(Cross-posted from Its Getting Hot In Here)
First, there was the Campus Climate Challenge, building  a base of action on campuses nationwide. Then, there was PowerVote, mobilizing youth across the country to vote for a clean energy future and shift America’s political landscape. Recently, there was PowerShift 2009, with 12,000 young people convening in Washington DC and continuing the effort in their local states to call for bold climate policy. And now …

As the youth climate movement forges ahead to deliver on its major short-term goals, we start to catch a glimpse of the long-term struggle still ahead – the one in which we must innovate and implement climate and energy solutions that also revitalize the economy and empower of communities. In this struggle, we must slowly wresting control of the economy from the fossil fuels that have run our society and putting it in the hands of millions of local innovators around the world who are harnessing the power of the wind, sun, and landscape to sustain their lives and their local economies. We must figure out how to make our buildings more efficient, our urban planning smarter, our agriculture sustainable, our grid system renewable, and our industries green. This is the epic economic, political, and social project, at least of our generation and probably of more to come – it will take decades, is global in scope, and must be participatory and people-supporting both if it is to be fair but also if it is to succeed.

Let’s be frank: as a movement, we have a pretty good idea of why this needs to happen, and a somewhat more vague idea of what needs to happen, but relatively little sense of how it will be done.  More news: our political leaders, scientists, and economists don’t really know what to do either. We are embarking on a societal process of figuring out how to create this new future, and as a warning, much of the planning is being done by those (supporters of “clean coal”, nuclear, tar sands suburban sprawl, agri-business, central station transmission, etc.) who prefer solutions that will lead us to dead ends.

If you want to spend your summer building your capacity and career as a creative leader helping develop the solutions we need to see, please join us for the Summer of Solutions. In 2008, we piloted a program in St. Paul Minnesota with 25 participants, and a sister program started in Portland Oregon – now we’re going nationwide.

The Summer of Solutions is a grassroots program led by pioneering youth innovators in 12 locations nationwide (Austin TX, Burlington VT, Corvalis OR, Eugene OR, Michigan, Omaha NE, Portland OR, San Francisco CA, Seattle WA, St. Louis MO, the Twin Cities MN, and Worcester MA). Each program will bring together a team of youth leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and skill-sets for approximately 2 months (length and dates vary) to accelerate and launch new initiatives around energy efficiency, community-based energy, sustainable food production, sustainable urban design, and green industry by creating innovative partnerships with existing local groups and structures for action that can sustain themselves over time. Program planners at each local area are forming existing projects, but participants are also invited to help create new ones through the collaborative process. The program fosters community-based innovation, peer-to-peer learning, and participatory leadership, and empowers participants to build and practice skills in community organizing, social entrepreneurship, and sustainable development. The Summer of Solutions teams will form creative communities that help participants:

1. Develop model projects that are “solutionary” – they integrate climate and energy solutions, economic revitalization, and community building, create the resources needed for their own emergence, and can be replicated broadly.
2. Build a growing “community of practice” with the skills and mind-set that prepare themselves to launch and build solutionary initiatives in their own communities while supporting others in the process.
3. Foster their careers by honing their interests, skills, and ability to support themselves.

As a follow up from PowerShift, we want to plug youth activists – newcomers and old-timers – into grassroots programs that will help create green jobs, foster local sustainability initiatives, and create model solutions campaigns that will model how to actually solve the climate and energy crisis while revitalizing the economy and fostering social justice.

If you are looking to experiment and build your skills as a grassroots innovator of the green economy leader, please apply to join us:

APPLY HERE

Regardless of whether you are personally available, please spread the word!

The true power of the Summer of Solutions is in its atmosphere and method. Part of it is just the incredible can-do attitude that drives our work, and increasingly builds legitimacy among local governments, business partners, and labor leaders. We are a national initaitive started and run by grassroots volunteers, often setting up programs amid classes and jobs, and training each other in the process. This essence is best captured by the blog post that Callista Perry wrote at the beginning of last summer’s program – she has since gone on to help start up the 2009 program in Worcester Massachusetts.

