Thank you for listening to and reading Climate Workers Anonymous. Subscribe above, and be sure to subscribe in whichever podcast app you use. An amazing rating and review on those podcast apps does a world of good. Would you please do that for me now? Here’s Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.
If you’d like submit your anonymous hopes, fears, or experiences to Climate Workers Anonymous, you can use this Tally survey or email climateworkersanonymous[at]protonmail.com, though I believe the Tally survey is more secure. Do not communicate anything you wouldn’t want a hacker to have access to, including an email address that could be linked to you if you email the account on Protonmail.
Welcome to episode #4 of Climate Workers Anonymous, where those workers in climate can share their anonymous and unverified thoughts, feelings, and experiences about their work. What do you dare to think when you might not be judged for it? What’s your heretical thought, your foolish hope, or your hard-won experience? Share it here for publication on the written Substack and to be read in the podcast version.
In this episode’s introduction, I explain a bit more about the limits of the show, and why if you believe there is any sort of questionable behavior by specific parties you should consider contacting an investigative journalist whom you respect. They are much better equipped to evaluate truth claims in this way and typically have anonymity protocols far more sophisticated than what I can offer. I keep this show anonymous and unverified to make sure there is room to discuss the truth of experience and feelings without having to do the hardboiled work of others. I hope that makes sense!
Here are the submissions for this episode:
We should hit pause on any crediting of open-systems carbon removal pathways like enhanced rock weathering and ocean alkalinity enhancement. Due to the inability to directly verify carbon storage with these approaches, it is simply too risky to use credits from these pathways to compensate for any level of positive emissions. Some findings are already emerging demonstrating that actual removal was far less than previously thought, and there will continue to be high risks of such findings. This dynamic poses a severe risk to the climate, as we may end up using essentially phantom credits to compensate or even justify for emissions, which would also gravely harm the reputation and ultimate scalability of the industry. The most prudent thing to do is to hit pause on crediting and conduct more research, only to resume any kind of formal crediting once our full, end-to-end understanding of these processes is much better.
I've seen this whole climate action thing as a response to grief-denial for some years now. I even went back to graduate school to study it - building more grief in the process of involvement in academia - and continue to witness it throughout the polycrisis.
How we respond to the fear of collapse or death influences whether we respond to the defoulment of the planet by moving toward stewardship head-on, at an angle, or in the opposite direction.
I'm coming to see that the moments the deeper part, the part that is afraid, is touched, is where the real work is happening. So the stuff that's put on top of that should be about bringing us together so we can have more of these moments of contact. The denial of the position of grief in all of this plays a central role in the work.
Pointing at each other and passing judgment is keeping us apart.I wish people working in climate would virtue signal less. We are all working towards the same goal. Don't go out of your way to make someone feel less than for "not doing enough." We're all tired out here. Kind words go way further than backhanded comments.
- Someone who has worked in climate their entire career
Thank you again to everyone who has submitted to the project!
Sincerely,
Ross Kenyon
