can to make the latter force as powerful as it can be, even amidst the oil-soaked Trump presidency
7. Anything else you’d like to say. (plugs for new books, projects, groups, general thoughts)
Please save September 20 and 21 on your calendars. We’re calling that weekend SunDay and will soon announce big plans to make it a festive moment of celebration of the possibility for running the earth in far more benign ways.
[When more information about that weekend are available, AOY will add a link, and post]
Here’s something from McKibben’s
.
So in about six weeks we’re going to formally announce plans for a big global day of action—we’re calling it Sun Day. It will happen on the weekend of the autumnal equinox, September 20 and 21. It will be a celebration of the fact that we can now run this world without fossil fuels: imagine EV and e-bike parades, green lights in the window of every solar-powered home, big concerts and rallies, joyful ceremonies as new solar farms and wind turbines go on line. It’s going to happen around the world. It’s going to demand justice—above all, that we figure out how to finance this revolution around the world, so the people who need it most can take full part. And it’s going to be beautiful.
This may not look, at first glance, like ‘resistance’ or ‘opposition.’ But in fact this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry fears most: the truth that their product isn’t needed. That it’s dirty, that it’s expensive, and that there’s a better way—Big Oil’s executives know that at the cellular level, which is precisely why they spent so much money electing Trump. Solar panels are to the fossil fuel industry what water was to the Wicked Witch.
Help!
Do you have ideas (and ideally contacts) for people AOY should interview? There’s absolutely nothing automatically wrong with white middle-aged men (speaking as one), but it turns out they are only one sliver of a vibrant broad climate movement. So please, if you know people from all the other demographics who might respond positively to an interview request, let me know.
Professor Eliot Jacobson (bio here) runs climatecasino.net and is a prolific user of social media (Twitter and BlueSky) to communicate the true depths of our climate predicament. He kindly agreed to an email interview, printed in full below.
1. Do you remember when and how you first heard about “the greenhouse effect” and what your initial response was? It was in College in about 1976 when I was taking freshman physics. At the time I learned that we were about 1/2° Fahrenheit above pre-industrial with predictions of going 1° above by the turn of the century. My response at the time was that of course it was real but that it was not yet of great significance. Nevertheless, I was an environmentalist at the time and by 1977 I was attending Earth Day. It’s been on my mind ever since, especially since Reagan took office in 1981.
2. When and “why” (e.g. was there a particular impetus) did you decide to devote serious time to educating other people about climate change? I’ve always done this as an academic. I try and find things that are true and publish them for free so that everyone can see the information and do their best with it. My philosophy has always been that knowledge serves the greatest good in the public domain. Publish research in journals – free. And when I was in the casino industry, my motto was always to give it away for free. So that’s what I did in retirement when I first came upon climate data in about 2019, I just did what I always do, think about ways to present the information that sheds some new light and give it away. It was just a continuation of what I’ve always done, only the topic was new.
3. What posts/activities have you been proudest of? If you were to ask my wife her reaction to this question, she would tell you that I strongly dislike the word “pride.” I am not proud of anything. I consider that to be purely self-serving and not at all what I am after in my life. However, I do have goals. For example, one of my goals was to appear on mainstream media and give an honest opinion about the future of civilization in a way that hasn’t been said before. I’ve now been on CNN international 4 times and have been able to do just that.
4. You write “However, my intention is to continue writing about the fall of global industrial civilization and the sad times that lie ahead. I hope to educate as well as to move people towards positive action within themselves and in the world. Yes, I support action, not complacency. I don’t expect to make a difference with those who deny science. Banging my head against a wall is not an activity I find worthwhile. For those who have at least one toe in the real world, I hope what I post here makes a difference.”
What do you think have been some of the most effective positive actions over the last few years, either in the usa or globally? I have no interest in trying to maintain civilization or prolong it through green energy, solar, wind, electric vehicles, or any other mechanism that keeps civilization growing for just a few more years. At this point in the story, there is no such thing as sustainable. Humans are a cancer on this beautiful planet, and the most positive action will come when we stop ransacking it for just a few more years of growth. Positive action means doing everything we can to maintain what we can of the planet for whatever comes after humans. For me personally this means feeding critters, walking instead of using any vehicle of any type, volunteering for non-profits whose mission is consistent with this view, and sharing information to help others make decisions along the same lines.
BirthStrike is “Birthstrike is choosing to forgo having children to protect them from worsening social, economic and environmental conditions.” Here’s their answers to some questions..
a) What was the genesis (!) for the birth of Birth Strike? Was it a gradual realisation or a bolt from the blue?
The BirthStrike movement was founded in 2018 by Blythe Pepino, a British musician and activist, in response to the climate crisis and its goal was to raise awareness of the climate crisis and demand political action.
In 2020, BirthStrike for Climate disbanded and became a support group on Slack called “Grieving Parenthood in the Climate Crisis: Channeling Loss into Climate Justice.” They were not connected to antinatalism (we are), nor did they try to persuade people not to have children (we are).It was a brief movement that I have splintered off into a full-on Revolutionary strategy.
b) What sort of pushback have you had that you respect? (Life is too short for giving oxygen to idiots)
It’s not ethical to bring children into climate change, period. If there is a good argument for having children, especially under current conditions, I haven’t heard it.
c) What do you say to people who say “but my child might well be the one to come up with “The Solution?”
“Why didn’t you come up with a solution? What kind of loser forces children into existence to solve humanity’s problems instead of taking personal accountability for themself? You’re too narcissistic to adopt but too lazy to do anything with your own life, so you create another wage slave? Shame on you!”
d) What does “success” look like for BSM?
A mass movement where workers are intentionally withholding procreation to
e) How can people who want to support it get involved/support it?
Join the website mailing list or the FB group. Confront and argue with educated breeders about their narcissistic decision and poor parenting in general.
Hello everyone, below please find and interview with Prof Chad Montrie, whose work I encountered via the excellent Network in Canadian History and the Environment. If you know someone, or are someone, who should be interviewed for All Our Yesterdays, let me know…
So first question, who are you? Where did you grow up, and when did you first hear about climate and how and do you remember what you thought?
My name is Chad Montre, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, which is about 30 miles north of Boston. Many people know it, at least in the US, or in New England, because it was where fully integrated cotton textile and wool and production began, and kind of, in that way, marks it out as the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution.
There is also, as a result, a national historic park there. And so I came to the University with the idea I would continue working in labour and environmental history as well as be engaged with the public history folks in town. And their interpretation is very much in line with the kind of work that I do. So it’s been quite a good couple of decades being in Lowell.
I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky, and went to University of Louisville, and went to grad school at Ohio State University, in Columbus.
