Scientists Are Takin' It To The Streets

Scientists are taking to the streets:

"Scientists aren’t generally known for their political protests. But like so many things, that’s all changing under the shadow of a looming Trump presidency.

Dec. 12 marked the start of the four-day American Geophysical Union conference, a gathering of climate scientists that isn’t typically known for its raucous itinerary. But on Dec. 13, in between sessions on nonlinear geophysics, seismology, and the study of the earth’s deep interior, many attendees also took to the streets of San Francisco to protest the incoming administration’s stance on climate change. The rally drew hundreds of participants."  http://qz.com/862921/trumps-skepticism-about-climate-change-is-turning-scientists-into-activists/

Scientists are copying public data to protect it from future censorship and redaction:

"Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a 'guerrilla archiving' event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

'Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,' said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis."

Scientists are refusing to name names:

“'We will be forthcoming with all publically-available [sic] information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.' Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis."

Scientists KNOW the reality of climate change.  And they are refusing to name names, protecting truth and taking it to the streets.

These are climate patriots that deserve our utmost respect.  More importantly, they deserve our total support:  financial, spoken, written and activist.

It is hard, in the wake of this devastating election, to return our thoughts to reason and science.  Those of us that have been steeped in it for years are frustrated and wonder if there is a point.

Let me say this.  OF COURSE THERE IS A POINT.  Reason didn't stop being reasonable.  Science hasn't stopped being valid.  Reality is still reality, though it doesn't feel like it.

These scientists are RIGHT.  They were right and they continue to be right.

All that has changed is that they are now not just right, but they are refusing to name names, protecting truth and taking it to the streets.  We owe it to them to stand right there with them.  We owe it to ourselves.  We owe it to our children.

The Real Energy Voters Are Us

What Clinton was proposing on climate--a strong grid and storage and development of the infrastructure necessary to eliminating gas--is exactly what we need.

Nothing confirms that better than the news out this week that that is precisely what the fossil fuel lackeys are looking at attacking first.

The incoming administration has sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy, seeking the names of individuals working on specific programs that include the valuation of the social cost of carbon and lending for research and statistics.

One target is particularly telling:  “The document also signals which of the department’s agencies could face the toughest scrutiny under the new administration. Among them: the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E], a 7-year-old unit that has been a critical instrument for the Obama administration to advance clean-energy technologies.”  

ARPA-E funds projects that are not ready for private investment, but have high potential, in energy storage (battery technology) and transmission (grid technology), among other technologies necessary for solar and wind and other clean energy.

Why would the incoming administration target this program?

Because Obama had it right.  Clinton had it right.  Transmission and storage are essential to transitioning to renewables.  I repeat…Without investment in transmission and storage, we cannot rely predominantly on renewables.

I explored this in full in the past, but here I will quickly summarize.   Wind and solar are intermittent. The sun isn’t always shining everywhere and at all times that electricity is needed, nor is the wind always blowing. There are several potential solutions to this problem. (1) Use electricity only intermittently (not viable or even desired), (2) store the energy for later use (batteries, pumped hydro or other), (3) move the energy from one place to another-transmission (a national grid could move energy from where it is produced to where it is needed) or (4) have another energy source that is “dispatchable,” that is, it can be turned on and off to complement the solar and wind (gas or oil).

Without transmission and storage, any use of solar and wind means continuing dependence on gas or oil.

The work of ARPA-E under Obama, that would have continued under Clinton, is ESSENTIAL to shifting to renewables to any significant extent.

Trump’s team doesn’t necessarily need to focus its attack on solar and wind directly.

They can work on state policies to make solar and wind more difficult. And they can block the grid and storage development that would make solar and wind change from boutique energy to a significant source of energy. That's easy, politically. People have no clue how state utility policies work and no clue why the grid and storage are so important.

And that brings us to the million dollar question.  (Or is it the million parts per million question?)

Where do we go from here?

I proffer this:  double down on science, policy and reason.

We must get educated on why a grid and storage matter and we must educate people on why a grid and storage matter.  We must get educated on what works in climate messaging and educate others on good climate messaging that teach the value of clean energy infrastructure.  We must be open to compromises that work in the right general direction and help others see the value in that.

And this is where Clinton really had it right, once again.  She had the right message; it just wasn't heard.

The oil industry giant American Petroleum Institute has been running an ad campaign about "energy voters" for years. We need to take that away from them.

Climate voters should absolutely be characterized as energy voters. We want carbon free energy.

But our movement is always being hijacked by the "none of the above" crowd. Sorry, no. We are not going back to caves. But we don't have to. That's what Clinton's climate message was about--we can be a clean energy superpower.

That is a powerful message.

But the left hasn't been listening, dismissing it as uncommitted greenwashing focused only on demand and not supply. And the right has been captured by being "energy voters." That single-handedly characterizes us as wanting to take away their energy (we don't), and sends the message that fossil fuels are necessary to living with lights and heat and transport.

That is a message that will kill us.  Fortunately, it also isn’t true.

Clean energy means energy independence.  My Republican Congressman once said “imagine if every time a homeowner replaced their roof, they’d get solar; it would democratize energy”).   It means electric vehicles with awesome torque.  It means less pollution.  It means price stability.  It means a livable planet.  With a grid and storage, it means consistent, reliable energy not subject to the whims of OPEC or other markets.  It means predictability.  It means jobs on our home soil.  It means strength internationally.

And all of that relies on the work of groups like ARPA-E on transmission and storage.

That is the landscape of a clean energy superpower.  And it is more clear than ever before, we need people to see that is the landscape of real climate action.  The fossil fuel lackeys are making it plain that they know it is.  And it scares them.

And that is where the battle lines are now drawn.

We are the voters that want democratic access to energy.  We are the voters that want to drive without dependence on foreign oil or the oil of corrupt politicians.  We are the voters that want to run the meter backwards.  We are the energy voters.

