THE COLORADO RIVER: FRESH OUT OF EASY OPTIONS

The legal framework behind the Colorado River’s division between the states is predicated on flawed assumptions compounded by unforeseen conditions.

The “Flawed Assumptions:”

1)    When the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922, the Colorado was assumed to flow in an average year over 16.5 million acre feet. The science behind that was predicated on a review of a snapshot of a few decades that turned out to be among the wettest in over 800 years.

2)    Arizona cut a deal in Congress in the late 1960s to secure funding for a billion dollar canal system that brought its share of the Colorado inland to the cities of Phoenix and Tucson. In return for funding, Arizona agreed to take a junior priority assuming a prolonged reduction in flows would never occur.

The “Unforeseen Conditions:”

1)    Climate change has decreased the flow of the river and increased evaporation and crop demand by as much as 20%.

2)    With the advent of air conditioning and abundant real estate, the shift in population to the Southwest has increased its population by ten times since the Compact was signed.

Agriculture in Arizona has been cannibalized. Lawns and parks have been ripped out in Nevada. Water utility bills in Las Vegas can reach $1,000/month. Golf courses are universally supplied with effluent and state of the art metering and low water fixtures have been mandated. Communities in Arizona are buying-up groundwater they know has a finite lifespan (under 100 years or three mortgage terms). Band-Aids that surely will hurt when removed.

It’s not enough. Hard questions loom. Should growth be curtailed? Why should California agriculture (that uses nearly half of Colorado’s entitlement) be fallowed for the benefit of Arizona and Nevada? And what would that agricultural disruption do to the nation’s food supply?

Climate change is having an exponential effect, none of it positive. In the past quarter century only about a quarter of the years resulted in average or above average water years. 2026 threatens to be the driest of record. And with those successive years of drought, soil moisture is at an all-time low.  At this point, it would take decades of successive high water years to replace the loss and the climate models all show a hotter, drier future.

Options exist with cooperation and massive funding. Desalination is looked at. Ideas floated are to have Arizona and Nevada fund billions in desal in California in return for California allowing Arizona and Nevada to take a portion of California’s entitlement (No one is ever going to bring a pipeline to Arizona or Mead, that is a “duh” thought when an exchange is far easier and cheaper). A decent idea but if anyone has ever observed the California Coastal Commission, they know running pipes from the ocean is a pipe dream.

Our President blames politics for western water woes, claiming all that that needs to be done is throw a valve and water will flow down from Northern California and Oregon. NEWS FLASH: North on a map does not mean uphill. Another “duh” thought.

No, there’s no easy and cheap solution. It will require creative minds, cooperation, and money. Lots of money. America has always thought of water as a social good. Utilities are structured to pass water on to the consumer without profit at the lowest rate possible. A household pays $300-400 a month for electricity but screams when their water bill is raised to $50/month. Our future will require water to be viewed at least in part as a commodity that costs money to develop, treat and distribute. Water rates will need to rise.

We also need to stop thinking politically and parochially. It’s not left and right. It’s not  “my water.” We need to think less in terms of Californian’s versus Arizonians, Coloradoan’s versus Arizonians, or Oklahomans versus Texans. We’re all in the same damn boat. We are Americans and history has shown that when we get together, we usually can solve big problems.

It’s going to take that mindset.  

PERSPECTIVES ON HYPERBOLE: GENERATING POWER

Last week I left off with the question of electrical generation and water. Today’s article will discuss how we generate electricity and how we got here. It’s a storied past and not one many of us would have expected. First, how is electricity generated? With the exception of geothermal, wind, hydro, and solar, fuel is used to heat water to generate steam to spin turbines. The result is a burning of that fuel (nuclear, coal, natural gas) creating steam from water, resulting in water consumption.

In the U.S., roughly 60% of the fuel is fossil (mostly natural gas with some remaining coal). Nuclear makes up 19% and the balance is renewables, mostly wind, solar and hydro. The mix varies by country and region. For example, Europe’s mix is 17% natural gas, 12% coal, roughly 22% nuclear, and 45% wind and solar, with some geothermal.

To some extent the mix is driven by available indigenous resources. The U.S. is the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world. It also is the second largest producer of renewable energy. The U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2, just behind China that overtook that honor from the U.S. in 2006. China has now embarked on a mandate to wean itself from coal and natural gas to renewables with a 2060 carbon neutral goal.