The method or approach to social change we are using is  far more about personal and collaborative creativity towards ways that work than it is about big bruising advocacy fights between grassroots power and big money. The solutionary approach does contest big power systems – in fact more systematically than a purely advocacy approach – but it does so quietly, through creating solutions that benefit the participants and invite other actors (whether community partners, labor, small business, faith groups, farmers, governments, or corporations to join in in doing things differently). My friend Tyler Magnuson (an activist from Omaha Nebraska going to school in Evergreen Washington) put it beautifully in his recent blog post on the emerging Solutionary blog: we’re about a sustainable activism that gives us life, creates tangible resources (financial, social, emotional) for ourselves and others, and builds itself through the collaborative process of creation. I sometimes think of it as fighting fire with water (instead of with more fire), or maybe like jujitsu. We use the strength of the system to change it.

In the Summer of Solutions, we learn by doing and teach each other: together we figure it out. That process starts from day 1 of involvement, when you start considering how you could be involved in the program. One of the most regular questions I get about the program is whether the program costs money, is volunteer, or they get paid for it. It’s an understandable question in a program where you are both working for two months and getting intensive, practice-based training to build your career as a green economy leader.

We start with a different question: what do you need to participate this summer, and how can we work together to fill those needs? Applicants and program planners work together to raise the funds to cover costs of living and provide a summer stipend for their participation (or link with related jobs/ internships) – its sort of like collaborating with other youth leaders to create your own summer job. Those of us on the national and local teams are working intensively to secure funding for stipends, but particularly in today’s tight funding climate, we won’t be able to cover everyone alone. Based on what you need as an incoming participant, we’ll help you identify ways you can help raise those funds through the grassroots to complement whatever sources of support we do manage to secure.

I think we’re used to having the way forward be clear cut and simple, with the way forward clearly laid out supported by an economy founded on familiar and reliable, if ultimately disastrous, power sources. As we take charge of our own future, and help lead a green economy founded on power and economic activity that is currently uncertain and not-yet created, we have to innovate. Figuring out how to piece together financial support for your dreams is a valuable skill, particularly in the tight job market of a falling economy – it’s just the start of the solutionary process. The programs themselves explore how we can make sweeping change in an entrepreneurial manner, sustaining ourselves through the process.

If we can’t support ourselves through our activism, our vision for the world isn’t very sustainable. Let’s create some solutions.

There is a long way to go. This is just the beginning!

I’ve recently been working in St. Paul on how we’re applying the stimulus funding around efficiency, and I wanted to call a tension to a potential hurdle for successful climate solutions: As activists, we need to make sure that initial investments actually help change the market.

Minnesota is slated to receive about $131.5 million in federal stimulus funding for weatherization and energy efficiency to be spent over the next 18 months, plus about another $54 million in conservation block grants for the state. That’s a lot of money coming in quickly, and energy efficiency is just one small part of a series of investments in renewable energy, job training, infrastructure improvements, and economic aid in the recent federal stimulus package.

This is all very good news. Major investments in efficiency and weatherization are an excellent idea (I explain why at a note at the end of this blog post). The problem is that current market barriers are keeping energy efficiency, which ought to be a no-regrets, win-win-win solution, from being adopted at scale. No one in their right mind would let a 20% low-risk financial return go by, especially these days in a falling economy, yet we do exactly that every day by throwing money out the cracks in our doors and the cold drafts that blow through our un-insulated walls. There are many reasons that we are missing these opportunities – lack of information, lack of access to capital, obscure and complex auditing and contracting services, and little feedback as to how much energy, money, and carbon one is wasting. If we can solve these barriers, hundreds of billions of dollars of investment will flow towards this sector on a sustained basis, helping all Americans cut their energy costs and carbon emissions while creating long-term sustainable jobs. If initial investments (even the roughly $200 million dollars that the stimulus package might provide to Minnesota) only go towards paying for efficiency in some more houses, we will have just scratched the surface and end up with the same stunted efficiency market we have right now. The stimulus funding will only help solve that problem if it is deployed rightly.

Part of the problem is the speed at which the money must be spent – within the next 18 months. For efficiency, this scale of funding means a factor 5 or more expansion of the workforce, meaning that several thousand new efficiency contractors will need to be trained and employed in record-breaking time (this also risks low-quality works). The problem is that unless funds are invested strategically to change the way the market works, in 18 months the funding will be gone, demand for efficiency will drop, and those thousands of people will be back out of work. $200 million just scratches the surface of the changes we could make in Minnesota alone.