It is time for us to make that our battle cry.

The Liberal Elite Patriot and The Legacy We Have Been Bequeathed

“But if I may even flatter myself that [my words] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”–George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

It is time to protect our freedoms and our soil with our hearts and spirits, from despoliation.

We must carry the mantle of patriotism without fear. We must take the flag from those who would turn it against us as a weapon.  We must stand for freedom. Stand for democracy. Stand for our nation's beauty. Stand for our home’s great bounty of resources, clean water and soil and a livable climate. Stand for each other. Without fear of embracing each other's weaknesses as well as our strengths. It is time to take the flag from those that use it as a weapon and let it once again stand for true patriotism. It is time for us to recognize that true patriots defend free speech, defend the people who make up our nation, defend our home. True patriots demand an educated electorate.  True patriots sacrifice their labor and sweat to protect our home and our neighbors.  True patriots place honor and compassion above comfort and economic greed.

”The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life. . ..As a nation we not only enjoy a wonderful measure of present prosperity but if this prosperity is used aright it is an earnest of future success such as no other nation will have. The reward of foresight for this nation is great and easily foretold. But there must be the look ahead, there must be a realization of the fact that to waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”—Theodore Roosevelt, Address to the Congress, Dec. 3, 1907

“Remember, remember always, that all of us … are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”–Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life,”– John F. Kennedy

”Politicians against gay marriage now are the future villains of our American History books.” Natalie Maines, Dixie Chicks, June 28, 2011, Twitter

”Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body & mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”—Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1816

”That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours, deserve to be well spoken of, but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it , is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech.”—Benjamin Franklin, July 9. 1722

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”― Theodore Roosevelt, May 18, 1918

 Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”—Thomas Jefferson, April 4, 1819  

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”—Samuel Adams, Nov. 20, 1772

“Science is the attempt, largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course. Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.” —Carl Sagan

The battle for the country has never been complete; it has never yet been finished. We will continue to fight for our freedoms and our democracy and our home as our forebears have. And we will tell our children that we will never give up that fight.

Before the election, I had a conversation with a Trump supporter.  A civil conversation.  She continually spoke of the need to take care of “our” people.  I agreed.  It is time to take care of OUR people.  But who, exactly, is that?  Yes, out of work coal miners count in that.  President Obama certainly included them when he promulgated the Power Plus Plan, meant to use funds to help coal communities recover as gas kills coal.  Yes, it includes union workers whose jobs have evaporated, replaced by mechanization and cheap foreign labor.  But, too, doesn’t it include LGBTQ, Black, Hispanic and Muslim Americans?  I had the distinct sense that is not what she meant by “our people.”

Since the election, I have driven by the local gas plant under construction with a US flag hanging from a crane.  I follow trucks with the flag on their bumpers.  I see the flag wrapped around hate filled rhetoric.

And I am angry.  Why do they own the flag?  Why do they have ownership of patriotism?

I am proud to be a citizen bequeathed the US Constitution.   I am proud to be a denizen of beautiful mountains and rivers.  I am proud to live where you can eat tacos and sushi and potato knishes.  I am proud to live where you can protest under the protection of the First Amendment and expect due process of law in all matters.  I am proud to live where slavery was ended and Civil Rights are held up as the best part of us.  I am proud to have lived the day to see gay marriage recognized across our land.  I am proud to inherit all that our forebears have given us.

But those things of which we should be most proud are imperiled.

And they are under attack by people waving the flag.  Gas power plants that will despoil the rivers and mountains we love.  Truck owners that “roll coal” and refuse to defend the stability of a livable planet.  Gun owners that cannot permit sensible restrictions to prevent terrorist attacks, domestic or otherwise.  Bigots and racists that only want to protect heterosexual white people.

Our wisest predecessors are speaking to us across the centuries:  “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” 

Those words were meant for our ears.  True patriots will listen.

Hillary Clinton Is Talking Climate-Do We Hear Her?

There continues to be a sense that while Hillary Clinton does have comprehensive plans for clean energy, she isn’t talking about climate change enough.  A good friend of mine expressed concern that she doesn’t really prioritize it.  He said “I feel invisible.”  Perhaps this reflected a sense that she isn’t really listening and doesn’t really hear how bad it is, how important it is.

The political process and the wrangling can make us all feel invisible.  And, certainly, Hillary Clinton has a lot on her plate.  Climate sometimes seems to get lost.  Without a doubt, moderators are not raising it.  Demoralizing, really.

However, while busy addressing Trump, she is still managing to raise climate.  Her use of climate as a wedge issue in the first presidential debate was fantastic.  Of course, she was busy in that debate making sure Trump was on the defensive in many areas.  Seeing climate as one was very gratifying.
 
But she is also raising climate in ads like the one above and in stump speeches. NPR has analyzed and annotated Clinton’s stump speeches, based on a typical one.  This is the speech she regularly gives, with subtle changes for each occasion.

I have excerpted here the portions relevant to climate change:

“We're going to make the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II.

Infrastructure jobs like those here at the port. Our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports, they need work and there are millions of jobs to be done. And in addition to what you can see, what about our water systems, our sewer systems? We need a new modern electric grid to be able to take in clean, renewable energy that can then move us toward that future we seek.

I have a plan to install a half a billion solar panels by the end of my first term. And enough clean energy to power every home in America by the end of my second term. And I want young people especially to be part of this, to be in science, technology, engineering, manufacturing, creating this future that will determine the quality of your lives and the competitiveness of our economy.

...

Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It's real. It's wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week's hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine. But this is not the last one that's going to hit Florida, given what's happening in the climate. Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region. Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security. The next president will have to work with communities like Tampa's to prepare for future storms.