The U.S. has become the only country to openly politicize climate change. George H.W. Bush strengthened the Clean Air Act and spoke on the threat of climate change, before political pressure caused him to walk away from the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. In many ways that was a turning point but it was in many respects an honest one. Why? Climate change was acknowledged as a real threat but the costs of combating it were honestly debated. Today, some dishonestly label climate change a hoax rather than truthfully debating the costs of meeting the threat.

But politics has little to do with economics. While executive orders and the repeal of E.P.A.’s endangerment finding have real world consequences, they do not have the effect most believe. Industry, corporate governance, and utilities take the longer view where risk and cost replace political theatrics.

Even without subsidies and tax breaks, the costs of renewables are dramatically cheaper. Compare an average cost of $33.00/MWh for onshore wind and $44/MWh for solar to a new combined high efficiency gas generation plant at $77-130/MWh. Coal is dramatically higher. For new nuclear plants, the cost is even higher (and disposal of spent uranium fuel is an unknown cost).

Industry and utilities see the advantages not the politics and combine natural gas with renewables for a lowest cost approach. While renewable battery storage costs are rapidly declining, for now, adding in their cost equalizes the playing field such that we are still in a hybrid environment where natural gas and renewables offer a combined lowest cost alternative.

That’s the fuel side of generating power. But what about the water side? Solar, wind, and geothermal need virtually no water to generate electricity. Nuclear requires between 300 and 800 gallons/MWh (depending on the cooling system used). Natural gas uses an astonishing 2,800 gallons/MWh. For perspective, one MWh can power 30-40 homes for a day (at 2,800 gallons/MWh per day that’s 1.022 million gallons/year for just those 30-40 homes).

These are the factors that weigh on utilities and corporations, not political hyperbole.

AN ILLUSION OF SNOW

Images of western snowfall in the last week belie the truth. Tragic avalanche deaths and ski areas closed by too much snow can be deceiving. While areas near Tahoe have been pummeled by up to 120 inches of snow so far in February, the Colorado River basin is a far different story.

Latest snow level and water content reporting is not for the weak a heart. Colorado ski resorts received a boost this week with new snow but it did nothing to solve the multi-decade drought that has dried the seven states in the Colorado River basin.

Colorado is averaging 60% of normal with many subbasins averaging only 36-40% of normal. Arizona, New Mexico and Utah are worse. Some subbasins are as little as 2% of normal. Two percent is a daunting statistic. The NOAA long range forecast through May is for higher than normal temperatures and lower than normal precipitation across the Colorado River basin. In Colorado, there’s virtually nothing on the horizon in the next three weeks, which brings us into March. February and March are Colorado’s snowiest months, when Mother Nature is supposed to fill the natural reservoir known as the snowpack.

This foretells a high fire risk and troubling time for agriculture and municipal water suppliers. The two major regulating reservoirs on the Colorado tell the story.

LAKE POWELL:

Full elevation =                                 3,700’

Current elevation =                        3,532’

Projected 12/31/26 =                       3,513’

Power Pool elevation =                   3,490’   (elevation at which hydropower is diminished)

Dead Pool elevation =                     3,370’

LAKE MEAD:

Full elevation =                                 1,229’

Tier 1 Reductions=                          1,075’   (primarily affecting AZ and NV)

Current elevation =                        1,065’

Projected 12/31/26 =                       1,054’

Tier 2 Reductions=                          1,050’   (primarily affecting AZ)

Tier 2b Reductions=                        1,045  (primarily affecting AZ)

Power Pool elevation =                   1,035’   (elevation at which hydropower is diminished)

Dead Pool elevation =                       895’

Climate change is felt first in the water sphere. Its effects are dramatic: Increased demand due to longer growing and air-conditioning seasons, higher evaporation rates, drying of the subsoil and depletion of groundwater tables (think of a dry sponge, it takes water to fill the voids in that sponge before water flows away, in this case to the rivers). Projections are that climate change will decrease water content in the Colorado River by as much as 30% by 2050.

Hard questions are being asked. Can Arizona continue agricultural water use? Increasingly it doesn’t look like it. Central Arizona Project (CAP) reductions have cut agricultural water and cities have targeted ag water for their futures. Utah has reached its allocation under the Upper Basin Colorado River Compact and Colorado is not far behind.

Given the changing hydrograph and new demands placed on the system, it’s a fascinating time to be in the water field. Solutions exist. Some easy, some hard. Dramatic progress has been made in municipal water use reductions (the US uses about the same amount of water today for municipal use as it did in 1970, despite a 40% increase in population). But two large questions loom: Where and how will we supply water for food production? How will we supply electricity for our digital future?