I was really not sure what I was going to do when I went to college, what I would decide to declare to be my major. and what I was going to do at the end when I graduated but I was fortunate to run into several people on faculty who had been involved in social movement activism of the 1960s and 70s, in black civil rights, anti war, women’s liberation and to some extent, some of the environmental activism. And they then also went to grad school and ended up becoming academics and basically modeled for me how to do activist informed scholarship. I liked being in college and university. I liked the chance to read books and to talk about ideas, and this seemed like a way I could almost stay in school for the rest of my life, which is kind of what happened and have it as a job. Yet also to make a difference, that I could do something with academic work that would connect to engaging with social problems in the time.
I can’t remember when I first heard about climate or climate change. It must have been when I was a teenager, I was already doing activism by the time I was 13 or 14 years old. There was still a lively anti apartheid struggle happening and that was kind of my entry point to activism. But somewhere along the way, I must have encountered this concept of climate and how climate was being affected by fossil fuel emissions. And so since I don’t remember when exactly that happened I’m not really sure what I thought about it.
I was never exclusively an environmentalist. I was very much involved in labour activism, and, like I said, the anti apartheid movement and things of that kind. And so if I did think about the environment, I often thought about it already, in terms of the layering of social inequality and other dimensions that continue to be part of how I think about it in the present time.
That’s excellent. Was this the mid 80s then sort of, “I’m not going to play Sun City” and all of the divestment from South Africa campaigns. Or just a little bit later?
I think it’s a little bit later. I don’t remember the year here, but I remember the protests that I attended was, they were tied to the boycott Shell campaign. And I went downtown to a Shell gas station where people marching were around. I mean, I’d already been involved in some other stuff by that point, but that was kind of one of the the, I think, the most important kind of events, as far as for me personally, because I also met at that protest, a person who was part of the Socialist Workers Party, which is a part of the Fourth International, and a Trotskyist organization. And I got involved in SWP, and that put me fairly far to the left of many of my peers, or even the social activists in the city. Most of them were good Democrats, or, you know, there was an active DSA, Democratic Socialist of America chapter too. But I would be kind of on my way away from that to something much more militant.
So this was in Louisville.
In Louisville, yeah, and that was when also the Eastern Airlines United Mine Workers, and I think another group of workers went on strike. And so I went to a big labour march in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with the organizer. And I guess that was probably my first big labour march.
And then I went to college, and basically what I was trying to do, because I was part of the Young Socialist Alliance, which is the youth branch of the SWP, I was organizing through YSA. And we were still, we were still dealing with the wars in Central America, and I remember that was a big, big part of what we were focused on, including in Nicaragua, defending the revolution there.
But so like I said, I was never really exclusively environmentalist, but my mentor in college, John Cumbler, he had helped found Students for Democratic Society at the University of Wisconsin, and he was involved in SNCC organizing, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Mississippi. So he’s almost like a classic 60s activist.
So he was there during the Freedom Summer of 64?
I think he didn’t go down until 65 , but he then went to graduate school and worked with Sam Bass Warner and he became a labour historian. By the time I met him, he was teaching a lAmerican labour history course, which I got into immediately. I wasn’t supposed to be enrolled because you had to, you had to be a junior. But I snuck in, and he let me stay.
But then he also started teaching an environmental history class. So these were pitched as separate things, and even he really didn’t, he really didn’t blend them. But it occurred to me, at least by the time I was coming to the end of college, that it would be interesting to try to create a hybrid, to think about how you could bring the two together, bring insights from the one to the other. And so then that’s what I was doing when I went off to graduate school – is trying to think about how to do a labour and environmental history together..
Okay, I have to ask, how did that turn out?
It turned out pretty well, although kind of accidentally. Because I went to graduate school, and I got to the point where I did my masters, and I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to continue on the academic path. It was the time when post structuralism conversations or post modernism was still in vogue, and I just wasn’t really getting a lot out of that.
It seemed like a lot of my peers, they really, really invested in it, but so that summer, after I finished my master’s in 1997 I decided to do a labour organizing internship. And I went to work for the United Food and Commercial Workers down in Appalachia in eastern Kentucky.
And we were organizing grocery store workers who were going on strike. And we went to this place called Appalshop, which is a multimedia community center that had been started by 1960s era radicals who just had stuck around when they were down there doing anti poverty organizing. And so we were using their radio station to get the word out about the campaign. And we were done doing that. We were just sitting around the studio, and I said, you know, “I have go back to graduate school, and I need a topic to do a dissertation, and I want something that’s labour and environmental history.” And immediately they said, “Well, why don’t you write about the movement to ban strip mining in Appalachia?” And I’d never heard about this growing up in Louisville, which is somewhat far away from from Whitesburg, which is where Appalshop is. I’d never been to Appalachia before. You know, it was probably as foreign to me as almost anybody.
But that turned out to be a great topic to do for labour and environmental history, because, as it turned out, the United Mine Workers was aligned with the environmental activists, because people in the region saw surface coal mining as both an environmental issue and a social issue and and soI was ale to write the dissertation to be my first book To Save the land and People, which came out in 2003, so now more than 20 years old.
But I think that was a really good start, with a very specific case. And I, what I tried to do is accumulate more of an understanding over the course of the next decade and a half, different kinds of labor environmentalism. And I think my career took a nice narrative arc from something very specific to a more general accounting, which is the book that I published in 2018, The Myth of Silent Spring.
So I know you weren’t trying to “diss” Rachel Carson, but rather contextualize her contribution. In a nutshell, can you send the book received, and are you still happy with it?
Sure. I still like it as a book. The title actually was something that manuscript readers recommended to me. It actually refers not to the science of Silent Spring, which Rachel Carson published in 1962 to expose the impact of pesticides. It’s still pretty sound as an expose on pesticides, and she did have an impact, I think, in terms of raising environmental awareness, not only about pesticides, but about all different environmental problems. She died in 1964 from cancer. So she didn’t live with her own book very long. And, you know, it’s one of those interesting counterfactual questions to wonder about, what would have happened had she lived into the 1960s and 70s.
But what I think is “the myth”, is this idea that Carson and her book started the environmental movement. And you hear that, or used to hear it everywhere. I haven’t actually heard it in a while, but when I started writing the book, I was hearing it constantly. And you hear it in different ways. There were newspaper stories, magazine articles, documentary films, children’s books and academics too were using this, this idea that the book started the environmental movement. And when you operate with that as the origin story, then you get a lot of other things wrong, including leaving out a lot of people, a lot of historical actors.