When I'm in the Oval Office, I'm going to work with local leaders to make smart investments in infrastructure to help protect regions from flooding and other effects of climate change. I'm going to continue to continue to work on the international and national level to try to turn the clock back, to stabilize and reduce emissions even more, to try to gain more time. But we're going to have to begin working immediately on mitigation and resilience and prevention as well.

And what about Donald Trump? Well, he doesn't even believe in climate change. He says it's a hoax invented by the Chinese. And he says, 'You can't get hurt with extreme weather.' Now, this is the same guy who at one of his golf courses in some coastal place has demanded that a seawall be built to protect his golf course from rising tides. So it's all fine if it affects Donald, but if it affects the rest of humanity, he could care less. If it affects people to lose their homes or their businesses that took a lifetime to build, it doesn't matter to him. When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified to be our president.”

Hillary Clinton has a goal of cutting emissions 80% by 2050.  The same goal of 80% by 2050 that Bernie Sanders had.  Certainly, her plans do not go far enough.  But 80% by 2050 is a strong goal.

Hillary Clinton has policy plans to develop clean energy, to build a new grid to support that clean energy, to ensure that there is climate justice in building resilience to withstand climate impacts and in accessing the opportunities for jobs building a green economy, to support coal communities as they transition to carbon free economics, to increase building efficiency, to electrify our automobile fleet… (Also see David Roberts' great summary of Hillary Clinton's climate policies here.)

Hillary Clinton has created a transition team that includes co-chair Jennifer Granholm, who has long advocated for clean energy challenge grants and is an aggressive advocate for building a green economy.  The team also includes Neera Tanden, the president of Center for American Progress (CAP).  The same CAP that created and sponsors Think Progress and Climate Progress, with its own Joe Romm.  These women answer to John Podesta, founder of CAP and head of Clinton's campaign. (As David Roberts explains, he was a driver for aggressive climate action in the Obama second term.)

And she is talking about climate change, even amidst a busy campaign understandably focusing on the threat that is Donald Trump.

Perhaps we are not invisible; perhaps she is hearing the climate scientists and energy policy experts and climate journalists and activists.

Perhaps it is that we are not hearing her.

I suspect that this might be related to "the gap" described by Ezra Klein:

"Given where both candidates began, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders proved the more effective talker. His speeches attracted larger audiences, his debate performances led to big gains in the polls, his sound bites went more viral on Facebook.

Yet Clinton proved the more effective listener — and, particularly, the more effective coalition builder. On the eve of the California primary, 208 members of Congress had endorsed Clinton, and only eight had endorsed Sanders. 'This was a lot of relationships,' says Verveer.  'She’s been in public life for 30 years. Over those 30 years, she has met a lot of those people, stayed in touch with them, treated them decently, campaigned for them. You can’t do this overnight.'

One way of reading the Democratic primary is that it pitted an unusually pure male leadership style against an unusually pure female leadership style. Sanders is a great talker and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is a great relationship builder and a poor talker. In this case — the first time at the presidential level — the female leadership style won."

We in the climate movement are angry at the greed and mendacity of the fossil fuel interests.  We are scared and worried for our children's futures.  Quite simply, we want to hear outrage from Clinton.  And we don't.  This leaves many feeling unheard.  Feeling "invisible."

But, perhaps we are very much heard.  Perhaps she is listening.  Perhaps she is developing the right relationships for action.  Perhaps we just don't have an ear trained to hear her.

An Open Letter to My Children

A wonderful project, called Dear Tomorrow, is collecting letters from people to their children, and others, who will be living in the future.  The letters will be held in a time capsule and released in 2030 and in 2050.  I had to write mine.  It's not an easy task.  My own children are alternately afraid of a Trump presidency and of creepy noises.  One foot in childhood and one foot in adulthood.  I share my fears and hopes with them, but I am wary of overwhelming them with the worst.  They have lives to lead, and hearts to break and jokes to tell.  They deserve to keep that.  Here is my letter.  I will share it with them today and submit it to the project.

Dear C and K,

I love you both.  

I want the world for you.  I have always wanted the world for you.  I want for you to love and laugh and live.  From the day each of you came into my life, I have tried to surround you with all that is good.  When you were infants, I played Mozart's music and decorated with vibrant colors, We explored the world with little special trips to the zoo and the woods and the library.  Even the grocery store was an adventure.  As you grew, I sent you to the Montessori school and then to dance because it was best for you.  I have made sure you had holidays and that I created traditions to make them special.

I want to continue to do that for you.   Your needs have changed over time, but the fact that you have needs has not.  You will need to build a means of making an income, you will need food on the table, you will need homes, you will need time and space to enjoy yourselves, to love, to laugh and to live.

So as you stepped out of the nursery, and I looked around at the wider world, I realized that Mozart's music and vibrant colors are no longer how to create the world I want for you. Something more dire is in its way.  Climate change is threatening everything I have to offer you and it is hurtling towards us.

Now, as you move forward, and I fear for what is coming as the planet warms, I read and try to make sense of how we will be impacted.  Anticipating the challenges.  Protecting resources to give you so that you can handle those challenges.  I look at our house, at 1300', with space for growing food and with water that is not subject to fracking and has never failed from drought, and I think I should keep it for you.  I consider the skills you might need, and how to generate resources for yourselves when I can no longer do that.  

I cry sometimes, for the things I know you will not have.  There will be terrible heat waves and sea level rise will drive people from the coasts to where we live.  Crops won't grow as well, so food costs will go up and means of making an income will likely go down.  Little things that aren't really so little will disappear, like coffee and chocolate, taking our traditions with them.  Refugees will come to our shores, and refugees will move within our own borders.  There will be mold growth everywhere.  Diseases like Lyme and Zika will have company.  Civil strife may drive other problems and disrupt your lives.  The world will be a terrifying place.  How terrifying?  I don't know.  But it won't be all Mozart and crib toys.

