I gave spent more than a year studying the history of movements, communicating with social scientists, and discussing these ideas with activists.

These were not my original ideas. I began with this question: what is the simplest way to prevent climate collapse. I considered everything. I was hoping I could join and help an existing group that had a winning strategy.

There wasn’t one. I also discovered, to my frustration, that the situation required more drastic measures than I’d wanted.

I began to feel like someone who had no choice but to unhappily preach, promote and ultimately force a policy of degrowth.

Then I realized that there was an overlooked upside: a tradeoff between less stuff and more life.

Now our movement isn’t against anyone. We hope to make life better even for our opponents—for example, oil executives.

Because they don’t realize it (yet), if they “win”, they actually lose BIG. Because they permanently ruin the planet for their children and grandchildren—who will hate them for it.

And I can’t give you specifics because there are unknowable variables. A movement needs to be able to respond quickly and effectively to events.

There WILL be bigger and more horrendous climate disasters. These will open people’s eyes.

Our leaders have no plans and no credible ideas. This true everywhere. Russia, China, the U.S., Europe…they have nothing to offer.

So, the hope is that when the complete incompetence of governments and business leaders becomes obvious to even the most slow witted citizen, people will join us and finally listen to the scientists.

Not the economists or businessmen or ideologues or other fools who think they can defy Nature.

Oh, I too LOVE books. I’m guessing that scientists would say that they are pretty low on the climate destruction factors and can continue being produced.

But if we needed to, say, pause production or doom our children, I’d accept that.

I’d even give up espresso! ;-)