What we need to make the efficiency market work is:

1. The creation of financial mechanisms that allow us to cycle funds and even generate a return. I did this at a small scale ($100,000) as a student at Macalester College through the Clean Energy Revolving Fund. There are a number of technical and policy strategies to do this at a much larger regional scale.This is the step necessary to make sure that funding is not a one-shot deal, and to attract much larger amounts of capital from the private sector over time.
2. Build the capacity for growth and sustained interest through enterprises that do outreach through community networks – efforts that engage large numbers of people at the local level through peer-to-peer engagement strategies and relationships with existing community partners such as churches, schools, local business associations, and community organizations have been shown to create economies of scale, allow quality control of work, and create the motivation for sustained engagement.
3. Create training programs that produce quality work at low cost, are accessible to new workers without advanced skill-sets, and focus on creating employees capable of not only insulating your walls, but helping you walk through and understand the process.
4. Empower residents and neighborhoods as leaders of the clean energy economy by pursuing policy changes that make information more accessible (ie energy bills that are understandable and interesting), provide feedback through home smart meters and social norms, and encourage collaboration and innovation at the local level (advancing a smart-grid where all of us can manage, produce, and sell energy similarly as information flows in the internet).

Basically, the stimulus should do more than throw money at the problem. It should invest strategically in the infrastructure that will provide a solution in the long term. A solution that will be many times larger than the quick infusion of funding provided by the stimulus, and that will put us on track for a revitalized economy.

As my recent blog posts mention, I have been working with hundreds and thousands of young people for these types of solutions at both the state and national policy levels. In the realm of residential energy efficiency in particular, I have been going much deeper, working over the past year and a half to launch a start-up phase co-op (Cooperative Energy Futures) working with residents and neighborhoods to improve energy efficiency using a model that seeks to transform the energy efficiency market as described in the 4-point plan above. Recently, this adventure has taken me to the state legislature as the stimulus allocation plan is being developed, which is when I started to worry about the short-sightedness of the quick-fix stimulus approach.

If you are interested in linking up with Cooperative Energy Futures to start applying this emerging approach with your neighbors or any group of interested friends, or want to work with us to figure out how to implement efficiency at scale, please contact us through our Interest Form.

Here’s why major investments in energy efficiency make so much sense:
America’s 112 million housing units make up 35% of our electrical consumption, about 1.145 trillion kilo-watt hours per year. If you multiply that by the 11.47 cents per kilowatt hour that the average American paid for electricity in 2008 (according to the DOE), that’s $131.3 billion that residents are throwing to the coal industry, the nuclear industry, and other big energy providers (incidentally the fossil energy sector is the sector of the economy controlled by the fewest, biggest companies that have virtual control on the market, and create fewer jobs per dollar than most sectors of the economy while causing massive negative costs on society through air and water pollution, land degradation, and the wide economic impacts of climate change). And this isn’t even counting small businesses, or other sectors of the built environment, or natural gas and other sources of home heating. If the big numbers make your eyes glaze over, go look at your energy bill for a reminder of how much money you are losing. For most Minnesotans, it is upwards of $2,000 per year – much more for very large homes. The impacts of this energy cost disproportionately affect lower-income Minnesotans, both because their energy bill takes up a larger percentage of a smaller paycheck, and because low-cost housing tends to be inefficient and poorly insulated – making it high on energy costs. Similarly, the long-term impacts of burning all of this fossil fuel hurt people without the resources to compensate the most – like lower-income residents of New Orleans or places you are less likely to hear about, like flooded Bangladesh or drought-stricken areas in Africa.

The reason that investing so much stimulus money in efficiency is a great idea is that simple improvements (with paybacks less than 5 years) in home energy efficiency can cut energy usage in the range of 20-30%, helping keep money in our communities and reduces our collective investment in energy dependency and global warming. Deeper investments, with paybacks on the range of less than 10 years, can cut home energy usage by over 50%. The dramatic increases in home improvement trades like energy auditors, insulation contractors, and furnace replacers is also a huge boon for job creation – efficiency improvements yield far more jobs per dollar than any other source of energy (renewable energy creates several times more jobs per dollar than fossil fuels, and efficiency creates even more). It makes excellent sense to invest federal funds in this sector – it saves money for those who are struggling most in a tight economy, creates lots of job, improves our built infrastructure over the long term, and helps us start the journey to a post-carbon economy.