So what is a mom to do about it?  

Well, teach you the most important things.  The most most most important thing?  There is no such thing as "winning" or "losing" at life.  There are wins and losses.  But your life's journey is not a game to win or lose.  It is your journey.  Yours.  Every generation before you has faced struggles, pain and hardship.  And yours will too.  

But every generation before you has had a chance to love, to laugh and to live.  Take yours.  Take it.  Love.  Laugh.  Live.

But know this.  Loving, laughing and living does not mean saying "screw it" to life's challenges.  It means taking them on.  It means caring enough about your world and your life to try to make it better, even when it is terrifying.

I don't know if my efforts on climate can truly impact the trajectory of carbon emissions over the next century.  But I want you both to know this.  Every letter I have ever written, every meeting I attended, every article I read, every post I made to move others, every item I reused, every degree I turned the heat down, every load of laundry I hung dry, every luxury I didn't buy and when I am able, every arrest I will subject myself to, these all are the point.   I work on climate because I love you. 

And when you walk out the door on your own, I have one thing to insist on:  whatever you choose to do, do it out of love.  If you do, then whether you succeed or not, your actions have mattered.  Don't ever let anyone tell you your actions don't matter.  Every single thing you do matters.  You matter.

Whatever comes, please know that my actions are yours to keep, and carry with you.  Please let them hold you close when you need them.  It is the most important thing I have to give you, in the end.

With all my love, yours to carry,

Mom

World War II Scale Mobilization

Climate change is here and it is urgent.  Urgent as in really really really dire.  As I discussed in a previous post, IPCC projections show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Bill McKibben wrote an excellent piece last month laying out what we need to do to get to zero emissions...a World War II Scale Mobilization to fight climate change.  He did a great job explaining that winning a war is about building weaponry and infrastructure as much as it is about fighting.  He discussed how much needs to be built to fight climate change.  (While I do not completely agree with his reliance on Jacobsen's work to such a degree, his point is well made and whether we rely 100% on renewables or to some lesser extent, we have a lot to get done in a short amount of time).

Then he turned to a discussion of what a World War II Scale Mobilization looks like.  This was excellent.  We must all take a long hard look at what that really means.  Easy to say the phrase and give an air of meaning business, but getting down to brass tacks means figuring out precisely what that entails.

"Turning out more solar panels and wind turbines may not sound like warfare, but it’s exactly what won World War II: not just massive invasions and pitched tank battles and ferocious aerial bombardments, but the wholesale industrial retooling that was needed to build weapons and supply troops on a previously unprecedented scale. Defeating the Nazis required more than brave soldiers. It required building big factories, and building them really, really fast...

According to the conventional view of World War II, American business made all this happen simply because it rolled up its sleeves and went to war. As is so often the case, however, the conventional view is mostly wrong. Yes, there are endless newsreels from the era of patriotic businessmen unrolling blueprints and switching on assembly lines—but that’s largely because those businessmen paid for the films. Their PR departments also put out their own radio serials with titles like “Victory Is Their Business,” and “War of Enterprise,” and published endless newspaper ads boasting of their own patriotism. In reality, many of America’s captains of industry didn’t want much to do with the war until they were dragooned into it."

McKibben goes on to explain that "dragooned into it" meant government agencies directing industry action:

 “'It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,' says Wilson. 'And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.' The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to 'robust profit controls,' which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons. In many cases, federal authorities purposely set up competition between public operations and private factories: The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard built submarines, but so did Electric Boat of Groton, Connecticut. 'They were both quite impressive and productive,' Wilson says."

Let's tease that apart.  "Public capital built most of the stuff... [C]ompanies made money."  Why exactly did "America's industrial tycoons...accept 'robust profit controls'"?  Well, the answer might be in what those industrial tycoons got in return.  Andre Tartare, with Bloomberg:

"To win WWII, the U.S. economy had to be re-tooled to churn out airplanes and tanks alongside (or, in lieu) of washing machines and cars, while at the same time developing new technologies, such as the atomic bomb. Government spending — often in the form of cost-plus contracts to the risk-averse private companies operating the factories and mines — peaked at nearly 43 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 1943 and 1944." 

A simple definition of cost-plus contract:  "A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract... This contract type permits contracting for efforts that might otherwise present too great a risk to contractors.."  That's right.  The corporation takes none of the risk in research and development.  Guaranteed profit.  No risk.  Government takes the risk.

Military and defense contractors.  Gun manufacturers.  Airplane and auto manufacturers. Profiteering?  Maybe not in the sense of making exorbitant profit margins. But they weren't treated too shabbily.  No risk R&D and guaranteed profit is nice.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think it was a bad move.  We needed to fight a war.  And win a war.  And if IBM and Boeing and others profited by it unfairly, well, such is life.  We had a war to fight and win.

And we need to fight a war now.  We have loads of solar panels and wind turbines to churn out.  We have nuclear R&D to accomplish.  We have a HVDC grid to build.  We have smart grid technology to develop.  We have gardens to grow.  We have replacement for concrete to discover.  We have planes, trains and automobiles to build that move without fossil fuels.  We have energy storage R&D to do. We have to figure out how to accomplish widespread negative emissions.  We have sea level rise to address.  We have extreme weather to defend against.  We have a war to fight.  And we will need to do whatever it takes to win that war.

And here is my point:  it WILL involve decisions that people on the left do not necessarily like.  I don't like the idea of cost-plus contracts to GM or Boeing or Microsoft or, worse, Exxon Mobil.  But what if they mean we can win the war?

If we are going to talk about WWII scale mobilization, we had better be ready to be exceedingly pragmatic. When we talk about WWII scale mobilization, we are talking about TOUGH choices.  Not just for someone like Mitch McConnell or Jim Inhofe.  Not just for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Tough choices for us all.