What I found, in fact, because I knew this was the case – it wasn’t like I suddenly understood things, but that I knew that workers were already doing something like having an environmental consciousness in the 19th century. Because they were reacting to industrialization. They were reacting to the very historical transformation that was most devastating to the air and the water and the landscape. And they continued to do that into the 20th century, and sometimes by the 20th century labour unions were also involved in being the advocates, being the key organizations, the pioneers of a labour-led environmentalism, and obviously they were coming to it with a working class consciousness. And the unions that were involved are counter-intuitive to some people, but not so much to me, because I see they’re the ones who are the most connected to the industries that caused the most serious environmental problems. Like the United Mineworkers, which people wouldn’t think of as a very environmentally-minded union. The United Auto Workers was key. The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, the United Steel Workers were all very important to starting in environmentalism.
And they’re doing that in the 1930s 1940s so a decade or two before Silent Spring
And then later, even after Silent Spring, a lot of people weren’t necessarily being motivated, or they may not even be aware of the book Silent Spring. So the environmentalism that they did wasn’t tapping into that. I think the book probably resonated more strongly with white, middle class people in the suburbs who cared about things more particular to them.
Yeah, you’ve made me think about sort of similar patterns in Australia, and we had a sort of an upsurge of concern in the late 60s. And I don’t know if you visited Australia, but Sydney and Melbourne still have some of the old architecture, simply because the unions instituted what were called “green bans” where they refused to work on construction sites that were them to be particularly environmentally or socially harmful, and this, of course, caused outrage among political and economic elites who were not used to having to negotiate. What reception did the book get? And were you happy with that?
Predictably mixed. When I would do book talks, sometimes I think the audience might have read it, but, like, you know, sometimes people would ask me “why I hate Rachel Carson so much?”, and just completely miss the point that I’m trying to make. They just can’t relinquish the idea that Silent Spring started the environmental movement and they just can’t really pay attention to the rest, to the complexity of the story I’m trying to tell. Because I think it also would require them to rethink a bunch of other bits of their political social consciousness.
But on the other hand, environmental historians were pretty receptive, and I have done interviews like this with many people involved in activism of all kinds who see this as one of the tools that they need to understand the past, to better understand the present and to bring class into the conversation, as well as race, about environmentalism. And so that’s been, that’s been good.
And, I mean, I was kind of surprised. I feel like, in a way, it’s, you know, it’s now six years old. People are still talking about, I think it kind of gets attention in waves. It sort of seems to be living. Like books do this. I don’t know if other people have had this experience, but when I publish a book it kind of then has a life of its own, it goes out and makes it way in the world. And this one is certainly doing that.
So I mean, there was, for instance, a book by Douglas Brinkley recently, in which he again profiled white middle class liberals and talked about how they were, you know crucial to environmentalism, including Rachel Carson. And there was a review in the New Republic which mentioned The Myth of Silent Spring, noting there’s other work that’s been done and that he didn’t reckon with any of that, and certainly didn’t talk about labour or class, really. So it’s there as a piece in a debate. And that’s, and that’s good,
Excellent. Which brings us to your current work, which is sort of stumbled across, you, think, via the Niche Canadian website. Can you explain the impetus for that work and the goal of it?
So, in 2018 I thought that was my last bit of scholarship on labuor and environmental history, because I’ve been doing it, you know, I’d started my dissertation in 1997 so I’d been doing it for almost 20 years, and I was ready to shift gears. And Black Lives Matter was really intensifying in the US then, so I wanted to do something with race, and I actually started writing another book that became my more recent book (Whiteness in Plain View).
But then in the summer of 2022 I got an invitation to apply for a Fulbright Canada Research Chair, and I thought I’d always wanted to do a Fulbright. So I thought this would be a good opportunity, since they seemed to have me in mind. And what I was planning to do was to try to create a book end, in a sense, to my To Save the Land and People book, when I went to Calgary the plan was I to look at the United Mine Workers papers there, at the Glenbow archive at the University of Calgary, the UMW District 18 collection, It would be interesting to see, if you know, how mine workers reacted to surface mining in Alberta, in the province. When I got there, I started, you know, the first week I was there, landed, got settled, started looking at records. But there was no story. The United Mine Workers there really didn’t do what the UMW did in Appalachia.
As a Fulbright I was supposed to produce something of merit. And I knew from my other work that other unions were involved in labour environmentalism. So I looked at other records,including the Alberta Federation of Labor records, and went from there. I realized that the key union doing environmentalism in Alberta was the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, and they actually were the leadership of the Alberta provincial labour organization too. And then they actually have an influence across the country, and they do cross border work as well, with some of the OCAW people in the United States.
While I was in Calgary, I also had a chance to go to Ottawa and use some of the collections at the Library and Archives of Canada. And there I realized that there’s a story to tell about Ontario, and I then wrote two different articles, one about labour environmentalism in Alberta, which was published this summer, in the journal Labour/Le Travail. And then I published this other one on Ontario just recently, like a week or two ago in the Papers in Canadian History and Environment series of the Network in Canadian History and the Environment.
And so this was, this is me sort of moving forward work that I’ve been doing in the United States to think about Canada, which I found to have a very similar narrative. But there’s more to do. There’s a lot of potential there. The environmental historians and the labour historians really hadn’t been giving this full attention. Environmental historians basically weren’t doing anything with with class or labour unions, and when the labour historians were looking at any environmental theme mostly they were exclusively focused on occupational health and safety and not really thinking about how workers and unions were connecting to community environmental problems.
And I suppose, I mean, that’s the interesting question here is, under what circumstances do labour unions, which are always facing challenges from the you know, the owners of the factory, or the sector. Under what circumstances are they able to look beyond that and take on board what some might consider to be sort of almost “abstract questions”. Does it require visionary leaders? Does it require really obvious environmental problems? Does it require church organizations that are pushing the unions to be a bit more, for want of a better phrase, ‘radical.’ All of the above or something else? I mean, what patterns have you spotted?
That’s a great question. It’s the main thing that I’ve been trying to address in all of this work, which is this claim that corporations introduce to the conversation that workers have to choose between jobs or the environment. They pitch it that way, you can’t have both. Implicit in that is that workers never did choose both jobs and environment, and people just kind of went with that story. When I looked into it more deeply, finding in the United States and what I found in Canada, workers have often been involved in pioneering environmentalism because they’re the closest to the environmental problems. It’s not an abstract question in the sense that it can be life or death for them. And not just in terms of occupational health and safety, but they live in the communities where they work. And so, for instance, United Mine Worker membership, they were concerned about how surface mining was taking away their jobs, because it’s a more efficient form of getting coal out of the ground. But they’re also struggling with the polluted waterways, landslides and other things.
I do think visionary leaders are important, somebody like Walter Reuther, in the UAW, who was a conservationist, and he made the UAW probably the leading environmental union in the United States, until he died in 1970. And he died actually a few weeks after the first Earth Day and a few weeks after the Constitutional Convention of the UAW in which they proclaimed that they wanted an environmental bill of rights. And he was flying to a new Education Center called The Black Lake Education Center, which is out in the middle of the woods, and all of that, speaks to his environmental awareness.
