Skip to content

Understanding limitations and how to deal with them responsibly is at the heart of achieving an enlightened, judicious, and sustainable society that adapts well to ever-changing circumstances.

Those of us who promote sustainability in public policy are continually reminded of limits – regulatory funding, environmental health and capacity, political support for clean energy, etc.  But due to widely reported constraints for recovering from our brutal economic slump, it is only recently that the general public has recognized the need to confront the reality of limitations.

America’s history has been marked by pride in our optimism and self-sufficiency, often verging on reckless bravado, largely based on promoting boundless economic growth.  Rising expectations have been cultivated among the young, who were assured that better-paying jobs, improved technology, and the competitive entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism would generate evermore wealth and economic opportunities – despite the biological and physical limitations of “spaceship earth.”

These themes became the rhetorical dogma of political speeches for so long that many Americans came to believe our nation was invincible, able to defy all constraints that hamstrung progress in other countries.  Any U.S. candidate openly daring to question such beliefs was unelectable.  Legislation intended to correct problems caused by implicit vulnerabilities was often defeated, weakly implemented, or veiled in the guise of more acceptable purposes.

Now we face the ominous plausibility of irreversible national decline brought by prolonged wars and tax-cuts that we could not afford, global trade agreements and tax policies that placed corporate profits above the welfare of our citizens, and willful negligence of under-regulated financial institutions that viewed rampant speculation as a legitimate means of wealth creation.  As a result, the U.S. presently staggers under the burden of a reality we are forced to reckon with, made even worse by our belated recognition of it.

The central question in confronting this harsh reality is whether we as a people are capable of determining our true self-interest and taking timely, strategic steps to act upon it effectively. Recent political trends suggest a contrary shift to even more reckless delusion, creating disruptive barriers to consensus at a time when we can least afford them.  

As part of this delusion, blame is too often placed where it doesn’t belong. Immigration policy is attacked while unprecedented corporate profits are taxed at record-low rates (if at all), and bailed-out banks are flush with tax-payer enhanced capital, as small businesses and homeowners plummet into bankruptcy at rates not seen since the Great Depression.

Major industries that are among the largest profit-makers include irresponsible polluters and market manipulators, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, coal and oil, which are doggedly defended against justifiable regulation and elimination of government subsidies, while worthy competitors are dismissed as impractical and starved for funding.

Above all, government is often treated with contempt, especially in areas of activity where public programs are most vitally needed.  Evidently, many Americans would rather suffer inferior infrastructure, healthcare, and education programs than see government provide needed improvements.

A false and deeply misguiding pride in a perverse sense of “liberty” motivates many of our citizens to oppose the imperative to divert a small share of private wealth, gained at public expense of one kind or another, toward repairing our threadbare social fabric.

Evidence contradicting foolhardy devotion to American “self-reliance” is quite clear: Concentration of wealth among the very rich does not create equitable opportunities for all, just as surely as public expenditures are indispensable to economic stability and quality of life as the private sector fails to serve the common good.  Likewise, deregulation doesn’t improve society, because irresponsible business practices invariably result, imposing hardships on the public – whether through unhealthy air and water, fraudulent pension programs and mortgages, or substandard, sometimes dangerous, products and working conditions.

National recovery depends on achieving mature recognition of our mutual inter-dependence as fellow Americans.  We must overcome the dismissive rejection of government’s pivotal role in shaping our shared future – ironically, a dogmatic position often taken by those who have benefitted from public programs but deviously deny their advantages to others. 

Under conditions of greater limitations – whether environmental, social, or economic – the need for well-managed governmental programs in taxing, subsidizing, regulating, and providing social services is more vital than ever. 

Ongoing efforts to defeat a robust and accountable federal role in resolving our nation’s most profound challenges will only make the future more precarious.

David Kyler, Co-Founder & Director

Center for a Sustainable Coast, Saint Simons Island, Georgia

Forum Addressed Climate-Change, Clean Energy and Federal Support for Needed Improvements

Congressional candidate Wade Herring attended and commented. Representative Buddy Carter was invited but did not attend.