I propose that those choices be faced with the guiding principle that cutting emissions and preserving a livable world must take higher priority than retribution, ideology or righteousness.  Bill McKibben is absolutely right.  We CAN get to zero emissions by 2035 or 2050.  But no one should think it will come lightly or easily.

Informed Decisions in a Changing Climate

Can you imagine living through Hurricane Katrina?

As a white woman from the northeastern U.S., I believed that I understood that racism exists, that I have advantages that others do not and that racism matters.

Then, I arrived in New Orleans in August '89 to begin law school.  I drove into the city with a truck full of my possessions.  Ten minutes after crossing into the city, before finding the University, I stopped at a local restaurant. I walked in.  And what I saw stunned me.

There were about ten men working there.  One white man, the rest black men.  The white man was the manager.  And the black men were his subordinates.

The heat was oppressive.  The humidity like nothing I had ever experienced before.  A heavy pall. There was a dull and vague acceptance of a crappy job, oppressive humidity and unquestioned separation of race.  There was a hopelessness in the men's eyes.  No eye contact.  Just "yes, missus" from bowed heads.

I shook off the experience, thinking I was reading more into it than existed.  Perhaps I was just projecting my 1960's preconceived notions.

However, the city never felt like part of the same country I grew up in. Police were corrupt. Government was corrupt. At a level I had never seen before. I watched police officers buy beer while on duty, get into their patrol car, open up and drive off. It was not a good plan to get pulled over by state troopers if you were young and female. That was not speculation. That was reality. The crime rate was huge. Theft, murder, drugs. The animal shelter was so poorly funded that animals' cages were never cleaned. Strays ran rampant. And the homeless children. Boys that had bottle caps in their sneakers and tapped for money. Living on the streets. The interstate between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is known as cancer alley because of the high rate of pollutant-driven cancers.

And, of course, there were poorly maintained levees.

I graduated from law school in May 1992 and moved on.  I gave New Orleans only passing thoughts until August 2005.  And then, along with the rest of the nation and world, looked on in horror as Hurricane Katrina arrived, the most impoverished and disempowered citizens failed to evacuate, the levee failed, Bush's FEMA failed, and the USA looked like a country from the developing world.

Hurricane Katrina floods Canal St.

Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

Poverty, race, corruption and lack of preparation converged to create horror and suffering.  Rapes and looting and terror-filled nights ensued.

The wealthier folks got out.  But even they did not get off scot-free.  Many people never returned to rebuild their homes and their businesses.  New Orleans' recovery was anemic and slow.

The losses were overwhelming.  "An estimated 1,833 people died in the hurricane and the flooding that followed in late August 2005, and millions of others were left homeless along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans.

Katrina was the most destructive storm to strike the United States and the costliest storm in U.S. history, causing $108 billion in damage,"

Many of those that lived through this were determined to learn from the experience.  This is not something you want to struggle through a second time.

Here is the story of one couple.  They were fortunate in that they were privileged enough to own their own their own home and business and to escape the worst parts of Katrina:

Julie Hebert was a newlywed when, 38 years ago, she moved to her husband's native Chalmette. They built a life and a business together. Then Katrina made landfall. Like much of Chalmette, the Hebert family's home and business were left in ruin.

They fled to Houston, staying three months or so. When they decided to return to Louisiana, they did their research, asking neighbors around prospective homes for the neighborhood's flood history.

The couple settled on a small subdivision in Denham Springs, near Interstate 12. The main road leading to the subdivision has two low spots where water typically pools during heavy rain, she said, occasionally making it impassible. But neighbors told them water had never flooded homes there.

"It wasn't like we bought carelessly," Hebert, 56, said Monday from her daughter's home in nearby Walker.

The Heberts were sensible.  Making choices to avoid the same kind of devastation based on all the information they could garner.

There is just one problem.

They asked the neighbors.  Like most of America, the neighbors were basing their information on past experience.  That is reasonable.  Except that most of America, and these neighbors, and the local planners, were ignoring significant information.  That is, they were ignoring the warnings of climate scientists.

What happened next in this story demonstrates that while climate change impacts the poor and disempowered most powerfully, it leaves out no one.

In August, 2016, it started to rain in Denham Springs.  A lot.  Meteorologists' descriptions range from a one-in-a five hundred year flood to a one-in-a thousand year flood.

When the rain intensified Thursday into Friday, Hebert and her husband figured they'd have to stay home for a day or two until water retreated from the main road.

"We had groceries in the house (and) the electricity didn't go off," she said. "We were fine on supplies."

But as Saturday progressed, Hebert noticed water from a backyard pond started marching toward her house.

Hebert started packing, relying on her Katrina experience while reminding herself, "it doesn't flood here."

The water continued rising up to the back door, then up the front yard and into the garage. They gathered more things, and their pets, and waded through the water to join neighbors waiting for a boat.

2016 Flooding in Southeast Louisana Rescue

Who could have predicted that this area is at increased risk of flooding?  Certainly not the neighbors.  And no one could have predicted this storm in this spot.

But, the scientists have been saying that the storms will come with increasing frequency and intensity.  And, in fact, the storms have been doing just that.  Tangipahoa Parish has seen two one-in-five hundred year storms in five months.

If we don't listen to the scientists, and take account of the changes they say are coming, we can't make good decisions.  We may have limited options in many cases, but, certainly, planning for and reacting to floods like these requires knowing what we are up against.  Julie Hebert had resources and tried to make good decisions.  But neither she nor her community heard the recommendations of the most credible experts:  climate scientists.  And now, she has lost everything.  AGAIN.

Climate change is going to challenge all of us.  The disempowered will face the worst suffering.  The lack of infrastructure, the corruption, the systemic disregard for people create real life horrors.  We saw it in Katrina on our very own shores.  We see it in Syria in the faces of children awash in a sea of bombs and scarce resources.