MCEC will be kicking off on February 1 at colleges across Minnesota. Here at Macalester, we have a number of sweet activities lined up. Check them out if you’re in the Cities!

“Climate Change Policy Opportunities: A screening of “The First 100 Days” Webcast and discussion with our elected officials,”

7:00 – 9:00 Wednesday February 4^th, John B. Davis Lecture Hall, Campus Center
Come engage with Minnesota’s elected officials while kicking off the Minnesota Campus Energy Challenge! The night, a part of the National-Teach-In on Global Warming, will start off with the “Solutions for the First 100 Days” webcast, featuring David Orr, Billy Parish, and others, followed by a panel discussion with politicians, including State Representative Erin Murphy. The discussion will focus on what kind of policy changes can be made in the first hundred days of Obama’s term in office, including current and upcoming climate focused policy and how the politicians plan to partner with the youth climate action movement. The evening will conclude with questions from the audience.

Sponsored by: Sustainability Office

“EnviroMarathon”

9:00 – 3:00 John B. Davis Lecture Hall

3:00 – 9:00 Olin-Rice 100

Thursday February 5^th

Our EnviroMarathon, part of the National Teach-In on Global Warming, will be a series of talks, presentations, and discussions from 9:00 in the morning to 9:00 at night, led by renowned Macalester faculty as well as leaders and activists of the environmental movement. Over the course of the day, a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives on the environment, sustainability, and climate change will be presented as Macalester joins over 600 campuses engaging in climate issues on Feb 5^th for the National Teach-In on Global Warming.

Current Schedule

9:00 – 9:40 – Amy Damon “Poverty and Wildlife: Development and Conservation Conflicts Around Serengeti National Park”

10:00 – 11:00 – Christie Manning and Elise Amel “Psychological Tools to Empower Sustainability”

11:00 – 12:00 – Michael Griffin “Enduring Myths and Icons in Media Coverage of the Environment”

3:00 – 4:00 William Moseley – “Beyond Knee-Jerk Environmental Thinking: A Geographic Perspective on Conservation, Preservation and the Hetch Hetchy Valley Controversy.”

4:00 – 5:00 Dave Sheild – “Geothermal Energy, Modeling Economic Growth through Environmental Sustainability”

5:00 – 6:00 K.P. Hong – “One Earth, Many Stories: Primacy of Responsibility over Religious Diversity”

7:30 – 8:00 Andy Frank “America’s Greenest Campus: Walking the (Carbon Footprint) Walk”

8:00 – 9:00 Hannah Rivenburgh “Marking Turf, Mow Jobs, and Mono-culture: The Gendered and Ecologically Fragmented American Suburban Lawn”

On science, Apollo program, and civil rights

I was searching for the recent Time interview with Obama the other day (yeah, the one where he says energy should be his #1 priority), when I stumbled across an article titled “What the Public Doesn’t Get about Climate Change” by Bryan Walsh. The article was an excellent review a recent article in Science by John Sterman. Sterman documents what many of us know by now – scientists have been terrible at effectively messaging the climate crisis. Even smart, expert MIT students don’t really “get it” – that carbon sticks around in the atmosphere for a long time and that we need to be drastically reducing CO2 emissions rather than merely stabilizing them. We’ve known that climate change has suffered from a messaging problem for quite some time. Climate change consistently polls at the bottom of issue rankings, although one might argue that energy and economy are sufficient proxies. Walsh’s piece cites, a 2007 survey by the U.N. Development Programme that found “54% of Americans advocate taking a “wait and see” approach to climate-change action.” Wait and see! Yikes!

The next line in the chain of argument often goes that the correct messaging frame is one of an Apollo/Manhattan/Marshall program for energy independence. Through a message of massive public investment, this positivist, progressive message supposedly hearkens the can-do American spirit. The Apollo metaphor has become the basis for both major presidential candidate’s energy platforms, the basis of an entire organization – the Apollo Alliance, and a message of many social groups, like the We Campaign.

Although almost an aside in the piece, Sterman makes an excellent response to the Apollo metaphor.

Instead of a new Manhattan Project — the metaphor often used for global warming — Sterman believes that what is needed is closer to a new civil rights movement, a large-scale campaign that dramatically changes the public’s beliefs and behaviors. “[T]he reality is that this is even more difficult than civil rights,” says Sterman. “Even that took a long time, and we don’t have that kind of time with the climate.”