On October 13th the Center for a Sustainable Coast [CSC] hosted a public forum focusing on the climate crisis and new federal funding support for expanding the use of clean energy to help curb heat-trapping fossil-fuel emissions.  The event, featuring both live and virtual speakers, was held at the Savannah Cultural Arts Center.

Welcoming participants and providing background on the climate issue, CSC’s co-founder and director, David Kyler told the audience, “It is revealing that a recent survey by the Yale Climate Communications Center reported that although well over two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either important or urgent, more than 60% of those who prioritize the issue say they seldom if ever talk about it. That is a major reason why we are here this evening—to ensure that the public talks about the climate crisis and, equally important, supports political actions required to make a rapid transition to the clean-energy economy.”

Headlining the forum program was Kate Cell, Senior Climate Campaign Manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Referencing a number of statistics and graphs, Cell provided an eye-opening view of alarming climate impacts predicted for the next 30 years, based on the latest scientific research.

According to Cell, “The impacts of climate change are already being felt across the Southeast and in particular in its coastal communities. But there is time to decarbonize our economy and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Based on modeling done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, flooding and temperature increases will cause billions of dollars in damage along Georgia’s coast by mid-century.  Tens of thousands of homes will be uninhabitable due to frequent flooding, and unbearable heat will occur as much as six weeks a year—seven times more often than now—which could be cut by a third or more if quick actions are taken to curb heat-trapping emissions. Unless these emissions are reduced, by 2100 temperatures will be life-threatening for about three months a year in coastal Georgia.”

When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August and President Biden signed it into law, some $370 billion in federal funds became available to speed the urgently needed conversion to clean power sources and energy-efficiency upgrades.

The Center’s Savannah event was scheduled in view of the mid-term election approaching, as this unprecedented injection of funding provides urgently needed opportunities for taking climate action. Timely efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions will help restrict the destructive effects of flooding, drought, and extreme heat that threaten humanity here on the coast and elsewhere.

Also speaking was Brionte McCorkle, director of Georgia Conservation Voters, who is working to secure a more just and sustainable future by electing pro-environment candidates and holding elected officials accountable for their actions and voting record. McCorkle’s comments focused on the diverse array of federal supports offered under the Inflation Reduction Act. She elaborated on funding and tax-credits available for individuals, small business, and communities interested in improving energy efficiency, the production and storage of clean energy, and other upgrades and clean-energy technologies that will employ thousands of people in the years ahead. 

“For Georgians to secure the greatest benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act, state legislators and local elected officials will need to take notice and take action to revise policies that impede the used of these federal supports,” McCorkle emphasized. 

Continuing, she added, “The Inflation Reduction Act is the most significant legislation in U.S. history to tackle the climate crisis. Georgia communities and households that want to address climate change often lack the resources and support to do so. The IRA is a significant catalyst for action that will provide Georgians jobs, savings, and other benefits. The funding provided by this act will help lower energy costs for households and businesses all across Georgia and create manufacturing jobs for American workers. The old way of doing business in Georgia doesn't have to be the only way. The IRA is a catalyst for the clean, secure, and healthy future we all want for our children and grandchildren.”

Panelist Dr. Jim Reichard, a full faculty member at Georgia Southern University’s Department of Geology, gave a quick but comprehensive overview of the science behind climate change, including what is causing it and why commonly heard denials about theses causes are unfounded. 

Afterwards Dr. Reichard said, “Science has shown that modern global warming and climate change are being driven by human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels. This has led to more intense droughts and heat waves and extreme weather events. For coastal Georgia, we will also have to face accelerated sea level rise and the risk of more powerful hurricanes, all of which will have serious economic impacts. At this point our best course of action to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and climate change is to reduce global carbon emissions by quickly transitioning to low-carbon economies.

Center board president Steve Willis provided the audience with a broad perspective on the historical significance of our predicament and decisions that must be made to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. After the event, Willis said:

“Although the self-inflicted global warming crisis is probably the greatest threat humanity has ever encountered (including nuclear weapons), the harnessing of the inexhaustible power sources of wind, sun, and tides--which is the necessary solution to global warming--may be the greatest and most desirable opportunity we have ever had.  Let’s do the smart thing before it’s too late.”