Stay tuned and we’ll discuss these.

A CRISIS, NOT A HOAX: THE COLORADO RIVER

The administration labels climate change a hoax. Those outside the bubble of the East Coast, be they Democrats or Republicans, know better.  As Ben Franklin said: “When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water.” As a person who has only practiced western water law for over four decades, I have a blunter saying: Those that have plenty of water have no concept of the resource; you only understand water if you have none.

The seven basin states that rely on the Colorado River all know the value of water and the dramatic impact that climate change has had and continues to have on the basin. In the past thirty years, the Colorado River’s flow has declined by 20%. That is projected to decline to 30% by 2050. Ambient atmospheric temperatures in the Colorado River basin have increased by 2.3 degrees in that same period and are projected to be +4 degrees by 2050.  

Tainting science with politics is meaningless and further complicates the tasks of water managers. Just because you hide or deny a problem, the problem does not go away. Climate models all show the same results and trends. No model prepared by reputable scientists shows anything different. The models, to name just a few were generated by the US Bureau of Reclamation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Colorado State University, and National Research Council. They all reveal the same picture. We can’t deny ourselves out of the mess, we have to recognize and solve challenges, the best we can.

A brief summary of how we got here: In the 1880s, a young country sought to expand west and defend what it had. Los Angeles and San Diego were seen as strategic defensive necessities. The railroads and mining were drivers of western settlement. The Homestead Act of 1862 granted 160 acres to anyone willing to farm the land. The 1902 Reclamation Act provided cheap tax-payer subsidized irrigation water to farm while massive federal dams and canals were funded by the treasury to deliver that water.

The result was that the arid west was settled. What came next in this tight waterscape was conflict over limited water resources between the states. California and Arizona were growing at a pace faster than the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The west’s water laws of the prior appropriation doctrine, mirror the miner’s credo of staking claims proclaims, “First in time, First in right.” Fearing that the lower basis states might usurp the future of other states, the seven states and the federal government convened negotiations to allocate the flow of the Colorado River.

While an article on this subject could fill libraries, suffice to say that the river was divided in half. Above Lee’s Ferry, Arizona (just below the dam at Lake Powell), the upper basin states were allocated 7.5 million acre feet on a ten year running average and the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada were allocated the other half. Off the top, 1.5 million acre feet was to go to Mexico by treaty. The engineering assumptions, based on a twenty year average, were that the native flow of the river was between 16.4 and 18 million acre feet.

Turns out that the period of study used fell within the one hundred years between 1890 and 1990 when paleoclimatic records show to be the wettest hundred year period since A.D.800 and that was the wettest in the previous 10,000 years. During the period after the compact was signed until the impacts of climate change began in the late 1980s, the river flowed around 15-16 million acre feet. With the advent of climate change, the flow now dips below 13 million acre feet/year. All models show that by 2050, this amount could be reduced by as much as an additional 10%.

The states have attempted to address this conflict. A deadline imposed by the federal government that largely manages the lower basin has come and gone. The legal conflict largely centers around gravity and language.

First, the language: To the four Upper Basin states and the three Lower Basin states, the compact allocated “the exclusive beneficial use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum…” (an additional 1.0 million acre-feet was available to the Lower Basin if surplus existed, so we can forget that). The burden of meeting the Mexico treaty obligation is shared between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin. The key factors are there is no expressed delivery obligation at Lee’s Ferry and evaporation is not mentioned. Lake Powell, located in the Upper Basin, is estimated to evaporate 300,000-500,000 acre-feet per year. Lake Mead, located in the Lower Basin, is estimated to evaporate as much as 1.9 million acre-feet annually. Additional evaporation occurs from the headwaters to Mexico.

Then comes gravity: The old saying is “I’d rather be upstream with a shovel, than downstream with a right.” The Upper Basin states say, “Hey, we haven’t used our 7.5 maf. The Lower Basin is evaporation and using more than 7.5 maf.” The Lower Basin states assert everyone should share in evaporation and the natural deficit.

The feds say they will “impose” a solution. That has doubtful legal authority. The compact is both a contract between the parties and an Act of Congress. The US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 10, provides that states may contract between themselves only with the consent of Congress, so when the contract between the states was signed, Congress’ approval made the contract also an Act of Congress. As we all know, to amend a contract, every contract party must agree. Therein lies the fallacy of the administration’s threat to “impose” a solution.