Omran Daqneesh Pulled from Aleppo Bomb Ruins

We must frame our climate solutions to include building up climate resiliency for people who do not have the resources to do so for themselves.

But, too, we must insist that those with resources get the information they need to make good decisions.  For those that can rebuild, they must hear that the past weather, by itself, is not predictive of the future weather in a changing climate.  Instead, we must factor in the projections from the scientists.

Many just like the Heberts are stepping into the future blind folded.  We must take the blinders off, look around, and make the best decisions we can.  And use those resources to protect not only ourselves, but also those without the resources to protect themselves.

Clinton's Transition Team, Jennifer Granholm and Listening to the Experts

Clinton and Granholm

I was contacted by text with "Bad news...  Clinton appointed Ken Salazar as the head of her transition team.  BETRAYAL." (paraphrased down to the point).

Now there is one thing I have learned watching these races.  Stop and read.

Ken Salazar?  Well, time to go back and re-read the details.  UGH.  Quoted as saying that fracking has no harmful impact on the environment as recently as 2014.  That is ridiculous.  Pants on fire kinda statement.  But, on the other hand, made decisions to regulate fossil fuel extraction in national parks.  Advocate for public lands.  Okay.  Mixed bag.

The second thing I have learned is to stop and think.  What does the Salazar appointment mean?  Well, it isn't a surprise.  Clinton has been clear, she sees gas as a bridge fuel.  Not how I see it. I see it as something that's got to end ASAP. But, whether you view it like I do, or you view it like she does, we have to deal with the reality that we must build the grid, storage and carbon free energy before we can end gas, oil and coal. And to do that, we must see market changes that drive that change.  Imagine for the moment that we banned gas today. Today. No more gas. What would happen? Coal would make a comeback. Coal is dead because of gas. (In part, as orchestrated by Beyond Coal, a joint venture of Sierra Club and Michael Bloomberg). And it is easy to convert a gas power station back to a coal power station.

Is she planning on supporting the construction of that grid, storage and carbon free energy? Yes. Her end horizon for gas is different than mine. But either way, the initial steps are the same.  Her plans are not enough. But, then, neither was Sanders’, and the climate movement didn't even look at O'Malley. Her plans DO include many of the first steps an executive can make in the face of an obstructionist Congress, however.

But here is the other thing to consider.  One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she pulls together lots of different people.  Gets all the vested interests to the table to talk and figure out how to move forward.  Bill McKibben's recent piece makes it clear that current industry must be brought to the table. (By force or by invitation, whichever works.  He relates how it was current industry that was coerced to mobilize to fight WWII, and then permitted to take credit for their work.)

So, I asked myself, who else is at this table?  This Vox piece tells us the big names.  And this piece from Politico talks about the huge list of climate and energy policy experts advising Clinton.  Wow.  A lot of people involved here besides Salazar.  Context is everything.

Here is one of the five top people on the transition team:  Jennifer Granholm.  Former governor of Michigan.  A quick google gave me this excellent 2013 Ted Talk, in which Granholm explains why she advocates challenge grants to the states to bypass congressional gridlock and motivate all states to work for clean energy solutions.

Where have I seen challenge grants to get states to act on climate before?  Oh, right...Hillary Clinton's Clean Energy Challenge:

"Hillary Clinton will launch a Clean Energy Challenge that forms a new partnership with states, cities, and rural communities that are ready to lead on clean energy. She will outline this Challenge in detail in the coming weeks, and it will include:

1. Climate Action Competition: Competitive grants and other market-based incentives to empower states to exceed federal carbon pollution standards and accelerate clean energy deployment.
2. Solar X-Prize: Awards for communities that successfully cut the red tape that slows rooftop solar installation times and increases costs for businesses and consumers."

 Fortunately, the Clean Energy Challenge is but one of a host of climate solutions plans that Hillary Clinton is advocating.  It might be reasonable to infer that they all find their genesis in people like Granholm.  Hillary Clinton LISTENS to the experts.  All of them.  Yes, Ken Salazar is there.  And so is Jennifer Granholm, along with a virtual army of other folks.  All at the table.  And in her Climate Map/War Room. (“'Hillary’s been talking about creating a climate war room in the White House,' Podesta said, then correcting himself that he meant to say climate map room. 'To be able to see where effects are taking place, to keep it real time, to use the technologies that are available, to try to imagine what is happening in the natural world and what the impact of that is going to be on the economy and the society.'”)

Our job?  We need to be sure we are at the table too, by voting on the basis of climate solutions, by speaking out on climate solutions and by supporting those with climate solutions.  Because it is clear, Clinton is listening.

Scientific Consensus, the IPCC and Just How Bad It Really Is

Here is a great graphic showing possible pathways we can take. It shows how soon we start emissions cuts will determine the rate at which we must get to zero emissions and how much ultimate warming we will see.

This graphic demonstrates the projections made within consensus science, including the IPCC projections.  These IPCC projections are terrifying, but show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Cutting edge, newer projections, are generally more dire than this.  Here are some examples of news stories that paint an even more dire picture: http://theconversation.com/we-have-almost-certainly-blown-the-1-5-degree-global-warming-target-63720 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize?CMP=share_btn_fb

IPCC projections are unusual in science, as a self-conscious attempt to sum up the consensus. Normally, in science, consensus simply emerges from the literature over long periods of time.  Given we don't have long periods of time, the IPCC attempts to move that forward more quickly. 

Faced with these contradictions, the media and the polity generally assume the more recent studies are the better or more accepted science.  However, in science, it usually works in reverse.  The newest studies have yet to be vetted and require more time for attempts to confirm or rebut their conclusions.  In the case of climate change, we don't have that kind of time.  Moreover, new data is available on a daily basis, adding weight to the newer studies.  On top of that, the IPCC often is suspected of slanting toward the more conservative, more palatable, less scary conclusions as a matter of policy.