Another big difference that I saw with Canada and the United States is that Canadian labour unions are much more engaged with First Nations groups, more so than American labour unions were engaged with indigenous peoples organizations. So, you know, in the United States, the main organization that was radical, was the American Indian Movement. And I don’t, I don’t have any evidence that labour unions were engaged with them. Whereas in Canada, they’re much more responsive to the First Nations groups. And they talk back to the labor unions too. They want to be allies with them around development projects, to address the environmental as well as social problems that those development projects cause.
Yeah, that everything you said is really interesting and makes me think about what has and has not happened in Australia around Aboriginal land rights, unions, environment, certainly the sort of the uneasy alliances, lots of tensions need managing. So what does responsible scholarship mean to you? What does it? What does it look like?
Well, I attended public universities for Undergraduate and Graduate School. I teach at a public university, and I do that intentionally, because I think, you know, it’s a way to connect with working class students. And I was in a place that was open to somebody like myself when I was in college, because of where I was. And yet I also think that I was very aware of the many things that weren’t right about academia. There is some truth to this idea that academics are sort of in an ivory tower and disengaged from the world, or when they are engaged it is with insignificant things. I always wanted to not do that.
Is my work meaningful? Is it socially relevant? Does it make a contribution, and starting with the present, and then thinking about how to investigate, understand the present is one of the ways that that can happen.
The final question is, what next for you, academically – what would you like to study?
Okay, so, like I said, after my Silent Spring book, I started working on another book that was a history of racial exclusion in Minnesota, and it coincided with Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd when I was working on the manuscript. And as a result there are people doing anti racist work, racial reckoning in Minnesota that the book found an audience, and I decided to continue with that. I’m working on a new book that is not environmental or labour history. It’s a history of blackface minstrel shows in Minnesota, which I see part of a way to investigate the culture of racism in the state over the course of at least a century. My partner and I joke about I now have topic one and topic two. So I’m not sure what will happen with the labour and environmental stuff, but the book is getting a lot of space.
Professor Jason Scott-Warren (Twitter account here) is the organiser of an open letter signed by 2500 academics to the Royal Society about its climate stance. He has kindly answered a few questions about the campaign. (You can read an August 2023 article in TheGuardianhere. There’s a piece in the Financial Times[paywalled] today, about the RS saying ,in effect, “yeah, nah.”
BTW, the Royal Society has – understandably – a long history in the UK around climate change, which will have to wait for another day. For now, there’s this from 2006, when it chided Exxon for funding denialist groups.
1. What is the campaign trying to achieve?
The campaign is asking the Royal Society to speak out about the fossil fuel industry and how dangerous it is, both in its determination to carry on exploring for new reserves and in its lobbying activities. Both aspects of its behaviour should be red lights for scientists, at a time when the Paris Agreement goals are hanging by a thread. If the Royal Society were to make a statement about this, it would help to galvanise action in the UK academic community, and to sway public discourse.
2. How did it get going?
I’ve been involved in campaigns at the University of Cambridge, initially to persuade the University to divest from fossil fuel companies and more recently to ask it to cut all research and philanthropic ties with them. It became clear to me that some scientists at the University were willing to give the likes of BP and Shell the benefit of the doubt because the Royal Society had not given a clear steer in this area. So I decided to start an open letter calling for an unambiguous statement. The letter now has more than 2500 signatures from UK academics.
3. What has the Royal Society’s response been – was it in anyway surprising?
The Royal Society has engaged with us, albeit at a pace that has not always inspired confidence. They agreed to hold a meeting with a small group of signatories, and discussed our demands in detail. But we were not surprised when they eventually turned our request down, pointing to all the other worthy things that they were doing on climate, and saying it would be inappropriate to condemn one sector ‘within a complex system where multiple actors need to engage urgently with these challenges’.
Decoded, this means they have swallowed the fiction that fossil fuel companies are ‘part of the solution’. At some point in the future, the story goes, these companies are going to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it under the ocean, just so long as they can carry on generating obscene profits in the here-and-now. The susceptibility of the Royal Society to this narrative is not entirely surprising. The idea of a technological solution to the climate problem flatters their rather narrow sense of their mission. More broadly, the entanglement of some parts of the scientific establishment with the petrochemical industry is so deep that they cannot register what is happening before their eyes. They cannot admit that they have created a machine that has run out of control, and which is rapidly destroying the biosphere.
4. What are the next stages, and what help are you looking for?
In a way, this is all just more evidence (as if we needed it) that petitions and polite debates don’t work. Money trumps everything, and institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them. We need more direct action to demand changes that will never come by asking nicely. But I do think we need to keep putting pressure on the timid institutions that we inhabit, and to alert them to the fact that they have urgent moral responsibilities that they are failing to address. Their behaviour is going to look as shameful in retrospect as propping up the slave trade or apartheid. They still have an opportunity to rectify this.
5. Anything else you’d like to say.
We should celebrate the institutions that are taking a stand in this area—the UN, the International Energy Agency, the BMA and others.
One of the best things about running this site is it offers the excuse to ask smart people to write about their lives and perspectives. This is a long (unedited) interview that I think deserves and will repay your close attention.
1. Tell us a bit about who you are – where and when you grew up, and how and when you first learnt about climate change,
Answer: My name is Anthony Negus, known to many people by my second name, Shane, and I was born in Beverley (Ballardong Noongar name: Wergijan), Western Australia in 1957 to the farming couple Geoffrey and Shirley Negus.. My Australian settler-colonial forebears on both sides were almost all farming people, back to the 1830s on my paternal side and the 1850s on my maternal side.
As we have been in Western Australia so long, I am of mixed ancestry, which made my family rather unusual in those times inasmuch as many of these forebears married across both religious and class lines: free settler Presbyterian Scots with Irish Catholics of convict stock (a taboo subject when I was a child, convict ancestry being widely seen still as a stain on a family’s reputation and standing in small country communities). Welsh non-Conformists and Church of England members wed and bred and some of their offspring went on to marry Catholics who had converted from Judaism. None of this was easy in Beverley/Wergijan at the time for those who crossed sectarian divides, which also usually meant crossing the class divide: landed gentry who lived on large farms and “Nobs Hill”–for snobs, I guess–versus the hoi-polloi of lesser pedigree and far less wealth in most cases, certainly those who were Catholic. However, there was a plus in this situation for me: our family was by and large much more tolerant of difference and diversity than was typical of country Sandgropers (Western Australians). All this religious bigotry and animosity faded gradually from the early 1960s onwards but I still recall kids from the state school and those of us at the convent school taunting each other with ugly shouted insults and chants such as ”Catholic dogs stink like frogs, in and out of water logs”. This made for an interesting transition for those of us enrolled in the state school after the convent school closed. Happily, it all went pretty smoothly.