Many other environmental groups, and many on It’s Getting Hot in Here, have compared the climate crisis to civil rights before, but now more than ever, I think it’s time to think about what this statement means. Is an Apollo program to re-technologize America going to reduce our CO2 emissions the amount needed? And is the Apollo mantra really messaging climate and energy better, or just hiding them? Can we really build a clean energy economy if the general public doesn’t understand what the impetus and implications of that clean energy economy is?

What’s up TEAM,

For the last two months, I’ve been organizing a conference called Minnesota Powershift, a fantastic opportunity for youth and community members to connect and network. Minnesota Powershift is this weekend, October 3-5.

Minnesota Powershift features fantastic support from a number organizations, including Fresh Energy, the Sierra Student Coalition, the North Star chapter of the Sierra Club, Center for Energy and the Environment, Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, and more. You can visit http://www.mnpowershift.org for more info, to donate and help support our event, and to check out the agenda.

I am liveblogging the event below. I will also be twittering updates @ http://www.twitter.com/kaibosworth. Finally, if you’re SUPER interested and have a bunch of questions, you can email me @ keylimekai@gmail.com

Awesome! I’m soooo ready for this event to begin, and expect updates NOW:

FRIDAY

6:08 – Overhearing conversations about Green Jobs and Climate Justice with PowerVote and Oxfam folks. Exciiiiitement!

7:37 – Just getting started

7:30-8ish Arctic explorer Will Steger just spoke, giving some account and testimony about what’s going on with the melting ice in the arctic. CRAZY.

8:04 Timothy Den Herder-Thomas is speaking, reframing how we think about “we.” What are we going to do (rather than what am I going to do). Also Open Space Technology “whoever’s here is the right people”

8:22 US Congressmen Keith Ellison (DFL), founder of EJAM speaking now. Dude is seriously awesome. “People have shifted power before – and now it’s your turn to shift power”

8:28 “This movement must involve people of color”

8:35 ICEBREAKER

8:49 Jack Nelson Pallmeyer – Five Lenses of thinking about Global Climate Change. Jack NP ran for senate, but lost to Al Franken in the primary. That said, he’s the BEST DUDE.

9:07 Jack NP is killing it. Why isn’t this guy our benevolent dictator?

9:20 I’m outta here

The first day seems to have been a huge success. Not everyone that registered showed up, but those who are are here are loving it! Today’s speakers really energized the crowd, and a bunch of people are doing some very important networking. See you tomorrow!

SATURDAY

9:45am Things are moving and shaking right now! A bunch of solid workshops getting started, and energ seems to be pretty high!

8:40pm Holy smokes! Today was too busy to update! Mostly workshops going on, a GREAT team minnesota meeting, and a “political forum” in the afternoon, at which I spoke. My talk was called “Youth, Governance, and Creating the Impossible.” It went all right. Keith Ellison showed up again too!

Last night, renowned climate scientist Jim Hansen spoke to a number of policymakers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, students, and others at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Hansen has been blowing whistles on climate change for twenty years, most recently citing 350ppm of CO2 as the level which we must reach to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change, and inspiring the 350 campaign. Hansen’s speech highlighted both the scientific consensus on global warming and the lack of an effective response from policymakers.

Yet during Jim’s speech, I was struck by his inability to connect the severity of his findings with the morality of responses from policy makers, young people, or really anyone else. We are past the point when expertise is needed from the scientific community. By continuing to propagate the “science vs. junk science” battle, Hansen and others are ignoring real questions of power, morality, citizen engagement, and the social changes that are needed to build a clean energy future.

Science and scientists have obviously played an integral role in the discovery and general acceptance of climate change as real, human-induced, and dangerous. For the last forty to fifty years, climatology and meteorology have grown from small fields to model-producing powerhouses. Yet up until this point, scientists have failed to convince policymakers and the general public of the severity of global climate change and the depth of changes our society needs.

Part of the reason is that scientists are often terrible messengers. Complex graphs, statistics, and models tend to overwhelm. This information overload psychologically turns people off – if climate change is this big and complex, how can any individual or group have any effect? Further, scientists, and environmental scientists in particular, tend to frame their work as part of a “science vs. non-science” battle. The role of scientists is to educate the public on matters of science, and those who disagree with them are, as Hansen often says, “contrarians” and disbelievers. Policymakers have bought into this dichotomy, from global warming to stem cell research to intelligent design, again blinding them to the ethics and values within science. By treating their research as almost holy, scientists and experts send mixed messages when the best science changes.

