The sound of geese chatting and flapping their wings dominates the pre-dawn hour on the state park trail. Such vocalization and display on Jan. 15, can only mean one thing: the climate crisis has come home to roost.
There is the science of weather. La Niña is present but fading into a neutral state of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. In other words, the weather is not doing much except what can be seen: ice melting, warmer ambient temperature pushing into the 50s, and lack of precipitation. So what’s up with these birds?
I know geese have strong bonds within mating pairs. They are particularly protective of their goslings. What I’m seeing now is not mating behavior, per se. It is a reaction to climate change in the form of over-wintering, early pairing displays, and vocal/aggressive behaviors. These behaviors are now normal near the lake where I take my daily walk, and in other parts of North America. The environment changed faster than their instincts evolved. What I observed in an earlier post is mostly pair-bond reinforcement and territory signaling, not actual breeding yet. I don’t need to be worrying about freezing little goslings in 3-4 weeks just yet.
Like with anything, my fellow early morning trail walkers noticed the noise and wondered what it was. I opined about it before really understanding the behavior. Geese will eventually adapt to changing climate. One might say they already are.
I rarely find people who reflect my own thinking as closely as this post by Lawrence Wittner on the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Peace and Health blog. We have the capacity to solve many of the world’s problems: poverty, hunger, human health and longevity, and fear for security. At the same time murderous rogue states led by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Benjamin Netanyahu are at work to negate these advancements. After the paragraph below, click on the link to read Wittner’s entire post.
There is a widening gap today between global possibilities and global realities. The possibilities are enormous, for―thanks to a variety of factors, ranging from increases in knowledge to advances in economic productivity―it’s finally feasible for all of humanity to lead decent and fulfilling lives.
There is no acceptable rationale for the United States to conduct more nuclear weapons testing. I was surprised when I heard the president took to Truth Social on Oct. 30, to post he had “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons…” The president says a lot of crazy stuff, yet I was scratching my head over this one.
The global moratorium on nuclear testing is a mainstay against the dangers inherent in the existence of nuclear weapons. The question should be whether the world can bring a complete end to nuclear testing by ratifying and putting into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The president would take us in the opposite direction.
Mine is not the position of a few activists. Literally millions of people, around the globe, have stood up and fought to bring a complete end to nuclear testing.
According to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, “The journey has been long and difficult, from the citizen-led campaign that prompted Kennedy and Khrushchev to sign the 1963 ban on atmospheric blasts… to the campaign to push Congress to halt testing in 1992… and secure the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996.”
Nuclear testing should remain “taboo.” We should resist the president by contacting our U.S. Senators and Members of Congress and telling them so.
No other nation is testing nuclear weapons. Nor should the United States.
~ Submitted as a letter to the editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette
Oct. 28 marked 100 days until the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between Russia and the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin said publicly he would like to extend it. President Trump said it sounded like a good idea. We have gone nowhere since. Here is a source for this paragraph from an Oct. 6, Associated Press story. It fills in some details.
MOSCOW (AP) — The Kremlin on Monday welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about Russia’s offer to extend the last remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States, saying it raises hope for keeping the pact alive after it expires in February.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared his readiness to adhere to nuclear arms limits under the 2010 New START arms reduction treaty for one more year, and he urged Washington to follow suit. When asked about the proposal, Trump said Sunday it “sounds like a good idea to me.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed Trump’s statement, noting that “it gives grounds for optimism that the United States will support President Putin’s initiative.”
While offering to extend the New START agreement, Putin said its expiration would be destabilizing and could fuel proliferation of nuclear weapons. He also argued that maintaining limits on nuclear weapons could also be an important step in “creating an atmosphere conducive to substantive strategic dialogue with the U.S.”
The Russian leader reaffirmed the offer Thursday, noting that Russia and the U.S. could use the one-year extension to work on a possible successor pact.
New START is the last major remaining bilateral, U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement.
The president should support a U.S.-Russian agreement to respect New START limits after the treaty expires, then use the time to negotiate a new framework to slash the massive Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals. Likewise, the parties should call on other nuclear-armed states, including China, to immediately freeze the number of their long-range nuclear launchers. It used to be the case the U.S. would lead.
