THE FARMER KNOWS BEST: GETTING BY WITH LESS

With the world’s population exponentially growing at an alarming rate (8.2 billion as of this writing, contrasted with 2.0 billion one hundred years ago), our planet is hungry. Food scarcity is fast becoming a destabilizing influence on the world stage and a hit to the pocket book for the average US consumer.  Contrast the growing demand for food stocks against the growing scarcity of freshwater supplies and the world needs a little common sense and ingenuity.

Seventy percent of the world’s freshwater is used for agriculture production. In the arid western United States, that figure climbs to as much as 80%. So, what are the solutions?

In past articles, I’ve spoken (dare say ranted) about the lack of wisdom of growing cotton, rice, almonds, and other highly water intensive crops in arid regions suggesting incentives to grow those crops in less arid regions and incentivizing less water intensive crops in drier locales. Like the siting of water guzzling datacenters, location is important. People have said that I’m  dictating what a farmer grows and that such encouragements would amount to government overreach, but the agriculture industry has long been intertwined with governmental mandates, crop subsidies, agricultural loan guarantees, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assistance programs. Those programs are good. They’ve returned the investment many fold. They have benefitted the American farmer who the country relies on to put food on the table. I put the American farmer at the top of the list when I think of admirable occupations and am proud to say my son is a farmer.

Agriculture is in a state of transition, the likes of which we have not seen since the horrible days of the 1980s, when American farming teetered. With tariffs, trade wars (China, historically the largest purchaser of soybeans from US farmers has not signed any (zero) contracts this year for American soybeans), drought, and interest rates, how does the American farmer put food on everyone’s table?

The answers are many and complex, but I’ll stick to the issue I know, water. The Ogallala aquifer that supplies ag-water to much of the Midwest is declining. In areas that have suffered sustained drought such as the American west, water is often shorted while climate change has increased crop water demands, increased evaporation, and lengthened growing seasons.

Agribusiness has long been predicated on cheap water, intensive tillage, chemical fertilization, and monocropping. Farming has historically endorsed water conservation and increased efficiencies of transporting and applying water. Now it is beginning to endorse other techniques to get yields with less water. Enter regenerative agriculture. While forms of regenerative agriculture have existed since the days of the dust bowl, small farmers have endorsed it with dramatic results.

What is regenerative farming? The practice focuses on rebuilding soil organic matter to upgrade soil structure. This is done by winter cover cropping, mulching, rotational grazing and no-till farming. Some have equated it to creating a sponge. The result is that the soil structure is able to retain far more water providing drought resilience. Studies have shown that a mere 1% increase in soil organic matter can increase soil moisture retention by 20,000 gallons/acre.

In an era where every drop counts and every penny is watched by farmers, it holds the same hopes as water conservation tools such as laser leveling, drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and sub-surface application.

CONTINENTAL DRYING

The northern hemisphere is experiencing what scientists label extreme continental drying. Stated simply, an alarming loss of freshwater from northern hemisphere land masses. Storage of freshwater on land (terrestrial water storage) is found in creeks, rivers, and lakes, groundwater, soil moisture, ice in permafrost, and water held in glaciers.

NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), and its successor follow-on (GRACE-FO) missions assessed water loss during the period 2002-2024. A recent paper published this summer in the journal Science Advances details the results of this US-German mission. The findings should concern us all.

Water is being lost from the northern continents at alarming rates as a result of  increased global temperatures and its consequences such as longer growing seasons, increased evaporation, increased water demand of plants (evapotranspiration), dramatic increases in groundwater pumping, and loss of glacier water.  Remembering the hydrologic cycle,  water is not consumed but is redistributed as precipitation. With seventy-one percent of the Earth covered in water, most precipitation falls upon and becomes seawater or eventually flows to seawater.

The result is a dramatic transfer of mass from the continents to oceans, leading to additional pressures on sea level rise. On land, the effect has magnified competition for scarce water resources, threatened food security (with food production being the largest user of freshwater) and impacted sustainable drinking water resources.

We are at a juncture in our ability to reverse or even slow the effects. Having information and technology to monitor threats is essential to food security, agribusiness, and wise water planning. Yet, cuts have been announced that would eliminate fully functioning in-orbit climate satellite missions like MODIS, OCO, Terra, and Aura, that carry out high-resolution imaging, measure solar radiation, precipitation, and detect wildfires. Besides from the unwise decision to eliminate fully functioning paid for infrastructure that gather critical data, the vast percentage of the costs of these missions has already been spent. NASA missions are front-forward cost projects with the bulk of the costs incurred in research and development and launch. The costs of maintaining a satellite in orbit and collecting data is pittance in comparison. The logic is unclear. Many see just another attack on climate science and a head in the sand mentality.