Some in the Lower Basin have threatened litigation based on the legal concept known as force majeure. Force majeure is a legal concept that excuses contract performance due to an event that cannot be foreseen or controlled (such as acts of God) that prevent performance. The argument is that climate change and the low flow of the river could not be foreseen in 1922 and cannot be controlled. That argument solves part of the definition but arguably not the second half: “that prevent performance.”

Nonetheless, sharing the hardship of climate change on some basis is reasonable and undoubtedly will be a part of any solution. But before we end, some perspective is in order: The Imperial Irrigation District, located in California’s Coachella Valley desert, has an allotment of 3.1 million acre-feet, more than Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming…nearly as much as Colorado alone. The District’s 500,000 acres farms lettuces and vegetables supply the nation’s kitchens.

In the late 1880s and early 1900s the Federal government encouraged western expansion with cheap water to farm the great American desert. Like my earlier articles asking the question of whether datacenters should be located in water short areas, it may be time for a similar discussion of agribusiness as well.

In the meantime, the problem of climate change’s impact on the Colorado River is certainly not a hoax. The River supplies over 40 million people and over 2.5 million acres of agriculture. Denver, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and places in between are reliant.  We cannot ignore that reality or science needed to solve the challenges.

JUST SAY NO

I’ve written before on the water and electric consumption of datacenters and the wisdom of developing them in arid locales. Today, I want to discuss the difference between wholly wasteful and preventable water and electric use and “necessary” water use.

First, the why? Datacenters are inevitable in our digital economy. Efficient datacenters located in areas with abundant water supplies are necessary development to be endorsed. Datacenters developed without regard to the waterscape, make little sense. I’ll give you an example.

Amarillo receives 19-20 inches of precipitation per year on average, an arid geographic region characterized by sage brush, arid grasses, and cactus. Fermi America proposes to construct 18 million square feet of datacenters powered by four small nuclear reactors and one gas generation facility. One of the principals is Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas. The name given to this, Project Matador, is not the name on the Federal Nuclear Energy Commission application (the NEC approves and regulates all  nuclear power plants). The applicant listed is The Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy & Intelligence Campus. Now that’s a name that should get a quick approval. Never mind that nuclear plants typically use 20-50 gallons of water to generate ONE kilowatt hour (1 kWh) and this project advertises it will generate 11 Gigawatts (11.0 million kWh) in the arid locale of the Texas panhandle. Do the math.

While no one questions the need for datacenters (after all, it took electrical energy and computing power to generate this article), datacenters are not just necessary to supply the nation’s computing and AI future. Those are what I would label “necessary uses” that drive datacenter development. The unnecessary and wasteful use that is also driving datacenter development is cryptocurrencies.

There are many cryptocurrencies out there but perhaps Bitcoin is the best known. Bitcoin alone required a reported 175 Terawatts/year of electric energy last year. That’s 175 billion kilowatts. While renewable energy generation requires virtually no water consumption, coal, nuclear, and gas generation requires serious quantities of water to generate the stream necessary to spin turbines to generate electricity.  Given that cryptocurrencies have no social, economic, cultural, or employment value, the need is wasteful. Cryptocurrencies are merely financial tools. They do not create jobs. Investing in the stock market means you are investing in companies that generate some service or product that benefits society or at least the employees that work for those companies. That can’t be said for cryptocurrencies. They’re a waste one can do without.

But they are a great investment tool you say. If you really believe that, you haven’t been looking at your investment lately. Just like recycling, we can all do our little part in the future. So, when it comes to deciding whether to add cryptocurrencies to your portfolio, I harken back to the wisdom of former First Lady Betty Ford, Just Say No.

WHY INFLATION IS RAMPANT IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SECTOR

Electric rates have surged far higher than the Consumer Price Index. Across the country, rates have escalated in 2025 from 5% to as high as 14%. The reasons boil down to policies. Sure, natural gas prices have risen, as have the costs of replacement infrastructure, but the real driver in utility raises have been poor governance.

Across the country, rates for electricity are set by agencies and commissions that regulate “public utilities.” They go by a myriad of titles, depending on which state you are in. Arizona’s agency is the Arizona Corporation Commission, Colorado’s is called the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, then there’s the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the Illinois Commerce Commission. In roughly a third of the states, seats on these boards are elected while the balance are appointments by either the Governor or Legislature of the state. Most have one thing in common; they are subject to lobbying.