During the question-and-answer period, Democratic candidate for Congress, Wade Herring made some comments, and later he shared this statement: “I was grateful to attend the forum hosted by the Center for a Sustainable Coast on the evening of October 13, 2022, to learn more about the imminent threat posed to coastal Georgia by climate change, but also to discuss the positive actions that we can take to prevent damage to this beautiful place where we live. When I am elected to Congress, I will work hard to make sure that the First District gets its fair share of infrastructure funds, as well as the sustainable energy investments from the Inflation Reduction Act. These investments mean jobs for Georgians, a thriving economy, and protection for coastal Georgia that we are grateful to call home. I do not understand why Buddy Carter voted against both of these important bills which are so important to the First District. Carter continues to demonstrate that he is out of step with what matters to the people of this District.

From 2018 through mid-October 2022, a listing of Center letters and opinion columns published in Georgia media outlets features over 150 items explaining timely CSC positions on issues related to climate and clean energy. A complete, updated list of these items is available by contacting the Center at susdev@gate.net.

The October 13th forum was the fifth Savannah event Sustainable Coast has organized in the past decade to build support for effective action on these issues by cultivating well-informed, open public discussion.

A video recording of the event will be available. Please contact the Center at susdev@gte.net .

Small-Scale Clean Energy Must Be Georgia's Priority

Submitted to the Georgia Public Service Commission, July 19, 2022

by Center for a Sustainable Coast     

We share the concern of many others that despite the alleged financial advantages of energy efficiency, these claims are not well-founded because Georgia Power’s proposed Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) maintains the status quo that has hidden costs and risks jeopardizing the public. If this Georgia Power plan is approved, more fossil fuels and higher utility costs will be unjustifiably imposed on its customers who have already suffered the financial burdens of the company’s past mismanagement of energy projects. Moreover, the plan does not ensure sufficient reliable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which is essential to curbing the most destructive impacts of climate change.

Decentralized Facilities Serve the Public Far Better Than Costly Corporate Projects That Are Vulnerable to System Failures

The most fundamental issue, effectively masked by preconceptions assumed in preparing the plan now under review, is the crucial distinction between a corporate-dominated, capital-intensive approach in contrast with a decentralized, “distributed-system” strategy, wherein the energy-generating and storage capacity is primarily owned by energy consumers, not stockholders.

States that have been most successful in achieving clean energy goals are those that have incentivized residential and small-scale commercial solar installations. In these cases, rates paid for all energy are uniform, so that when combined with tax credits, revenues from the sale of excess power at market rates enable these small-scale systems to recover their total acquisition costs in less than five years.

Contrast those installations and their benefits to energy customers with the capital-intensive model being advanced by this plan, which advocates massive ‘solar farms’ that occupy vast areas of land and are implemented as an industrial-scale investment returning income to stockholders, not consumers. These projects cost millions of dollars, which once invested under routine PSC approval are guaranteed a handsome return, yet the vast majority of energy users will remain under the yoke of their substantially greater monthly billing obligation, including repayment of the corporate utility’s capital project costs, plus profits to stockholders.

Moreover, beyond the injustices and inefficiencies caused by abandoning a more equitable, cost-effective policy remedy offered by decentralized facilities (demonstrably proven in other states) the capital-intensive corporate model is also more vulnerable to blackouts and brownouts because there are fewer (and more distant) installations providing power to the energy network (grid). When one or another of the few major power-generating facilities in existence is compromised, the whole system may be jeopardized, and service becomes unreliable.

Similar conclusions can be drawn when comparing centralized energy-storage facilities with those that are distributed among millions of households. As the conversion from fossil fuels to clean energy progresses under a decentralized strategy, the availability of small-scale storage devices will flourish – as both site-based installations at homes and small businesses as well as the cumulatively substantial mobile storage capacity provided by plug-in, interconnectable batteries of tens-of-thousands of electric vehicles integrated into a “smart grid”.

This diverse and decentralized power-storage network would ensure a far more reliable, resilient, and stable energy supply than the capital-intensive system now being proposed. If any single large energy-storage facility became inoperable or disconnected from the grid, without a robust, decentralized (owner-based) array of facilities with comparable cumulative capacity, the whole system would suffer, especially during periods of peak demand.