By creating this simplified dichotomy, many scientists insulate themselves from the public eye, seeking to complete their research before asking questions of morality because “the public just wouldn’t understand.” What the public ends up seeing is a stream of scientists that claim their expertise on a topic, but continue to shift their opinions on everything (as science does). Think of the climate targets: first, 500ppm was our goal. Then, as more research was done, 400-450ppm (“80% by 2050″) became our feasible target. Recently, Hansen pushed the target down to 350ppm, a point which we’ve already passed. The IPCC claimed that it was 90% sure that humans caused global warming, and pushing CO2 levels to 400ppm would result in a 50% chance of catastrophic climate damage. To a layperson’s or policymaker’s eye, a response to this gambling-like uncertainty is both unsettling, confusing, and paralyzing. Hence, the global response to climate change has been woefully inadequate and misdirected.

Scientists have always had trouble with models of risk management. Attempts to quantify levels of safety around toxics and nuclear waste have conflicted with observed results, often times with fatal results. Likewise, climate scientists predictions of global warming in the eighties contrasted with the global cooling caused by sulfur dioxides and particulate matter created by coal. Scientists’ predictions of ice-free arctic summers by 2050 contrasted with the recent exponential decrease in summer ice observed by those living in the arctic.

Many scientists also fail to give the social context to their research. When research is framed in terms of ecosystems, atmosphere, and global climate, we fail to understand the interconnectedness of climate change and perceived social/political problems like energy prices, the subprime mortgage crisis, the global food and water shortages, and so on.

These qualities of scientific expertise often lead scientists to advocate technological or scientific fixes for environmental problems. As an article in today’s NY Times points out, climate solutions from geoengineering, like ocean seeding or space mirrors, need to be seriously questioned. Slightly less crazy ideas like carbon sequestration and nuclear power have also come under fire by many in the environmental community. These simple magic bullets fail to acknowledge the root causes of climate chaos, nor the powerful role technological expertise and uncertainty have played in getting us into this mess.

Jim Hansen gave three roles for scientists: learning from the past, observing present changes, and predicting the future. What I argue is that scientists’ observations from the past provide impetus for action, while the “expertise” demonstrated by climate predictions has distracted us from true action. While it’s important to take into account “what the science says,” it’s more important to realize that what we’re doing is not just “saving the climate” or “stopping global warming”, but rather building a more just society, tackling poverty, and creating economic growth.

So what role should science play in the future? More people are becoming skeptical of scientific and technological fixes to perceived scientific problems. In the process of deconstructing scientific expertise, we realize that we are all scientists. We observe changes in science, society, and technology on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. And if we do recognize that we’re all parts of this world, then we can acknowledge our own power to both observe changes and make change for the better. We are empowered to make decisions beyond which dish soap to buy or how much gas to put in the tank.

This realization has been the foundation for the citizen science movement. With roots in participatory science like bird watching and stargazing, citizen science has grown to include observations on toxics and climate effects. Deliberative and informative methods like citizen juries, science shops, and consensus conferences can help make choices about the technologies and policies that we, the citizens, wish to see in the world. Less formal activities like green drinks and cafe scientifique help break down barriers to expertise and, oh yeah, are really really fun. By engaging the public in decision making processes, we can arrive at real science and technology policy, rather than a hodgepodge of free market and government funded choices.

Jim Hansen strikes me as a jaded and pessimistic guy. He has weathered a lot of criticism and is probably afraid of what he sees for our future. But during a question and answer section, he got really excited while talking about historic climate trends. Hansen loves what he’s doing, which I’m always in favor of. I thank him for his years of priceless service. Likewise, many of the policymakers I’ve met have their hearts in the right places but simply have little idea what to do. In response to these problems, we must democratize both politics and science, to let the public discuss, deliberate, and choose the policies and technologies that we are to use, and to understand and confront the root causes of climate change rather than devoting more time to climate science debates.

Hi all, and welcome to the official blog of TEAM MN! If you’d like to help contribute to this blog, please email keylimekai@gmail.com