Less fortunate by far were the Noongar kids who attended Beverley Junior High. This was very much still the era of white supremacy pervading every aspect of the laws and culture of WA society, symbolised most tellingly in the White Australia Policy and the infamous WA Aboriginal Act 1905, a major influence some decades later when a newly elected racist government in South Africa legislated the country’s apartheid regime, drawing much of its inspiration and specific measures that would segregate the races from longstanding segregationist laws in both WA and Queensland. I witnessed the appalling living conditions for Noongar people at the Beverley native reserve. The poverty and lack of even the most basic services or amenities shocked me. My parents were hardscrabble farmers who lived with three children in a house that would be today considered very basic, if quite comfortable by the standards of the day. But we had running water; the Noongars on the reserve did not; we wadjellas (Noongar: non-Indigenous people, overwhelmingly whites of British and Irish ancestry then, as now) could move freely in the community but the Noongars had to abide by a curfew every night; by law, employers were permitted to pay Noongar workers a much lower wage than their wadjella co-workers doing the same job; and certainly the cruellest and most unjust thing the state government’s Native Welfare Department bureaucrats did, usually carried out on the ground by policemen was forced removal of so-called “half caste” Noongar children from their families, after which the littlies, some just babies, went into missions run most often by Christian denominations of one sort or another. This happened to a close friend of mine, now a much respected and outspoken elder, a woman who, as a young girl was used by a number of Benedictine priests, in her words, as a “sex slave”. She wasn’t the only one and many decades later the report issued by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that the New Norcia schools run by the Catholic Church represented one of the worst hotspots for such abuse in all Australia, a veritable paedophiles’ picnic.
I attended school locally at the Beverley Convent School, which closed in 1966 due to falling enrolments, then attended the Junior High School from Year 5 in 1967 to 1972. After that, I attended Aquinas College in Perth/Boorloo as a boarding student and completed my Leaving Certificate in 1974, achieving matriculation, which meant that I could apply to enrol in one of a wide range of courses at the University of Western Australia because my examination results were high enough to qualify me to do so. Our family farm was small, just 1000 acres on hard country and with three children to support on a very modest income, made more difficult by a bad drought in 1969 and death duties levied on my grandfather’s farm following his death in 1968. The farm was now managed by my father and he was faced with inherited debts, impending death duty liabilities and a harsh drought which resulted in a poor crop. If it wasn’t that I won a Commonwealth Student Scholarship at the end of Year 10, my parents wouldn’t have had the money to enrol me at Aquinas College.
This financial struggle for my parents during the whole of the 1970s prompted me to take what was known as a student teacher bond. This scheme enabled students to obtain a Teachers Certificate at very low cost because the WA government paid for one’s course without requirement to repay the money received, on one proviso: that a bonded graduate would serve for a minimum of three years somewhere in the state. As I wanted to become a secondary school English, History and Media Studies teacher, I seized the opportunity to sign up for the bond, thus greatly reducing the financial contribution my parents would have had to have made towards my tuition at WASTC and boarding costs at a university residential college. In fact, my father made it very clear that if I couldn’t find my own means of paying to attend three years at the teachers’ college, I’d have to abandon the idea because he didn’t have the money to support me for so long.
As a fairly solitary farm boy I spent a lot of my time until I was 15 walking through bushland and along the banks of the local river, the Avon (in Ballardong, Gugulja Bilya), observing very closely the native plant and animal species; which I continued doing when back home on holidays from Aquinas in 1973 and 1974.
My siblings and I grew up witnessing regular flooding events, the worst of which caused major damage to roads, bridges and buildings. There were a lot of heavy rainfall events from April onwards, through to late spring. Frosts were a part of everyday life on most winter mornings, some of them ‘black frosts’ which were colder and more penetrating than lighter frosts, so did more damage to frost-sensitive plants kept under cover on verandas. The upside was that fruit trees such as apples and pears, which require at least 300 chill hours, that is hours below 7-degrees Celsius, across autumn-winter-spring, did well and fruited heavily. Frosts are now significantly less frequent or severe, with an occasional cold snap perhaps lasting a few days, but nothing like we experienced in the mid-20th century.
Bureau of Meteorology weather records taken since the 1950s show that annual rainfall has declined in the south-west of WA by at least 20 percent and frosts are much less common than they were. It’s also now much warmer across all seasons on average. The early signs of the impacts of anthropogenic global heating began to become evident from the mid-1970s on, especially to those of us deeply connected to the local natural environment and involved in maintaining healthy, productive domestic gardens. The climate simply wasn’t what it used to be.
In 1977, I became the first member of my family in Western Australia to obtain a tertiary education degree, which happened when I graduated from the Western Australian Secondary Teachers’ College. I was employed by a leading Catholic school named John XXIII College, which had only come into existence that year following an amalgamation of the all-girls Loreto Convent and the Jesuit-run all-boys St Louis School. It was the beginning of a long and successful career at John XXIII College, during which time I rose from a fledging first-year teacher on probation to serve for five years as deputy principal, from 1994 to 1999, after which I gained employment as an educational consultant and, finally, researcher at the Catholic Education Office of WA. I left education in 2005 and retrained as a horticulturalist, a career I pursued until I retired from the paid workforce in 2023.. The last ten years of that period was spent working as a sole trader, offering horticultural services to customers back in my Wheatbelt town where I’d relocated from Perth/Boorloo in 2012, largely because I wanted to live close to my elderly parents and to do some caring for them (cooking meals, driving them to medical appointments in Northam, a regional hub for the Wheatbelt and very often to the ‘big smoke’.
As a horticulturist living and working back in my hometown, the impacts of global heating on the environment were clear for all to see: massively increased bushfire risk, depletion of plant and animal species, the aforementioned much reduced annual rainfall, annual temperature increases across all seasons, very rare flooding events (and those that occurred weren’t so much during winter, as in the 1950s to 1970s, but as the result of summer thunderstorm events.)
Long before all this, though, I was coming across reports in the news about the theory of human-induced global warming and predictions of super-cyclones if our species kept emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the rate then taking place, since much accelerated by the burning of ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.
Climate scientists were already modelling the changes in climate and probable adverse impacts of AGW on the climate of south-west WA. This was in the mid-1980s and they were warning of much more severe impacts in coming decades unless the burning of fossil fuels wasn’t drastically reduced, not just in WA but across the entire world. I had no hesitation, like my colleagues, many of whom also grew up on farms in the State or “over east”, of teaching students in Social Studies classes about global heating and what the future held for them and future generations of AGW wasn’t dealt with by the world’s governments.