Three factors primarily drive rates: 1) Increase in electrical demand; 2) aging infrastructure (grid); and 3) costs of electrical generation. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it? That’s what some would like to have you believe.

Let’s take a closer look at these three drivers.

·       Increase in Electrical Demand: With the nation’s population nearly flatlining, what is driving the need for more electricity? Sure, migration to certain areas increases population and demand, but that’s not it. Demand is being driven by smart appliances and the digital world we live in. Chief among these is AI and datacenters. One mega datacenter can use the power that a city of 750,000 uses. And, don’t get me talking about freshwater water usage for cooling and electrical generation. Take for example Arizona, a State in water crisis is the ranked 5th in the country for the number of datacenters. The Arizona Corporation Commission is weighing a rate increase of 14% this year for Arizona Public Service (APS), its third rate increase in four years. Rather assign the new infrastructure costs to the entities and new users that demand new infrastructure (like datacenters), costs are typically spread out amongst all users. It’s about policies that assign costs to those triggering new costs, common sense approaches lobbyists resist.

·       Aging Infrastructure: The grid is old and in need of hardening and upgrades. It has been neglected for decades. The costs of new infrastructure (equipment, poles, wire) have all escalated because of inflation and tariffs. But again, the demand for replacements, upgrades and expansions are being driven at a far faster pace by the new demands.

·       Costs of Electrical Generation: With the exception of renewables (hydro, wind, and solar), generation of electricity involves heating water to steam that drives turbines. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, they all use the same steam generation process. In 2025, the administration has embarked on a war against renewables (the Department of Energy is clawing back $1.8 billion in loan money from the APS designed to fund renewable generation, transmission and battery storage).

Arizona, like a great many purple and red states are mandating natural gas generating stations, despite coal and natural as being more costly to operate (not to mention water consumption again). Arizona is not alone.

Policies are choices. The common legislative authorization preamble for these state rate setting entities is to regulate industries for the public good. That goal seems to be getting lost far too often.

ENVIRONMENTAL INSURRECTION A/K/A DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE WEATHER

INSURRECTION. That’s a word being tossed around like never before. The word, insurrection, came (of course) from the French, insurgere meaning “to rise up.”

The United States has had a couple of “insurrections” in its history, from the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794 (Kentucky distillers refusing to pay tax turned a bit ugly…whisky never calms things down), Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion of 1831 in Virginia, the American Civil War, the Greenwood New York Insurrection of 1882 (an uprising over the refusal to pay railroad bonds for a railroad that was never built), to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Each of these were found by our courts to have constituted not mere riots but an insurrection.

But I never heard of the latest insurrection that was proclaimed just yesterday: Environmental Insurrection.

Every crime must meet certain elements. For insurrection, they are spelled out 18 U.S.C. §2383:

Anyone who "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto," is guilty of the crime.

This is serious stuff, punishable by up to ten years in prison, penalties or both.

So, yesterday in a social media pronouncement, a certain someone announced that everyone who believes or asserts that climate change is a thing, is henceforth labeled an Environmental Insurrectionist. Never mind the irony of the utterance of that term…it labels every reputable scientist and the vast majority of Americans insurrectionists for believing in fact.

How did this come to be? The basis for the claim was that in advance of the major winter storm that now grips a majority of the states, that cold snap disproves climate change. Don’t laugh, a certain someone really said that. But, it always comes down to knowledge. Knowledge that weather is not climate. Climate is not weather. Climate change does not mean only warming. NOAA defines the difference as: “Weather refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area.”

Climate change can be viewed as a disruptor. As the atmosphere heats (and it has been on a steady, unabated trajectory for 50+ years), the atmosphere has greater energy (heat = energy). That results in stronger storms, greater droughts, and most importantly, new normals.

Take the western United States, as of today, the USGS and National Climate Center shows measured precipitation and snowpack across the west at between 30-45% of normal…and this has generally been the pattern for the last 25 years. That long term pattern is climate (not weather). And, the problem is not confined to one region. Colorado statewide ranges from 25-46% of average. Arizona is between 7-37% of normal. Even Oregon is suffering between 4-39% of normal. Those are sobering statistics for the end of January.

The statistics forecast another dangerous wildfire season, another tough economic season for farmers and ranchers who end up with half the water they need and twice the economic headaches they deserve.