So, what is a climate concerned citizen to do?

It is still very important to stay grounded in scientific process. Newer, cutting edge projections do not have the benefit of as much vetting by the scientific community. One of the reasons science is so trustworthy is that vetting process. So while we should keep an eye on the newer projections, we cannot dismiss what scientists have supported en masse already.

This is my take.  The scientists MUST continue to pursue the scientific process.  That means, leaning heavily on the consensus and looking to the cutting edge with skepticism.  But looking to challenge and confirm or rebut it.

The activists, the politicians, the polity, on the other hand, has this:  the reality is that whatever the scientists express differences on, they ALL agree on that we must cut carbon today by ending infrastructure that supports a carbon economy and we must do it as quickly as we can muster.

So a climate concerned citizen must must must continue to work on the certainty that we must cut carbon and leave the uncertainties to the scientists.

This is challenging because politicians want to know how much time we have.  This is challenging because the uncertainties leave those without science literacy think scientists don't know what they are doing and climate activists are not reading the right studies.  This is challenging because none of us want to face the reality that things are really really dire.  This is challenging because good messaging may seem out of touch with the reality, particularly when the reality is uncertain.  This is challenging because the initial steps we can take are dwarfed by the enormity of what we must accomplish.

This is challenging.

But, then, no one said this was easy.

I, for one, will write another letter to the editor, hang dry another load of laundry, replace another incandescent bulb, plan my next year's teaching and plan for my EV purchase this Winter.

Turn Your Face to the Sun and the Shadows Fall Behind You

The climate damage we have locked in is enormous, even by conservative projections.  If we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, if we emitted not one more greenhouse gas molecule, we would continue to warm, with temperatures still climbing 40 years from now.  What's more, it turns out that the warming we are doing is causing changes that will themselves cause further warming.  (Called positive feedbacks).  Some of these could be irreversible (referred to as runaway warming).

This knowledge is a huge blow to anyone first looking at climate change.

Anyone first starting out, thinks, okay, I see this is a problem.  I am ready to address it.  And then they start to dig and they find out that it isn't that simple. Huge changes are already bought and paid for. Nonrefundable.  [Examples of facts people don't often realize when they start out: (1) the Arctic Sea Ice currently reflects light energy but as melted water will absorb light energy and convert it to heat, (2) the potent greenhouse gas, methane, may increasingly be released as ice melts, (3) fires are increasing and therefore releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, (4) the West Antarctic Ice Shelf  (WAIS) is now irreversibly on a path to collapse, (5) the damage we feel today is from gases put into the atmosphere 40 years ago.  Before learning of these, people think, well, this is a giant problem, but it is purely technological and we can fix it.  These facts are the heartrending truth.]

It is too late to avoid climate change.  We have already warmed about 1C and we are seeing droughts, floods, extreme heat, rampant fires, sea level rise, coral reef devastation, rises in vector borne diseases, super storms and general chaos.  Even more shocking, we cannot avoid 1.5C.  That's right.  All the hellishness we see now, and it doesn't even account for the greater warming we have already bought and paid for.  Add to that that we have the infrastructure to keep burning more, and we don't have the infrastructure to stop burning more.  Not only that, we continue to build the infrastructure to have even greater capacity to burn more into the future.

So the thing they first sought out to save is no longer savable and that is when they throw up their hands and say "it's too late."   This is completely understandable.  

But anyone that has been diagnosed with cancer will tell you, that is when you cry. Like hell. Cry, cry, cry. THEN, you make an appointment for your treatment and you work to extend your chances of being alive in five years from 50% to 60%. Or hope that it will turn out they've got good margins on the tumor and you actually are looking at your ten year survival chances, not five year. Or dare to imagine that a mastectomy will end the cancer and the loss of your breast is all the price you will pay.  And sometimes you cry again. Often times. Because we have a lot to grieve. There is a whole lot that we never will save.  

Grieving is important.  But we must do more than grieve.  We must incorporate the horrible news without becoming dysfunctional. Without losing functioning. Still being able to act.  In the case of climate change, that means recognizing what is left to save.  And knowing that whatever that may be, it is worthy enough, it is valuable enough, to work for.  We cannot be stuck in our pain for what we have lost and simply relate a story of doom.

In the case of climate change, that means recognizing that there is a world of difference between the 4C we are currently headed toward and the 3C the Paris COP21 pledges aim for and the 2C that may be just barely achievable and the 1.5C that might be overshot, and then returned to with negative emissions we don't yet know how to accomplish.  The experts are still recommending a treatment plan:  decarbonization, along with adaptation.  No hospice recommendations yet.

With children to raise, every year, every day, every moment saved is worthy of our efforts.  We may learn that we have a stage 4 diagnosis.  And we may pay the most painful price we can imagine.  But we cannot betray our children by dying without a fight while there is fight still left in us.  

[As a post script, I share the Maori proverb that got me through my own breast cancer diagnosis.  "Turn your face to the sun and the shadows fall behind you."  That proverb never meant to me to ignore my diagnosis.  It meant, instead, that I had to focus on what I could salvage, and later, create out of the devastation.  And, yes, while I lost a breast, and strength in my left arm, I saved my life as a mother, friend and lover.  And, too, I gained wonderful things.  I gained insights into what is truly important to me, I left behind me the things that were harmful.  I learned to accept help and I solidified my friendship with my best friend in before unimaginable ways.  And I started a journey to finding my voice, my beauty and my strength as a woman.  Climate change action is the same.  I try to leave open the door to things I can gain from this journey too.  What?  For me, learning to speak with legislators, finding my voice in writing letters and this blog.  Learning to speak comfortably on the phone, meeting many incredible, dedicated, compassionate people, including the love of my life.  But most importantly, letting my children know that I love them enough to try, and having them tell me they are proud of me.]