We are certainly paying a heavy price for that inaction in the south-west of WA, our largest population centre by far, with mass tree deaths in the Jarrah and Karri forests due mostly to having not received ANY significant rainfall during the hottest summer on record. My 92-year-old mother had to get though night-time temperatures in her house of over 30C for days on end during repeated power outages in January and February. She couldn’t sleep, having not even a fan to cool her off a bit. As a result of this experience, she asked her three children, of whom I’m the eldest, to put her house on the market so she could move into a modern air-conditioned aged care facility that has back-up power storage if there’s a system blackout. The house sold quickly and she’s now happily ensconsed in a new beaut facility.
A farmers’ wife who used to read The Australian (a Murdoch newspaper) and believe their climate denialist commentary and reports has become utterly convinced that human-induced global heating is real. I’d expect the penny has now dropped for hundreds of thousands of Western Australians who swallowed the News Corps lies about climate change—the evidence of its massive impacts is now staring them in the face and many have endured a summer they would never want to go through again but are certain too. The alarming thing is that we are only at the early stages of a rapidly warming planet and much worse is to come.
Certainly it’s a massive issue for most voters in Kate Chaney’s federal seat of Curtin where trees and shrubs are dying as they’ve reached the point of terminal wilting and commuters into the city centre and home again are in peak hour traffic, crawling past tree after tree that are either dead or clearly dying. The weather forecast is for another three months of above average maxima and minima, and with very little rainfall in prospect until late June, early July. If relieving rains do come, it will be far too late save millions of trees in state forests and along street verges in the Metropolitan area. I’m observing all this around the leafy—or should I say, increasingly much less leafy—western suburbs of Perth/Boorloo, in the heart of Curtin, once a jewel in the crown of the WA Liberal Party, the membership of which is rapidly decreasing and Kate Chaney’s prospects of being re-elected at the 2025 federal election are looking better by the day, unlike the fate of our vegetation and animal species acutely impacted by the prolonged, truly unprecedented drought.
It’s really very depressing yet our state Labor government is gung-ho about developing more huge gas projects in the north and mid-west of the state, knowing full well that the IEA, WMO, NOAA and more than 99 percent of the world’s climate scientists, as well as many scientific bodies around the world, have declared that no new fossil fuel projects can be opened from here on if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts of AGW in coming decades. It’s nothing less than state capture by the big gas companies such as Woodside, Santos and the Stokes’ family’s interests in gas companies like Beach Energy. The full influence and power of WA’s monopolistic SevenWest Network is all but total and neither major party dares to defy the damage that could be inflicted by Stokes using Network Seven and his newspapers as an organ of propaganda for Big Gas or deployed them to campaign against any party which says it will take real action to lower WA’s GHG emissions.
2. When did you first start to see changes with your own eyes? What were they? What changes have you seen over the decades? Do you think the pace and/or scope of change is increasing?
As stated above, I’ve been noticing the impacts of AGW on our climate in the south-west of WA, both in the Wheatbelt and here in the city, since at least the early 1970s.
Much can be gleaned about my perspective on this issue from this letter I wrote, published in The Farm Weekly back in May 2019, another very hot year, just as it was to be during the black summer fires over east in late 2019, early 2020…
Last Thursday, an out of control bushfire raged in the hills near Mundaring on a day which reached a maximum of 30-degrees Celcius. It is mid-May, WA has recorded its hottest autumn on record, and we’ve yet to receive any significant rainfall.
It is little wonder to me, then, that 23 former fire and emergency services chiefs from across Australia, people with over 600 years of combined experience, recently warned that “the burning of coal, oil and gas is worsening extreme weather events, including hot days, heatwaves, heavy rainfall, coastal flooding and catastrophic bushfire weather.”
Having grown up in heartland Country (National) Party territory, I’m well aware that many primary producers are leery of meta-scientific theories such as anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, I offer the following argument for a paradigm shift based on a conservative rather than progressive perspective.
What do the following pragmatic conservative institutions, corporations and organisations have in common?
The British royal family, Bank of England, Insurance Council of Australia, National Farmers Federation, U.S. Defense Department, Exxon Mobil Corp, Catholic Church, Reserve Bank of Australia, and the centre-right governments of the UK, Germany and many European nations.
Answer: they all accept the scientific consensus on human-induced global warming and the need to take urgent action to both reduce the rate of future global temperature increases and to ameliorate the effects which now cannot be avoided because of carbon emissions already locked into the world’s atmosphere.
That so many leading conservative entities across the world have reached this position on climate change should come as no surprise. One of the bedrock principles of conservatism is to protect, conserve and be good stewards of the environment on which human civilisation and prosperous economies depend.
True conservatives also adhere to the precautionary (or prudential) principle of making fact-based decisions calculated to minimise the risk of avoidable and potentially catastrophic events in the future. Hence the insurance industry’s longstanding acceptance of the science on climate change.
I’m an ardent republican but I couldn’t agree more with Prince Charles, our likely next monarch: “We should be treating the whole issue of climate change and global warming with a far greater degree of priority than I think is happening now.”
3. What changes do you think are coming to your part of the world? Please distil my answer to this question from all I’ve said above. In a phrase, we are facing a real and imminent existential threat.
4. Beyond “all of us”, who is to blame?
That’s a toughie because the culprits for a very large percentage of GHG emissions across the world cover their tracks with obfuscation, dodgy science done by their hireling scientists, massive positive PR campaigns about their bogus claims of taking real action, mobilising Australia’s media to regurgitate the propaganda sent them by Big Carbon outfits (to say nothing of the threats of losing advertising dollars if particular media companies go hard on the issue—thank God, not a big problem for the likes of The Guardian Australia and The New Daily).
And I have to say, too, living as I do in a small, very conservative rural community where upwards of ten percent of voters cast their ballots for Pauline Hanson’s mob of drongoes and a much larger percentage for the climate-denying Liberal MHR for the seat of O’Connor, Rick Wilson, there’s still a big number of people, mostly baby boomers and older, who loudly and aggressively denounce climate change as a hoax.
The pig-ignorant opinions of these people, most of whom have never heard of the scientific method, let alone ever respected the “eggheads” who do, pose a real encumbrance, if not menace, to our society by encouraging the climate deniers in politics to obstruct any real climate action even more boldly, aided and abetted always by anti-science, anti-expertise-in-any-field populists like Hanson, Dutton, Palmer, Stokes and his media lackeys. Their influence extends so far that Labor has been far too timorous in its policy settings on bringing down GHG emissions—and, worse, it is waving through the opening of new fossil fuel developments and expansion of existing projects across the country, all the while disingenuously claiming it is fair dinkum on tackling AGW.
5. What is to be done, beyond bracing for further impacts?
It will mark a big shift in Australian politics when the Millenials become the largest voting bloc, displacing us baby boomers and the so-called Great Generation in the near future. The centre of political gravity on climate change in Australia will lurch, if not altogether towards the Greens, then certainly towards independents like Kate Chaney demanding far more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation policies.