Will Trump act, put America first, and do what is best for the United States? Who knows? In the meanwhile, tick tock on the last remaining arms control treaty.
There is a lot of chatter in the national news media about the price of electricity. We are apparently in a war with China over dominance in artificial intelligence, which requires a lot of electricity. National Public Radio reported, “Electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as inflation.” We don’t hear that so much here in Iowa except on national media. Why? According to Bill McKibben, “The average Iowan will spend 39% less on electricity than the average American because it produces 57 percent of its electricity from the wind, the second-biggest wind state in the country.” If you throw solar arrays, and other renewable energy into the mix, Iowa’s total share of renewables is 64 percent.
Spoiled as I am by normally low electricity rates, when last month’s electric bill arrived it was 51 percent higher than the same period last year. What the heck? Although the total amount of the bill was comparatively low — typical for Iowa — I had to look at it.
The price per kWh of electricity from our electric cooperative has been stable and predictable. It wasn’t a rate change that caused our increase. Our monthly usage increased from 429 kWh to 745 kWh. The average American household usage is much higher than that. The reason for higher costs was this increased usage.
What happened? The average temperature increased by four degrees year over year. We likely ran the air conditioner more because of it. It was also oppressively hot this July, which meant spending more time indoors and using more electricity with the washer, dryer, stove and our electronic devices. We also had a millennial house guest for an extended stay. They did online streaming from here with a multitude of electric devices which sucked more juice. In sum, the increase was explainable.
Why are people concerned about increasing electricity costs? Donald J. Trump is president. He does not seem well educated about electricity.
On Trump’s first day in office he declared an “energy emergency” for made up reasons. The unstated reason is he extorted oil, gas and coal companies. “Candidate Trump literally told the fossil fuel industry they could have anything they want if they gave massive contributions to his campaign, and then they did,” according to McKibben. Trump’s payback for the bribe was to hobble the renewable energy industry.
The Trump administration immediately began to do absolutely everything in its power to stop this trend (to develop more sun, wind, and batteries) and replace it with old-fashioned energy—gas, and coal. They have rescinded environmental regulations trying to control fossil fuel pollution, ended sun and wind projects on federal land, cancelled wind projects wherever they could, ended the IRA tax credits for clean energy construction and instead added subsidies for the coal industry. Again—short of tasking Elon Musk to erect a large space-based shield to blot out the sun, they’ve done literally everything possible to derail the transition to cheap clean energy. (Trump is shockingly dumb about (electric) energy, Bill McKibben on Substack).
More than ninety percent of new electric generation around the world last year came from clean energy. This was not because everyone in the energy business had “gone woke,” McKibben wrote. Texas, arguably the most un-woke place in the U.S., installed more renewable capacity than any other state last year. It was because you could do it cheaply and quickly—we live on a planet where the cheapest way to make power is to point a sheet of glass at the sun.
I don’t know what happened to Republicans. Senator Chuck Grassley used to be one of the big supporters of wind energy in Iowa because of the way wind turbine arrays meshed with farm operations, giving a farmer another revenue stream.
Under Trump we have taken a step backward and let China, Europe, and literally everyone else take the lead in developing the electricity of the future which taps power directly from the sun.
We can and must do better than this as we consider our energy future.
When I visited the Iowa legislature, one of the people I sought was Rep. Chuck Isenhart from Dubuque. Almost every bill regarding conservation, climate change, renewable energy, and water quality involved him in some way. We were sad to see him lose his last election. Since then, Isenhart has been staying active including writing about environmental issues on Substack.
Why would our national legislators back away from clean energy? Isenhart has some thoughts.
“Just because our gardens are growing cucumbers doesn’t mean we have to make pickles,” Isenhart wrote. “Backing away from clean energy while continuing to subsidize fossil fuels and mandate biofuels puts us in a pickle, making even the wildest dreams come true for those who advocate for an “all-of-the-above” energy future (meaning ‘don’t leave fossil fuels behind’).”
In an Aug. 18 post, Isenhart outlines the damage done to renewable energy programs by Republicans. He starts with his personal story of installing solar panels on his roof and what a good deal it was for him, the utility company, and the environment. The story arrives here:
So – good for consumers, good for business, good for workers, good for the environment. Win-win-win-win. Thus, good for government to keep promoting, no?