Resiliency in Facing Climate Change

People's Climate March September 21, 2014

If you google "define resiliency," Google gives you this:

Resilience (noun) or Resiliency (noun) Able to recover quickly from misfortune; able to return to original form after being bent, compressed, or stretched out of shape. A human ability to recover quickly from disruptive change, or misfortune without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional or harmful ways (emphasis mine).  http://resiliencycenter.com/resiliency-definitions/

This morning, on Facebook, I wrote this:

Anyone paying attention to climate change carries fear of the horrible suffering we have already locked in. A sense of hopelessness that often falls away as doomerism.
Believing it is "too late" is really a belief that all that is left to save is unworthy of bothering to save. And we know that just isn't true. There is a lot left to save.
The real terror is not that it is too late. It is that we will be facing terrible suffering if we look to what is left to save.
Doing the hard work of decarbonizing our economy seems to fail to grasp the enormity of the suffering and pain of drought, hunger, migration and loss.
But when you are given horrible news, after you cry, you have to pick yourself up and do what has to be done, even the mundane.

Well, that is all fine and good.  But HOW?

So I looked to the American Psychological Association's words of wisdom packaged for internet use on resiliency.  And what they have to share is quite useful.  I guess it turns out they know something about human psychology.

They have ten tips to building resilience.

(1)  Make connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience. Some people find that being active in civic groups, faith-based organizations, or other local groups provides social support and can help with reclaiming hope. Assisting others in their time of need also can benefit the helper.  

Um, yeah.  I joined Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and I find it hugely helpful to work with others for a meaningful solution, the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.  I know that my own actions are amplified by the actions of 25,000 others.  And vice versa.  Actually, hugely helpful is an understatement.  Highly empowering.  I have learned a lot from the group.  But CCL isn't for everyone.  There are many other organizations out there working for climate solutions.  If working with a group sounds appealing, find one that is comfortable for you.

(2) Avoid seeing crises as insurmountable problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.

In climate, this is a major stumbling block.  For me, I hold onto the reality that the scientists just are not 100% sure of anything.  There remains great uncertainty about how bad the positive feedbacks will be, how resilient ecosystems will be, whether we can develop means of removing carbon dioxide within the next few decades.  We can see those uncertainties as death sentences or as avenues for working things to our benefit.

(3)  Accept that change is a part of living. Certain goals may no longer be attainable as a result of adverse situations. Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter.

This is HUGE.  We cannot avoid warming the planet.  We already have, about 1C.  And we are seeing fires and droughts and floods and extreme storms, refugee crises, rising sea levels, increases in vector borne diseases.  And we have locked in much worse, that we cannot change.  But there is a difference between seeing the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in 50 years versus 300 years.  Our ability to adapt and mitigate suffering is vastly different in 4C warming versus 2C warming, whether we are looking at sea level rise, crop yields, storm damage, diseases, or any of the impacts of climate change.

(4) Move toward your goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly — even if it seems like a small accomplishment — that enables you to move toward your goals. Instead of focusing on tasks that seem unachievable, ask yourself, "What's one thing I know I can accomplish today that helps me move in the direction I want to go?"

Some days, this is as small as recycling your shampoo bottle.  Other days, it is teaching someone else the value of recycling their shampoo bottle.  And some days, it is seeing your Republican Congressman sponsor a resolution to act on climate.  And on really great days, you see hundreds of thousands march in New York City, or see the Pope release his encyclical, or hear that nearly 200 nations actually agreed on something or that carbon pricing is in the Democratic platform or that your presidential candidate wants to build a national grid to enable renewable power to flourish. (Side note:  one thing every US citizen over 18 can accomplish on November 8 is to vote for that candidate, and climate active candidates down ballot).

(5) Take decisive actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.

'Nough said.

(6)  Look for opportunities for self-discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. Many people who have experienced tragedies and hardship have reported better relationships, greater sense of strength even while feeling vulnerable, increased sense of self-worth, a more developed spirituality and heightened appreciation for life.   (7) Nurture a positive view of yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience.

Climate activism offers benefits like connecting with others who share your concerns.  You can learn new skills, like writing letters to the editor, making difficult phone calls, or presenting to a local town board.  For me, personally, I am learning to find my own voice through climate action.  As it turns out, I won the lottery of climate action perks. I fell in love with a fellow climate activist.  :)

(7)  Keep things in perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion.

Well, I don't think we are in danger of committing this one.  Climate is a really big deal, and it is almost impossible to overstate its impact.  My daughter may have achieved this one a few years ago.  She asked me if creatures like cockroaches and bacteria would survive climate change.  And I said, that, yes, I thought so.  Her response may be resiliency incarnate:  "Well, good, then if we fail, we get to start over."

(8) Maintain a hopeful outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear.

Those uncertainties?  See the path to success.  It is like playing miniature golf.  You have to see where you want the ball to go if you have a hope of getting it there.  On the days we can't do this, take a walk.  There is no reason to make seeing failure a habit.

(9) Take care of yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience.

Know what keeps you feeling strong.  The climate movement sure could use more parties, more shared dinners, more music festivals, more time celebrating successes, no matter how small.

(10) Additional ways of strengthening resilience may be helpful. For example, some people write about their deepest thoughts and feelings related to trauma or other stressful events in their life. Meditation and spiritual practices help some people build connections and restore hope.

The key is to identify ways that are likely to work well for you as part of your own personal strategy for fostering resilience.

It is clear that the past 50 years of warnings on climate have not led to resilient behavior.  We have shut down, denied, ignored or succumbed to the doom of the horror.  The antithesis of "facing disruption without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional ways."

Practicing resiliency within the context of climate action may be an essential way to move beyond that.