It’s going to be very difficult for people in this region of Australia to brace for the enormous impacts that are already unfolding at an alarming pace. The only glimmer of hope I take from our current environmental calamity is that it will make the job of climate denying politicians extremely hard, trying to sell a dog of a policy to promote nuclear power generation to an already VERY sceptical public, given that we’d be unlikely to see any form of reactor, small or large, built and operating, this side of 2040, even if the technology were viable as a part of our energy mix at a commercially competitive price, which it most certainly isn’t as things stand.
The reality is that the federal Coalition is just stalling for time to help their mates out in Big Carbon, major donors to the Liberals and Nationals and likely employers of many a retired politician looking for a handsomely renumerated job lobbying for the likes of Woodside, Gina Rinehart, Kerry Stokes, etc. It’s an incredible fact, related to me by Dr Colin Hughes, a former public health administrator in this State and passionate campaigner for far more ambitious action, that every single retired resources minister across Australia, both state and federal, Coalition or Labor, has landed a job with a fossil fuel company since 2001. It’s state capture like this makes me realise that only people power expressed through protests, shareholder activism, Extinction Rebellion actions, voting for Greens and independent candidates, etc, that we have any hope of overcoming Big Carbon’s capture of the major political parties. I assume you are across what happened at Woodside’s AGM last week—a hopeful development, though unlikely to shift the Executive’s and Board’s heedless disregard for the damage they are threatening to do to the prospects of our young ones here in south-west WA living anywhere nearly as well, safely and securely as my generation and my parents have. Woodside is facing a rapid, sharp reduction in their social licence as things get worse in coming years here.
Though pancreatic cancer will probably claim me in the next few years—unless I defy the odds as Eric Idle has—I’m desperately worried about the impacts AGW is going to impose on the lives of my children and grandchildren. For one thing, Western Australia is sparsely populated and the shores of our north-west regions will be a tempting destination for the vast hordes of climate refugees from places like Bangladesh, the Maldives and other low-lying countries in our region. I shudder to think what an Australian government might do to prevent their arrival. Never mind that Australia has been one of the most recalcitrant of climate laggards—no, too generous, hopelessly irresponsible—in dealing with an existential threat that is likely to affect Australia more severely than anywhere else, as demonstrated by the record flooding events in the east and the unprecedented big dry, certainly since Europeans have been here in WA.
I’m doing what little I can during my cancer treatment to make fossil fuel companies and their media company enablers/collaborators/hirelings realise that they will be remembered as climate criminals in years to come, even by many of their own children and grandchildren. To that end I’ve been making hard-hitting comments about both individuals and companies committing these egregious climate crimes, even daring them to sue me for defamation so I can mount a truth defence argued by barristers representing me pro bono and the many distinguished climate scientists and international bodies like the IEA, WMO, NOAA, Professor Michael Mann and many others who’d be more than happy to give evidence as to the dangers posed by fossil fuel companies continuing to expand their activities with massive projects such as the Scarborough gas project, on which these scientists have belled the cat… Why this new climate case against the high-polluting Scarborough gas project is so significant (theconversation.com)
Below is an email interview with Bill Hare, CEO & Senior Scientist at Climate Analytics
You can follow Bill on Twitter – @BillHareClimate
1. When did you first hear about climate change, and how? What was the Australian Conservation Foundation’s early position on it?
I heard about rising CO2 concentrations and climate change in high school from a geography teacher in the early 1970s.
What woke me up to it as a significant problem was an academic at University of Western Australia gave me a paper in nature in 1978 to look at. At first, I was sceptical, but the more I looked into it the more I became convinced it – fossil fuel CO2 induced climate warming – was a serious problem.
When I first joined the Australian Conservation Foundation climate change was not a theme. Stratospheric ozone depletion was an emerging problem, and I was pretty heavily briefed by CSIRO scientist at the time, notably Barrie Pittock. He also brought to my attention, a number of international publications on rising concern about global warming.
By the late 1980s, there were calls for a 20% reduction in C02 emissions by 2005 (the Toronto target). If I recall correctly the ACF lined up behind those calls in various submissions and press commentary.
At the same time, we were also calling for a phase out of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances to combat stratospheric ozone depletion.
2. Australian policy elites first started to have their attention properly drawn to the issue almost 30 years ago, in 1986, with the public following in 1988.
Yes, there was the 1987 CSIRO conference, and that I think marks the beginning of formal attention to this issue
I had a paper at this conference with my colleague at the time Helen Quilligan
Since then, there have been fierce battles over even the most elementary of policy instruments (carbon pricing and support for renewables).
Yes, and at the level of macroeconomic policy, the view by the late 1980s in Australia was that the country had a lot to benefit from exporting coal and other resources to North East Asia, including China.
This became quite a dominant view and provided a justification of much of what happened in the 1990s and beyond.
Hawke in responding to this report, recognised the environmental challenges that would come from a massive expansion of and made the claim that
“And let me make this point. My Government does not accept the simplistic dichotomy – development or the protection of the environment. We must have both. And our record shows that we can have both.”
The ecologically sustainable development process that he set up however, failed to substantially impact the direction and scale of environmental protection in Australia. Paul Keating had a little interest in this when he assumed the role of prime minister and there’s process became completely moribund, under pressure from the resource development lobby and relevant agencies of government.
Climate policy was essentially non-existent, and opposition to action inside government federally was widespread and intensive.
One fairly standard academic view is that this is what you’d expect of a country with enormous fossil fuel reserves and a powerful mining industry.
That is very fatalistic view. Is that what had to be? I’m not so sure – ecological modernisation, under the umbrella of the Ecologic development process was aimed at industrial power. I don’t think it had to end up the way it did.
Looking back at this period, I don’t think the extent of capture of the political parties by the fossil fuel industry was anywhere near as advanced as it is now.
Is that too fatalistic? Does that let the politicians, other business and civil society off the hook?
I think it lets politicians off the hook and does not properly contextualise the rapacious behaviour of Australia is mining, resources industry and fossil fuel industry. I think the Murdoch press played a very significant and destructive roll in all this over the last 20 or 30 years.
It’s hard to comment on the role of civil society.
(And if this academic view is not a good explanation, what is a better one?)
I don’t know how ground breaking it is to describe the blinding obvious in retrospect.
It might have helped if a lot more academics has spoken up about the adverse direction of Australia on climate action over the years.
3. Without getting bogged down, what could and should have been done differently,
Well, it depends on ones view of history. Is it historically determined that in 2013 Australia elected a government that would repeal groundbreaking climate legislation and policies and start a decade of denial?