Natural Gas Leakage & Mandatory Monitoring

Overdue attention must also be given to resolving the methane-leak problem inherent in the use of natural gas. These leaks are not acknowledged in unconditional claims that natural gas is a clean substitute for coal. Yet, energy analysts consistently assert that leaks of more than 2% of natural gas during extraction, processing, distribution, and/or end-use will completely negate any benefits gained by burning natural gas instead of coal, because the leaked gas will produce the equivalent heat-trapping effects in the atmosphere. (Methane has far greater heat-trapping effects than carbon dioxide, making relatively small natural gas leaks costly and counterproductive.)

Studies have shown that many gas-based systems exceed the two-percent leakage limit when they are evaluated throughout the entire cycle, from extraction to end-use. Until and unless the natural-gas systems being advocated and used under this plan are evaluated and continuously monitored to ensure they do not exceed the leak-limit, such systems should not be approved or sanctioned as part of Georgia’s energy-production portfolio. Without rigorous, mandatory use of leak monitoring and assessment safeguards applied to natural-gas energy generation, the state cannot reliably achieve greenhouse gas reductions that are essential to curbing the destructive effects of climate change.

~ David Kyler, Center for a Sustainable Coast

When discussing climate change, U.S. Representative Buddy Carter is fond of reminding his colleagues and his constituents that his district encompasses the entire coast of Georgia, as if this fact imbues him with an especially acute understanding of the issue. 

If only it were true. But alas, Mr. Carter consistently opposes legislative measures to curb the greenhouse gas emissions causing the climate to overheat.

Just last week, he appeared before the House Rules Committee (link to video) to oppose the reversal of the Trump administration’s rollback of an Obama-era rule that requires oil and gas companies to use the best available methods to control methane leaks.  

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. While not as long-lasting or as abundant in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is 84 times more potent in the short term. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of climate change would recognize the importance of employing every means at our disposal to cut methane emissions and quickly approve this measure.

All we get from Carter is confounding doublespeak about his concern for how climate change affects the Georgia coast and how doing anything about it hurts the economy.

Carter’s sophistry confused some of the committee members at first, but his insidious brand of climate denialism became more apparent the more he spoke.

...continue reading "Congressman Buddy Carter’s Climate Denialism on Full Display"

Various planning updates are underway on Georgia's coast: the comprehensive plans for Chatham County and its cities, the Coastal Regional Plan, and the Jekyll Island Master Plan. Coastal plans must address the increasingly urgent causes and consequences of climate change to achieve community and regional planning benefits in making critical decisions that influence our future.


Over the past five years, climate disruption's dangerous impacts and causes have stirred well-founded public awareness and concern. Our rapidly growing understanding of the scale and significance of the causes of climate change and their grave consequences will be renowned as the fundamental "paradigm shift" of the 21st century.

Surveys consistently conclude that a majority now recognize that human activities are causing worldwide environmental degradation, which is of such urgency and magnitude that we must soon bring them under control or irreversibly impair the planet's life-support systems. Yet, until now, decades after these perils were well-known within the global scientific community, the plans of coastal Georgia's cities and counties have made little or no mention of climate change.

The only references to climate disruption in Georgia's coastal plans have concerned the rising sea level. These were limited to reactive adaptation, such as flood-control projects and flood-risk rating compliance. They were also all based on historical events, rather than the escalating science-based projections linked to global heating.

The current planning updates for coastal communities must acknowledge the urgency and acceleration of these hazards.

Moreover, planning must prioritize actions that reduce the cause of these accumulating hazards – namely, the emission of greenhouse gases – and protection of critical areas, both developed and natural, to the greatest extent possible. The alarming fact that some 43 percent of coastal Georgia residences are within the 100-year flood plain substantiates concern about escalating flooding.

Overdue recognition of climate-change impacts and causes in local and regional plans will have a critical advantage in an array of decision-making.

Furthermore, incorporating these considerations in planning documents, better positions our region in competition for imminent federal funding to support climate-related projects. Examples include flood-control infrastructure, clean-energy implementation, and power-transmission grid upgrades.

...continue reading "Timely advice to the planning authorities in coastal Georgia"

This op-ed appeared in the April 27 edition of the Savannah Morning News.

Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash

The April 18 edition of the Savannah Morning News featured an Earth Day article in which eight semi-celebrities responded to a USA Today question: "What is the most pressing environmental threat?"

After patiently reading through each of their responses I groaned from real, deep, heartfelt pain. Not one of the celebs opined the right answer - at least not the right answer for anyone who is fully aware of the gravity of the climate crisis.

Vote.

Voting for candidates who pledge to address climate change is the most impactful action a lone individual can do to significantly affect the dismal climate trajectory we now face. Vote only and exclusively for people who are committed, clearly and unswervingly, to achieving the global goals set forth in the Paris Accords on Climate Change, which the United States is now once again a full member and participant.

It is the consensus of virtually every climate scientist - and many scientists of other stripes - that if humanity doesn't sharply curtail its spewing of global warming greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in this decade we will face catastrophic global consequences. Cutting them by at least one-half should be the goal.

...continue reading "What is the Most Pressing Environmental Threat?"

Many have observed the depletion of credibility in daily discourse – causing a disturbing decline in fact-based consensus.

Without a fundamental sense of shared reality, how can we collectively – as a community, state, or nation – anticipate and respond to imminent threats and opportunities?

Perplexity about this predicament was renewed when I recently learned of terminology – accepted by a federal court – for describing a rocket explosion as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”  This devious euphemism for an event threatening death and destruction epitomizes the abuse of language that accelerates an alarming abandonment of truth.

The impoverishment of facts that afflicts our political institutions has brought us to the brink of environmental destruction. Consider that science has verified the human causes of climate change for more than two decades. Yet, many elected officials still thwart actions to confront them, thereby propagating the serious consequences of rising temperatures. 

...continue reading "Earth Day Must Become Truth Day"

On Monday afternoon, the Georgia Senate passed HB 150 – a bill prompted by the natural gas industry, alarmed by a Berkeley, California ordinance banning natural gas hookups in new construction.

Confronted with cities in Georgia and across the nation that have established policies to transition to 100% clean energy, the industry has responded defensively by lobbying to hamper such initiatives in over a dozen states. Georgia will be the fifth state to pass an industry-sponsored law prohibiting local governments and state agencies from following Berkeley’s example. 

Laws like this, known as preemption laws, are not new. The tobacco industry has been using this tactic to slow down public health measures that impinge on tobacco sales since the 1980s. In Georgia, the plastics and packaging industries tried and failed to preempt local plastic bag bans when the City of Tybee Island and Athens-Clarke County were considering bans back in 2015. Particularly egregious is the law passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 2013 that prevents local governments from having a policy affecting wages paid by private businesses. This was prompted by the City of Atlanta passing a living wage ordinance for all contractors who use city resources or property.

The use of this tactic has grown over the past decade, as conservative state governments try to reign-in progressive local governments on a wide range of issues, such as fracking, plastic bags, rent control, minimum wage, municipal broadband, and more. Popular progressive policies fighting poverty, protecting public health and safety, and sustaining the environment are perceived as threats to profits and fought with prejudicial fervor by powerful members of the private sector.

...continue reading "The Fossil Fuel Industry Has Captured the Georgia Legislature"

(Background: Center Co-Director Karen Grainey gave the following two-minute speech at a digital rally organized by Savannah Alderman Nick Palumbo in opposition to HB 150. This bill aims to prevent "governmental entities from adopting any policy that prohibits the connection or reconnection of any utility service based upon the type or source of energy or fuel." The House passed the bill, and it will soon go to the Senate floor for a vote. The term "governmental entities" includes the growing number of cities that have set clean energy targets and all state agencies. Decatur recently joined Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Clarkston, and Savannah in passing a resolution to transition to 100% clean energy.)

There are many good reasons to support clean energy policies, but one reason stands out above the rest- the overheating of the Earth's climate. Nothing else will matter if the nations of the world fail to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  All our aspirations for a more just, equitable, and prosperous society will be crushed under the weight of an impending environmental collapse that will bring hunger, political division, and a societal breakdown of apocalyptic proportions.

...continue reading "HB 150 Sabotages Clean Energy Transition"