Ultimately, it will be up to the US Supreme Court to assess the power of the executive versus the Congress to fund and defund. How the Court rules, could impact our world for a generation.

A PICTURE OF A DRYING PLANET: SEA RISE AND FOOF INSECURITY

Nearly three-quarters of Earth’s surface is covered in water. Somewhere between 2.5-3.5% of the Earth’s water is freshwater and a far smaller fraction of that is economically recoverable water. Less than 30% of that is groundwater.

With such a precious resource, why is it then that its regulation and administration is so haphazard and the resource is so misunderstood? Even in the one of the most developed countries, the United States, fifty states have fifty legal frameworks that are often conflicting and archaic. Some of the most water short states regulate water the least. Why? Primarily, politics and a lack of understanding of science.

Take, for example, knowledge of the resource itself. Some states which have a history with oil and gas, treat water essentially as just another liquid hydrocarbon sitting in place waiting to be extracted beneath land. And at least one state, Texas, with its “rule of capture” doesn’t care whether pumping affects the neighboring parcel. Other states literally believe that drilling a well outside the bed and banks of a river has no impact on the river. But that’s not how water exists.

Water is moved by gravity. It is seldom sitting in a pool or static aquifer. It’s always on the move above and under the ground flowing by gravity through sands, pores and fissures in rock. On the surface, it’s heading in one place, the ocean.  

Most groundwater is interconnected with surface water. The rivers and streams we see are fed by groundwater and sometimes feed that groundwater. It may take scores or even hundreds of years for that impact to be felt, but the connection is present, Breaking or ignoring that connection has consequences.

Extensive groundwater monitoring and modelling reveals groundwater is declining across the world as a result of overuse and climate change. A warmer, drier planet means longer growing seasons, greater evaporation, and greater water usage. Water extracted is evaporated (and transpirated by plants) and 88% of that water falls back as rain on oceans, converted to seawater. With climate change, freshwater on land and locked in glaciers flows at alarming rates to the sea rising sea levels and forever lost to freshwater reserves.

Then, there is the elephant in the pool: Population. In 1700, the world population was around 650 million. By 1900, it was 1.6 billion. By 2000, it was 6.1 billion and today it is 8.2 billion. That population needs water for food production, electrical generation, sanitation, and drinking water.

The largest consumer of water in the United States and worldwide is food production. As freshwater supplies dwindle, competition for water increases. Commercial, industrial and domestic users require far less and are able to pay far more than agricultural users setting the stage for food insecurity.

The solutions are science based and culturally driven. Efficiency of water use is key (due to efficiency standards, the United States uses roughly the same amount of water today, at 345 million, that it did in 1970 when the population was 200 million). Regulating wise water use must occur. Datacenters and AI threaten to consume more water than the entire population so why site these facilities in water short areas?

With knowledge, solutions are achievable.

YOUR ELECTRIC BILL IS GOING UP

Electric utility bills are expected to dramatically rise across the country, particularly in states with large data centers: California, Florida, Virginia, Texas, to name a few. In one year, the national average for electric rates has risen at double the rate of the consumer price index (5.5% versus 2.7%). Why? If you listen to President Trump, the blame is all on renewable energy technologies. The truth is more involved. Five drivers are causing electrical utilities to seek massive rate hikes.

1.    Demand after Covid. From 2020-2023, demand was repressed by the pandemic and its lingering effects. A simple supply/demand answer: When demand is outstripped by supply, energy costs stay low. Now that the pandemic is in the rearview, demand is outstripping supply.

 2.    Demand from New Technologies. In my May 26th, July 13th, and August 17th Substacks, I wrote of the dramatic new demands for water and energy resulting from data centers, AI, and cryptocurrencies. A single data center can use the electricity of a city of 750,000 people. Data centers are populating like dandelions on your new lawn. And the surge of AI is expected to increase the electrical demands of data centers by s much as 10 times. Electrical demand is now expected to rise 60% in the next five years, when the US population is expected to remain static or even drop.

 3.    Wholesale Energy Costs. Electrical generation requires power. Wholesale energy costs have risen in the last year, largely driven by natural gas prices which increased by 13.8%, far above the CPI 2.7%.

 4.    Interferences in the Marketplace. Capitalism and markets hate interference and artificial barriers. Renewable energy, wind and solar have made huge inroads into traditional power generation particularly on the micro-level (if a home has solar, the home’s demand to purchase energy decreases, resulting in less pressure on utilities to generate centralized power). The current administration’s war against renewables is increasing, not decreasing, electrical demands and prices. Again, its simple economics. When demand increases over supply, prices rise. Add in the tariffs, and it's a double hit. The price of natural gas turbines has dramatically increased in the past few months due to increased steel and aluminum costs and supply disruptions.