What I’m trying to drive home here is that the agitators or “environmental insurrectionists” are not the country’s scientists, water planners, engineers, educators, farmers, and ranchers. The truth and facts are sometimes unwelcome. It’s another divisive term used to disparage fellow Americans. But hey, I think there’s a future economic play here for someone wanting to print bumper stickers and pins for those that want to identify as Environmental Insurrectionists. I know I’d buy one.

YOUR MOTHER TOLD YOU NOT TO LIE AND HIDE THE TRUTH, DIDN’T SHE?

When I was growing up, the cardinal rule in my house was to fess-up. My parents had a rule (and a ruler, in the good ole days when that was allowed). No matter what you did (and I really stretched the bounds of that) if you told the truth, came clean, the punishment would be far less than if you lied or hid the truth. I’ll bet some of you had that same upbringing.

Later, I was trained as a lawyer so they taught you that not telling the truth or not volunteering facts is an “omission” and an omission is the same as a lie. An omission is a fact that you don’t reveal, or worse, hide.

So why now is it acceptable by so many to lie and hide the truth? In the past few decades our politicians seem to have forgotten their upbringing (or maybe they were unjustly denied one). It’s resulted in whole new industries: Fact checkers (Snopes, 1994 and FactCheck.org, 2003).

The advent of social media and the partisan nature of network news have certainly led to more and more people “inventing facts” and the rise of conspiracy theories (theories being far from facts).

Merriam-Websters defined the word “fact” as: “Something that actually exists; information presented as true and accurate.” Websters also defines “science” as: A knowledge or system covering general truths or the operation of general laws obtained and tested through the scientific method.”

According to a poll conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center last week, only 90% of those identifying as Democrats have confidence in science. That percentage drops to less than 65% of Republicans. The percentages were far higher before Covid, when politicians politicized science and conspiracy theories abounded.   

America has always relished education and science. We need to get back on track or we will be left behind. It is counterproductive to the economy and future of America to hide facts. In the last year $1.0 billion has been cut from science research. Hundreds of scientists have been fired and the Congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment has been eliminated and worse, the government website that made available prior assessments from the past decades has been eliminated. These assessments guide groundwater and surface water planning decisions, weather and natural disaster assistance and prevention programs, and information critical to the agricultural sector.

Hiding science and facts doesn’t make them go away.

So, let’s put forth some facts (and these are empirical facts):

·        The last 11 years were the hottest 11 years in our planet’s record keeping history (about 180 years).

·        Heat is energy. Remember, electric generating stations heat water (through nuclear, coal, geothermal, natural gas, etc) to generate steam to turn turbines that generate electricity.

·        An increase in heat results in an increase in energy.

·        An increase in atmospheric heat results in greater atmospheric  energy resulting in more intensive storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and droughts.

·        Between 1880 and 1980, the world surface temperatures were generally flat or below the historical medium of record keeping (1880-2025). After 1980, world surface temperatures have risen exponentially each year:

·        The world population in 1880 was 1.5 billion. By 1980 it was 4.4 billion. Today it is 8.3 billion. More people demand electricity, water, food, and a better life…and everyone generates methane producing garbage and waste.

·        Last year, renewables (solar and wind) surpassed coal as a source of electrical generation.

All facts. All alarming. Is this sustainable? How do we address the challenges? Serious problems cannot be solved by conspiracy theories, wishful thinking, complacency, and hiding them. Our only hope as a species is education, personal choices, and science to tackle and solve the problems.

So, back to my mother and the ruler. Don’t hide inconvenient facts and science. No omissions. The punishment (results) will be far worse than admitting them and dealing with them as best we can.

A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW WILL LEAVE AMERICA IN THE DUST

Two hundred and fifty years ago this month, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet entitled Common Sense brought to the common man an understanding that past restrictions on freedoms and economic advancement did not have to continue. In plain language, it challenged the wisdom and stagnation of monarchy and hereditary class. It was perhaps the turning point that gave rise to our country. Today, we are at another fork where the wrong turn can lead to stagnation and the right turn can unleash limitless opportunity.

This past week highlighted these choices. The strength of America has always been its ingenuity and scientific advancements. So how do we feel when China is leaving America in the dust in renewable energy production? In a mere five months (from January to May, 2025), China added over 200 gigawatts of new solar power and 46 gigawatts of wind power (The administration’s claim this week that China has no windmills was wildly untrue). That five month increase is the amount of electrical demand that the country of Poland uses…not an insignificant amount. China is pulling away in renewable technology. Why? Direction. China’s autocratic government has seen the strategic risks of reliance on fossil fuels (sources from Iran, Venezuela, etc. are uncertain). China now has made the decision to endorse a future of clean, cheaper energy. Europe has too.