Ahhhhh, no. Iowa’s Congressional delegation voted unanimously to unravel most of the federal government’s support for clean energy. Your chance to use the incentive I did is fast running out.
We may know how bad Republicans are with advances in renewable energy and the environment. Isenhart lays it out with specifics. Read his entire post here.
Hiroshima, Japan after U.S. Nuclear Attack. Photo Credit: The Telegraph
The anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9), found me without useful things to say. Enter President Trump on July 25, “(New START is) not an agreement you want expiring. We’re starting to work on that.” He added, “It’s a problem for the world when you take off nuclear restrictions, that’s a big problem.” This from the president who dismissed the New START arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia as too favorable to Russia during his first term in office.
Talk is cheap. Despite Trump’s statement, no plan or policy to reduce nuclear arms has emerged, according to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. The president spoke with Russian President Putin at least six times this year. According to call readouts, the topic of nuclear arms control was not broached. Meanwhile, the recently passed budget reconciliation calls for almost $1 Trillion in nuclear complex spending.
Without clear and sustained efforts by world leaders to prevent nuclear war, our luck in avoiding one may run out.
My worries about nuclear attacks began as a child. Gathered with family in the backyard, we watched the Soviet satellite Sputnik fly over. If they could launch Sputnik, could they send a nuclear bomb to Iowa? In school we performed drills on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. Today we pray the president will stop talking about nuclear arms control and do something. It is an open question whether he will.
~ First published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette on Aug. 3, 2025.
On July 1, Interstate Power and Light Company, the parent company of Alliant Energy, filed an application to add 1,000 megawatts of wind energy “to help boost Iowa’s electric grid and further diversify its energy portfolio,” Olivia Cohen wrote in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The timing of the filing takes advantage of tax credits included in the Inflation Reduction Act before they change as a result of the budget reconciliation bill enacted this month. This project seems like a good deal for everyone.
What we don’t see is applications to construct new nuclear reactors to generate electricity. There has been a stream of media articles about pulling the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo out of mothballs and bringing it on line again. There is an exploratory committee for that purpose. In addition, the Linn County Supervisors have undertaken to establish a nuclear zoning code for parts of the compliance not preempted by federal authorities. These are not real solutions to meet energy demand.
I wrote before, “The technology at Duane Arnold is old. The physical plant is old. Its permit has been renewed twice. There is a limit to the life of these facilities built in the 1970s. Why throw new money after old technology? We shouldn’t.” If we do anything regarding nuclear power generation, we should wait until known problems have been resolved. That is one of Bill Gates’ current projects. Gates appears to rely heavily on government subsidies for his small modular reactor in Wyoming.
Why even consider nuclear energy? I knew why when I was a kid back in the 1950s and ’60s after President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 8, 1953. Eisenhower sought to solve the terrible problem of splitting atoms in nuclear weapons by suggesting a means to transform the atom from a scourge into a benefit for mankind. Follow this link for the text of the Atoms for Peace speech. That idea had its heyday. That time is over.
Even Iowa is getting in the act with Governor Reynolds’ Nuclear Energy Task Force created via Executive Order to make recommendations for how we can move forward with nuclear energy in Iowa. The task force was just formed, so we don’t know the direction they will take. Well, we do. There is only one game in town. Generate nuclear powered electricity using government subsidies to offset the high costs which render the idea a non-starter as a stand alone business proposition.
Today our government wants nuclear weapons and nuclear power for the express purpose of making money for contractors and their wealthy owners. Profits are to be propped up by government subsidies. The message, clear in the Alliant Energy application, is government subsidies for green energy are coming to an end under the current administration. Why not phase out and end the subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuel companies as well? We know why. The government has been captured by these energy industries.
Society has not begun to tap the potential of wind and solar energy. When the issue of storage is solved, the two methods of electricity generation should just take off. It is up to us to resist a resurgence of nuclear power and allow wind and solar to take market share. Based on what is happening now in Europe, they will. The United States has chosen to service oligarchs and large corporations in its energy policy. We should lead rather than do this and fall behind.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.