 5.    The Grid. Transmission is falling behind generation. Add to that, the state of the grid (the infrastructure the transmits electricity) is not good. The Grid is old and has been in need if upgrades for decades. Add in the demands that data centers and AI are placing on generation, and you have a recipe for either power disruptions or a monumental upgrade of the system (and you don’t have to guess who pays for that). Some studies have pegged the costs of infrastructure upgrades to mean utility costs could rise by as much as 18% in the next three years.

So here is the two questions of the day:

1) Is it wise to discourage renewable energy? and

2) When a single user (a data center) uses the electricity of a city, forces new or expanded generating plants, and wholesale replacement of the grid, is it fair for all customers to pay? That is the battle now beginning in many states as public utility commissions seek to revisit traditional rate setting theory which was predicated on costs being shared equally between users. Taking a cue from municipal land use theory, many now argue growth must pay its own way, not be subsidized by existing users.

THE NEXUS BETWEEN AI, DATA CENTERS & WATER NEEDN'T BE UGLY

On average, a medium sized data center uses 110 million gallons a year of freshwater primarily for cooling. A large data center can use 1.8 billion gallons a year (roughly the same amount of water of a city with a population of 40,000-50,000). As of 2021, the US was estimated to have 5,400 data centers in operation. And 2021 was before the  widespread roll out of artificial intelligence.  

AI exponentially accelerates water use. AI functions as a guessing game with computers running computations and searches (up to 300 quintillion computerized guesses and searches every second). That consumes vast amounts of freshwater to cool the computers as well as to generate the electricity required to power the computers. On average two gallons of freshwater is consumed to generate one kWH of electricity. With a single data center using up to 2,400 megawatts per day, water consumption is staggering just for the energy, setting aside the massive quantity of water needed for cooling.

In a 2022 Sustainability Report prepared by Microsoft, it projected its own water consumption would increase 34% in the next fiscal year (2021-2022). Google, META, and others are similarly projecting dramatic increases in water demands, while pledging efforts to achieve carbon and water neutrality. How they intend to meet water neutrality has yet to be explained.

While I have written on the abject wastefulness of water usage by cryptocurrencies, where no societal or national benefit is achieved, no one doubts that AI has positive applications (as well as negatives…we’ve all seen Terminator). The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Society is not going to wean itself from social media, data centers, and AI.

Solutions for Water Resilience exist, but they require a coherent and concurrent application of technology, education, and policy.

Two-thirds of all new data centers built in or under development in 2022 were in areas of the United States suffering extreme water stress. Over 150 data centers have been built in Arizona alone despite Arizona being one of the most water deficient stressed environments in the country. Texas and California, two states with their own water stressors, compete with Arizona with tax incentives to lure data center construction. Why? It isn’t job growth. After initial construction, 90% of the workforce disappears. Data centers are largely empty of man.

In areas where water for municipal consumption and growth is constrained, does it really make sense to lure data centers? It’s akin to growing rice and cotton in the desert (which these states weaned off of relatively few years ago). Siting data centers in areas with abundant freshwater is good policy.

There are new technologies of direct to chip and immersive cooling on the horizon, but when less than a third of all data centers even monitor their own water consumption, direction (policy) is needed.

And there is the elephant in the room: the condition of our nation’s antiquated electrical grid. Upgrading the grid to accommodate these centers places what many argue to be unfair rate increases on consumers. Typical public utility rate settings spread costs amongst all users. But is that fair when a new user arrives on the block who requires massive new infrastructure and generating plants?

Education, guidance, and regulation are not negative terms. I’d argue they are essential  if we are to address water scarcity and our economic future.   

RISE OF FIRE

2025 has been an explosive year for wildfires. As I write this, a thick haze of smoke you can taste pervades the sky. Over 150,000 acres are burning in Colorado. Another 280,000 acres are burning in California, and the Lee Fire, near Meeker, Colorado is doubling and tripling as low (8-12%) humidity, 90+ degree temperatures, and 20-40 mph winds pummel firefighters. 2025 has seen over 3.5 million acres burned across the country.

Wildfire has always been a fact of life. Timothy Egan’s The Big Burn is a page-turning account of the 1910 fire the size of the State of Connecticut that swept across Washington, Idaho and Montana in a single weekend. Smoke clouded skies in Chicago and New York. That fire birthed knowledge of forest stewardship and fire prevention.

As we turn the page on the first quarter of the 21st century, the challenges intensify. A NOAA report identified that between 1985 and 2015, large wildfires had doubled. Why? The same report found that with every 1˚C increase, wildfire increases by as much as 600%. It’s not difficult to understand why.

The five drivers of wildfire are: 1) increased temperatures; 2) extended wildfire seasons; 3) extended drought; 4) a charged atmosphere; and 5) enhanced drying of organic matter. While the igniting factors haven’t changed; eighty percent fires are the result of man (the next highest cause is lightning). But the difference is the rate growth and scope of fires.  

