Home | About | Donate

Bold New Campaign Highlights How 'Nature Can Save Us' From Climate and Ecological Breakdown

Bold New Campaign Highlights How 'Nature Can Save Us' From Climate and Ecological Breakdown

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

A group of activists, experts, and writers on Wednesday launched a bold new campaign calling for the "thrilling but neglected approach" of embracing nature's awesome restorative powers to battle the existential crises of climate and ecological breakdown.


I’ve got high hopes…if and when the figure out how to stop the ice from melting, how to stop the 50Gt methane burp or capture it, how stabilize the jet stream once again and other such things then…I’ll have high hopes and remember, George like nuke-pukes too…I’ve got high hopes.


Just stop destroying nature … that in itself would be a great step forward.


Whitman said that if you sit under trees they will speak to you.
I was sitting near a deodar, and here’s what I learned!

RHYME from an ENT
I live i in soil ------my true belief
the air that’s been cleaned by a leaf!
And swaps and fish and wolves give too
A natural world that’s meant for you.
But corporate brains are so intense,
they only value pounds and pence.
And so the action you must take
is strive for REAL and not the fake!
The Earth’s so bountiful , you know
that NATURE, does control the show.
I am an ENT that tells this tale----
So trust my words, I’m not for sale.
So please confine your trust to TREEStThey clean the air and love to please–
They please the human, bird and beast,
Though corporate ones they like the least
And to those corporate ones, BEWARE,
I search for you most everywhere
I am a Tree, and ENT for sure,
who works for humans smart and pure.
So corporate ones, do watch your step,
for ENTS are aiming for your neck!! : )


All the solutions are at hand. All we need to do is put corporations under human control.


Upon visiting the site linked and going to the supporters page there is a painfully glaring absence of not one single indigenous person or organization. Revealing, No?

Also glaring is that ALL organizations are sponsored by corporations. Revealing, No?

Nature can save us from climate breakdown? Dang, guess human culpability is all in my imagination.

Boy, I hope I’ve got this all wrong.

1 Like

The area where the TARsands being mined is one covered with Peat bogs. In order to get at the Bitumen under the forest , these peat bogs are destroyed.

In other words as dirty as this oil is when one considers CO2 emissions , the impact of Tarsand mining is exponentially greater when the destruction of all of these carbon sinks factored in.

I found this an excellent book on the topic , ultimately suggesting that man retreat from the wilderness and allow the wilderness to return . Wild Nature can not co-exist with modern civilization but they can be isolated from one another to the benefit of both.


(Sarcasm Alert)

Haven’t you heard? Business reporters are letting us us know that capitalism has already solved climate change:

With so much hype, why wait for evidence?
As the Petroleum industry backers of this technology make clear, why should we continue to worry about limiting our consumption of fossil fuels?


I can not help but roll my eyes at the solution these “engineers” claim to be providing us. That second picture shows one of the “devices” they propose using to remove excess CO2. It sits in the middle of land that all but devoid of life of any sort.

I contrast that with the beautiful “Natural version” mother nature provides us for free in the picture in this article.

I mean…really?


As trees fall in the rainforests, the corpress only hears its master’s voice


I honestly thought this was going to be a tongue-in-cheek article talking about the cleansing effects of hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, heatwaves, winter storms and tidal waves. After all, if nature can kill enough of us, problem solved.


Better to make Con-man Don go extinct, than risk the whole planet.

"People, Planet, and Peace Before Profit."


As long as we have Republicans in control (in Both parties) we don’t have a chance .


Corporations ARE under human control, Alan – greedy, wantonly consuming humans. All of us can exercise control over corporations by consuming less. Stop buying their junk. Fix what you have and share it with others. Form cooperatives. Grow your own food. Peace.


Whoopee!  Decrease consumption & pollution by 5% or 10% per person, while the number of persons more than doubles by 2100.  And pray tell me how a family of six crowded into a one-bedroom apart­ment on the tenth floor of one of Tweetle-Dumb’s run-down twenty-story tenements is going to grow their own food . . .

How naïve can you get?  In light of ever-increasing numbers of humans impinging on the environments of elephants, rhinos & tapirs, good luck with that!!  There are currently about EIGHT TIMES more of us humans on the planet than can be supported in a way allowing all of the other species to survive, but proponents of the IMPOSSIBLE idea of “sustainable growth” dominate our economies & governments worldwide.  There are roughly 7.5 Billion humans on earth today, and a relatively low growth rate of just one percent (1%) compounded annually will double that number in just seventy years – that’s 15 Billion people by 2090.  What good is a 5% or 10% per capita reduction in CO2 production if the number of us “capitas” doubles?

If we do not find a humane way to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce our population, Mother Nature will find her own way — and it will be neither humane nor pretty . . .

The Root Cause of 99.44% of Mother Earth’s problems is a GROSS over-population of humans; Organized Religion is the Manure that feeds that Root – South America being the most obvious example, but there are many others.


There is actually a major plank missing in this.

It’s not that we should not be supporting ecosystems, nor that ecosystems do not support us; all this is well observed. The missing piece here is that we will not begin to do much of this until we can do it satisfying human needs.

We have already tried a strategy of setting aside one or another place to be ecologically viable, to retreat from it or restrain human use of it. But that does work if humans are rumbling along expanding economies and extracting from ecosystems without returning to these systems. The set-aside environments are not realistically discrete from the places and systems that humans abuse. They are permanently connected, if only partially; and the decisions to leave certain places aside turn out to be only temporary.

No, the key here is to make agriculture and production for human consumption regenerative in an ecological sense. We may be tempted to dodge this because it involves a major re-evaluation of social systems and values and a major technological re-tooling. But there really is not anything short of this that offers to solve the problem.

And, outside of the resolution of specifically human difficulties around status and command and cooperation and education, setting up regenerative agricultural systems is not overwhelmingly difficult. We can see this done on a larger scale in the Cuban organoponicos of the “special period,” the work in China documented in John Liu’s Lessons of the Loess Plateau, and in permaculture and syntropic agricultural systems as well as a few traditional systems.

It’s fine to set aside some area meanwhile. But this is all tangential to solution.

1 Like

Climatologists study the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) and make projections. They run into a forest fire so that they can measure the flames. Climate engineers try to put the fire out.

We’re going to break into two distinct groups of climate engineers. On the one hand we’re going to see peer-reviewing climate engineers investigating how to optimize carbon sequestration in peat bogs, in desert acreage with nearby pumpable seawater, in midwestern grasslands, and so on. These folks need vast amounts of money right now, and they will probably deliver vast numbers of good-paying jobs because that’s what mission-critical R&D always does. On the other hand we’re going to see well-funded and awesomely-publicized whizbang things by corporate entities that don’t ever want to see the tiniest bit of peer review of what they do. It’s a secret!


Were the populations of these systems stable, or did some persons emigrate from them over time, relieving the pressure of increased consumption & competition for space due to growing numbers?


One partial solution to stop the Arctic Ocean’s ice and the permafrost from melting:

At sea, floating wind-powered pumps move seawater above the ice all winter. At below-zero temperatures, this creates great amounts of new ice, and the newly thickened ice pack lasts all summer, reflecting the sun back into space as it used to.

On land, wind-powered artificial snow-making machines coat pieces of tundra in late spring and in early fall. The snow reflects sunlight back into space as it used to do. This stops everything from melting and releasing a teraton or so of greenhouse gases.

Price: $1B to $10B per year until the greenhouse gases are sequestered back to normal. It’s a vast bargain for the world’s nations, considering the cost of, say, a dirty little war.


They keep pushing robots. Maybe the robots will destroy them- like their creations will spin out of control.