At the same time, in 2025 we saw the United States government proclaim a different direction: Retreat from renewables, cut research and funding, and pressure industry to return to a strict diet of fossil fuels. Whether industry bites has yet to be seen. Last week it was announced that the US would exit 66 international organizations, chief among them the Atlantic Cooperative and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. These withdrawals are in addition to the suspensions of participation in the World Health Organization, UN Human Rights Council, and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (a 1992 Agreement signed by 198 countries).

History is to be learned from, not retreated to. A yearning for the return of times past is nostalgia that endangers productivity, growth, and advancement. It is a path that leads to the rear.

It is also a strategy bundled with risk. An example: Between 2024 and 2025, the world’s oceans absorbed 33% more heat than in the year before (from 16 zettajoules to 23). One zettajoule is sextillion joules, or two-hundred times the electrical demand of every human on the planet (heat = energy). A warming ocean translates to risks loss of fishstocks (over a third of the Earth’s population’s food security relies on fishstocks) and more dynamic and violent weather patterns.  These are economic risks for everyone, whether you live on coasts or America’s Midwest.

With electrical demand expected to double in the next few decades and electric bills in the US rising, on average, at 13.9% yearly, renewables have overtaken coal for electric generation and are a path toward reduced grid reliance, lower utility bills, and less emissions.

Thomas Paine’s simple, plain language pronouncements for the colonies to progress toward a new moral, economic and political future and reject the constraints of the old structure have a certain ring today. Endorsing, instead of rejecting, new renewable energy technology is just Common Sense.

AN EASY NEW YEAR RESOLUTION: GIVING UP CRYPTOCURRENCIES FOR YOUR HEALTH

We all make (and break) New Year resolutions. Unless you have incredible inner strength, you are like most of us. We break the difficult ones (diet, exercise, alcohol) and keep the few that are the easiest.

 “Health” is defined by the World Heath Organization as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” It is your broader existence. We all feel better when we do better things, are more financially secure, and have better surroundings. So, when I say health, I speak of your planet and your pocketbook, not just your absence of disease. What can you do to accomplish such lofty goals? Simple, avoid useless and negative things, people, and habits.

 But what does this have to do with cryptocurrencies? Crypto currencies are fraught by volatility, regulatory uncertainties, and scams. Few get rich. The few that create and sell them, not the vast majority of those that buy and own them. But has anyone ever discussed how damaging they are to the environment and your pocketbook?

 Crypto mining uses vast amounts of water and energy. A single Bitcoin transaction consumes the electricity that a single-family home uses in 15 days. That translates to around 500 kilowatt hours. Never mind the water necessary to cool the vast computer banks required for crypto mining, the generation of 500 kilowatt hours of electricity requires 1,000 gallons of freshwater. One transaction.

 Crypto mining in 2024 was estimated to require nearly 200 Terawatts of electricity. That’s 1,000,000,000 kilowatt hours. 71% of all crypto mining is concentrated in three countries: The United States (38%), China (21%) and Kazakhstan (12%). In the US, 66% of all electricity is generated by fossil fuels, in China its 77%, and in Kazakhstan, it’s 100%. That’s a lot of unnecessary emissions.

 But besides the fact that crypto mining consumes vast amounts of energy and freshwater water, new demands on an aging electric grid means significant required upgrades to utilities from generating to transmission. Since electric generation is largely conducted by public utilities, in all but a few instances, those new costs are spread amongst existing users, not allocated to the new industries that necessitate the upgraded infrastructure.

The crypto miners and data center developers are subsidized by you. That’s where your pocketbook health comes into the equation.

 These are the crypto industry titans that are pushing a crypto-friendly deregulatory mantra in Washington. The 2024 election saw cryptocurrency donors becoming the largest corporate donor (an estimated 238 million), surpassing oil, gas, and pharmaceutical lobbies. When that happens, it usually isn’t going to bode well for the common man who struggles to pay the utilities.

 Now then, when you think of easy New Year’s resolution to keep, you might include swearing off the crypto train. That’s my New Year’s resolution (and rant), since my other resolutions of more exercise, less alcohol, and a better diet look really hard and it’s only January 4th.