If this legislation has not been repealed, then I think we would be in a substantially different place. Then we are now, probably one somewhat behind the European Union, but with a range of different policy instruments in place that could be improved.
and – crucially – what could and should ‘campaigners’ (broadly defined so as to include renewables companies etc) do differently in the short-to-medium term to try to accelerate policy and technology change towards something that might be considered adequate.
Well, there are a number of things that need to be focused on, and these include working to establish the right long-term policy frameworks, fearlessly hold government to account on their policies and actions, continue the campaign to convince people of the wisdom and benefits of climate policy action, make sure people understand the risks coming from global warming and to upgrade communication efforts in this area.
It is very important that NGOs and academics are fully independent of government and special or pecuniary interests, particularly in the Australian context interest in offsets. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a pattern of interest that may conflict.
It is also very important that NGOs are brave and fearless, and do not concern themselves overly with the health of the Labour Party internally, nor prioritise, access to ministers over, maintaining a strong and consistent position on the right things to do. In the end, and my experience, mature government will listen even if I don’t like the message they are at first.
4. Personal question – where do you get your hope/tenacity from? (If it’s a special Amazon delivery, what’s the URL for that!!)
One has to have hope, and as soon as one becomes cynical it’s time to leave the field. Surprising as it might seem, I get a lot of energy from the science of this issue. Yes, the news is very depressing, but if one focuses on what can be done and how fast then one can see a way forward. In addition, the massive role out of renewables, electric vehicles and batteries has to give rise to hope that we can bend the curve fast enough. At the end of the day, the problem is too serious to give up and to serious to surrender hope
The latest interview with a reader of All Our Yesterdays. If you want to do an interview, or want to nominate someone to be interviewed, let me know via drmarchudson@gmail.com
1. Who are you and what do you “do” around climate change campaigning (can answer both ‘personally’ and professionally
Hi, thanks for asking. I’m an OBGYN and began reading about the climate crisis in 2008 –the year my twins were born. I lived in Southern California from 2010 until 2021 and during that time I saw marked changes in the landscape and hydrology in the area, and very few people talking about it. In 2020 the Bobcat fire raged behind my house and for weeks we were told to be ready to evacuate, the air quality was horrific and we truly couldn’t even walk outside save for essential transport, like going to work or the grocery store. The fire eventually burned 115k acres and it really scared me, physically and mentally. I had been working the majority of my career as a physician on issues around gender equity, and I realized that there was a necessary intersection between women’s and maternal health equity, reproductive justice, and the climate crisis, and decided to focus my efforts in my spare time learning about how temperature affects preterm births, how wildfire affects lung function, how phthalates in plastics affect birth weight, preterm birth, and cancer, and many other consequences to living in a society dependent on fossil fuel, whether as energy or as consumer products, and that both were having profound effects on human health. Another doctor and I started OBGYNs for Sustainable Future focused on assisting the medical field to decarbonize and study the intersection of the climate and fossil fuel crisis and human and maternal health.
2. When and how did you first hear about climate change and when and how did it move from an “ooh, that sounds bad” to “holy fucking SHIT”
Great question, I used to have nightmares when I lived in California, that I would get into the shower and no water would come out. And I had that dream over and over again. I remember in 2006 hearing about climate change and drought on the NPR show Marketplace, but it was far off. The first time I started thinking about in a serious way was about 15 years ago – it was an article about ocean acidification, and I remember thinking that based on the math, the Great Barrier Reef would be nearly dead by the time my kids graduated high school, nor would I spend the jet fuel, CO2, to go see it. And that was a revelation: that things in this world will disappear soon, in our lifetimes, due to our consumptive extractivist lifestyles and our absent understanding of ecology. I’ve been reading more and more since that article, listening, learning. Now I lecture on the topic of climate change and health. The question is: how many people have felt the terror of all that we are poised to lose? I would argue not enough. Not a fraction of enough.
3. What can we learn from the long long history of unsuccessful campaigning and scientific warnings (a theme of All Our Yesterdays). What do campaigners/activists/concerned citizens need to do differently?
Another excellent question. I do think talking to people (friends, neighbors, colleagues) helps. I know I feel reenergized especially when I speak to others that understand the severity of the situation. Call us doomers, call us climate realists, I don’t care what the label is, I care that people understand the science and are willing to speak openly about the implications of the science. To be sure children and young adults may need some protection from the catastrophe unfolding, but adults? Nah. It makes me furious when I see smart people downplay the severity in the name of keeping the public calm. Like we’re children? If civil society is going to break when they understand what is inevitable, then that society wasn’t built to endure, which, I would argue, our society is very fragile and not built to endure. Would you not tell a patient whose MRI shows invasive cancer that she doesn’t have cancer? No, you wouldn’t, that would be paternalistic. I think civil disobedience helps, and I have given hundreds of dollars to Climate Defiance for their work, I think it’s impactful. I think the media could do a much better job, as we saw media coverage of the crisis in the U.S. was down in 2023, the hottest year in 125,000. Make that make sense? We need more stories connecting the world of Dune and that of Earth, what would a world devoid of plants and water mean, and how many people could it support? Spoiler, not many! I think the language of degrowth needs to get louder. People need to be shown that an economy (maybe 1/10000000th of the size) could exist without extraction.
4. What projects/events have you got coming up in the near future that you want to give a shout out to.
I am doing a local talk at a library in April. I’m interviewing an expert on the connection between phthalate exposure and preterm birth, among other ills when we eat, breathe and are constantly ingesting plastic. I’m also working on an editorial, that may become a book, about how essential it is to equate climate justice and reproductive justice. Contraception and education are imperative so that women and girls have the ability to choose if and when they want to have a child in this crisis. People say, “but having a child is an act of hope,” but hope can’t feed you when crops fail due to drought and floods. The patriarchy, a system that has operated for 10,000+ years, cannot continue. We cannot continue to subjugate women and girls to a system that has forced or encouraged them to have children for the church, for the state, for capitalism, for tribal government and systems. Reproductive justice is climate justice. Women and girls’ bodies are not anyone’s to write a personal or societal agenda on. People complaining that society will collapse if women stop having children… who will support the old people? If the system can’t support elders because too much is siphoned off in profits for a tiny minority, then the problem is the system, not women. A universal income would go a long way to supporting the elderly. But we can’t have universal income because then how would Mark Zuckerberg afford a 300 million yacht. The top 1% in the world own 30% of the world’s wealth. That is a system designed to collapse. Not the problem of women and girls to fix for ya’ll. I want to give a shout out to Nandita Bajaj at Population Balance. I’ve been taking a course through Antioch University with her and others and I’ve learned a lot of about capitalism, forced birth, pronatalism, speciesism, ecocide and what it would mean to downsize in order that natural ecosystems can flourish alongside human flourishing.