Thanks for your note. I captured some of my thoughts here:

Is it perfect? No, the Carbon Almanac is not perfect. There may even be demonstrable errors. After all, it’s 100,000 words long and the work of 300 volunteers. But it’s been professionally fact-checked by experts, and we’re eager and open to publishing our errata as we go.

I know what Exxon’s incentives are. I also know that every one of us worked on this for months, for free, for one simple reason: because we want people to understand.

Is it worth it? I think the answer is clearly yes. The only way toward better is to begin, and we’re beginning/amplifying a conversation and an exploration. It’s difficult for me to understand people who don’t want to see the facts and data about the future of their home, and the home of their children.

What about nuclear? Indeed, what about it? Some people have pointed out that the Almanac goes way too easy on nuclear fission, because it represents a clear and present danger to civilization. Others have been angry that we’re not actively enthusiastic and encouraging pushing for more nuclear fission. If settling this argument is required before we all begin to take serious action on climate, we’re in big trouble. The Almanac doesn’t have a point of view, what we have is a collection of facts, tables, research and insight. Find a peer and talk about it, and far more important, take immediate and urgent action on the things that are clear and obvious.

Is there a convenient, obvious and proven way forward? No.

Because if there was, we would have solved this challenge already. The first rule is to do the reading. To understand. And then the second is to talk about it.

It’s understandable to be distraught or even angry about climate change. But don’t ignore it and don’t be angry at the people who aren’t ignoring it.

It’s not too late. But we need to begin, and to do that, we need your leadership.

If you don’t like the way the conversation is unfolding then go do something better.

Thanks for reading.