If you are not already a subscriber, why not take this opportunity to join our community with a free or paid subscription? A new paid subscription or an upgrade from a free to paid subscription will allow me to expand this newsletter with additional, primary source information, like interviews and public information requests, and expanded podcast offerings to include real, live guests. Although I won’t be going on strike any time soon, the current TV writer’s strike demonstrates that writer’s deserve to be paid, and paid well for their work, just like any other profession. Thank you in advance for your financial support of my writing!

The best way to learn may be through “doing”, but since we can only cram so many direct learning experiences, like traveling, apprenticing or practicing a craft on our own, reading sure helps fill in the gaps. I read about environmental issues long before I officially studied them and later immersed myself in the enforcement of environmental laws.

But our approach to solving our current environmental crises has changed since the 1980’s and 1990’s when I practiced environmental law. Decades ago, we seemed to agree that a piecemeal approach would work fine—we essentially plugged holes every day: stopped a few permit violations here, refused to site a landfill there. And except for the permitting process (and thankfully preserving some land as national parks), it was almost always completely reactive. With hindsight, I now wonder why we didn’t take a more holistic and proactive approach to protecting our planet. We never questioned the underlying premise that business ruled, and that we had to let them pollute, just in a slightly more limited and controlled way.

Share

Today, because our centuries of barely controlled polluting and a collective lack of foresight have led us to a climate crisis, we are forced into a mostly unprecedented decision to plan ahead. A few elected officials, including President Biden, are attempting to hold climate change past the tipping point with moderate, additional restrictions on key polluting industries, as discussed in one of the articles below. But so many others who we elect to represent us, are fighting our necessary transition to clean energy to line their pockets with short-term profits from fossil fuels. Still. In 2023.

That’s where reading comes in. If you can be out there on the front lines protesting continued fossil fuel use and inaction on climate change with Jane Fonda and others, that’s great. You can learn by working directly with environmental activists, even if you do land in jail for a few hours. But you can also learn about all kinds of environmental issues and how each affects you directly by reading reliable sources. I’ve provided a few to get you started.

— First up is an NPR multimedia piece which explains the relationship between melting arctic ice and wildfires in the western United States.

“The Arctic only works when it’s cold, and it’s the air conditioner for the planet.“So as the Arctic breaks down, the climate connections of the whole planet break down.”

— Alex Whiting, environmental director for the Native Village of Kotzebue

And here’s a related piece for the younger generation…or anyone, really: “A Climate Change Guide For Kids” from The New York Times. It’s really well done.

— Here’s an excellent analysis in The NY Times from just a few days ago, that puts a recent greenhouse gas proposed regulation in important context. The new regulation intends to put a first ever cap on air pollution emissions from existing power plants— emission caps have previously been on newly built plants, with the existing polluters “grandfathered in” to continue emissions at the old levels. The article explains how this proposed regulation fits with other Biden administration proposals to stem climate change in a holistic fashion.

The regulations governing power plants come on the heels of other Biden administration plans to cut tailpipe emissions by speeding up the country’s transition to electric vehicles, to curb methane leaks from oil and gas wells and to phase down the use of a planet-warming chemical in refrigerants. Together with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which is pouring more than $370 billion into clean energy programs, the actions would catapult the United States to the forefront of the fight to constrain global warming.

But none of these plans may come to fruition because the fight continues against progress, even when its our own lives at stake.

This same Times article discusses the “why’s” behind Senator Joe Manchin’s opposition to these proposed regulations. In fact, Senator Manchin has the audacity to outright threaten the administration in an attempt to defeat these new emission standards—he refuses to support any of President Biden’s nominees to the US EPA if this regulation isn’t cancelled.

“This administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal- and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” said Mr. Manchin, who has earned millions from his family’s coal business.

Why shouldn’t our country be “hellbent”on eliminating coal and gas-fueled power plants given the immediate climate crisis? Check out the money-focused, evil web the Senator from West Virginia continues to weave that has made him a millionaire while jilting his own constituents.

___________________________________________________________________________

What are your thoughts on our transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy? Do we still need to drill in pristine areas, be timid in regulating polluting industries? Please let me know in the Comment Section below.

Leave a comment

And please Subscribe!