One need not look beyond the extended drought in the West. In the 1900s drought frequency on average was once every 8-10 years. Since 1995, the rate has increased to once every 3-5 years. And the droughts have become  more severe. The drying effect on organic matter, together with a super-charged atmosphere leads to larger and more severe fires. For every 1˚C rise in atmospheric temperature, the atmosphere stores an additional 7% more water, heat, and energy. Remember, the Bunsen burner and glass beaker back in high school science class, heat water and steam (energy) results.

An example of the explosive growth of fire is the Lee fire that is now burning in Colorado. Believed to have resulted from a lightning strike on August 2nd, it spread to 700 acres in one day. Five days later it surpassed 100,000 acres despite an aggressive firefighting campaign by 13 aircraft, 62 engine companies, ground crews, and heavy equipment cutting fire lines. Fifty miles to the southeast, I write this. The pictures below, taken a week apart, speak volumes.

With a non-existent snowpack, dwindling streamflows, temperatures in the 90s, humidity levels hovering between 8-13%, and 20-30 mph winds, the future isn’t bright. For those that still believe climate change is a hoax, look out your window.

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER

My last post, See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, or How We Learned to Turn a Blind Eye to Avoid Responsibility & Consequences, talked about the dangers and futility of eliminating mention of history as well as climate change and environmental programs designed to assist farmers, water planners, and weather forecasters. This has been a week that has defied the boundaries of rational thought on the subject. And the dangers are real, in my instance, visible from my house.

I sat down to write this substack after the odd week of the firing of the head of the non-partisan Bureau of Labor Statistics, because the numbers weren’t acceptable to the administration (the proverbial shoot the messenger), when a wildfire erupted within sight of my land. Perched 7,100’ atop a pinion and sage brush covered plateau overlooking 14,000’ mountains, I’ve lived in the area for over 40 years. Only in the past ten years or so have we feared wildfire after back to back epic droughts. Since 2000, Colorado has suffered severe droughts in 2002, 2012, 2018, and now 2025. As a water attorney, I pay attention, it’s my job. It used to be a drought every decade or two (1954, 1977, etc.). The frequency and severity of drought is increasing, portrayed graphically below.

Colorado State University “2024 Climate Change in Colorado”

Colorado’s annual average temperature has raised by 2.3˚F since 1980. Models now predict a loss of up to 30% of annual precipitation by 2050. That would be staggering, and not just for Colorado. Colorado is the mother of 158 rivers, including half a dozen that flow through and into the nation’s great Rivers, all originating in and fed by Colorado runoff (Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande, Colorado, Yampa, San Juan), These rivers support over 80 million people contributing to more than a dozen states, Mexico, and the Mississippi River.

Colorado’s watersheds are unique, capturing most water content in the form of snow and slowly melting off throughout the year to stabilize flows when they are needed in summer months. With less precipitation, and rising temperatures, less water will be captured and more will fall in the form of rain that cannot be stored and may run off as  flood waters.

So, as I watch the brave first responders and air tankers hit the flames from my window, the mere thought that anyone would deny science, deny facts, and fire the messenger doesn’t sit well. Not having the science, the data, stands to place everyone in danger.

SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL

Or How We Learned to Turn a Blond Eye to Avoid Responsibility and Consequences

We’ve all seen the proverb, which is believed to have originated in either ancient Chinese philosophy (avoid focusing on negative thoughts, words, actions) or Koshin, the 17th century Japanese folk-religion (behaving well avoids negative repercussions). Honestly though, today the proverb has more to do with the proverb of the ostrich with its head in the sand (in reality, ostriches don’t do this - that was derived from an ancient Roman myth that gave rise to the metaphor for someone avoiding their problems).

Have I lost you? Well the ostrich and the monkeys are a metaphor for what is transpiring today in the battle between politics and science. If we remove any mention of this or that, ban websites, defund, and erase the written science, the problems will all go away. Never happened. Problem solved. Ignorance is bliss. Let’s all forget about the wild hoaxes and attack the real problems like our fellow Americans and chem trails.

Again, it wasn’t always like this. In 1990, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 100-0, passed Senate Bill 169 (which became Public Law 1010-606) entitled the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The act directed the President, through the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (Council), to: 1) establish the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences to carry out Council functions under specified provisions of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 relating to global change research, and 2) to increase the effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts by conducting a climate changes assessment report at least as often as once every four years that all agencies have access to in making informed decisions. It’s the law.

This assessment is relied upon by countless public and private parties who utilize the data in developing not just means and methods of combatting effects, but fostering practices for farmers, ranchers, and municipal water supply planners to adapt to changing conditions. It is an extremely useful tool, if you want real data, real facts. The last assessment, conducted in 2023 has taken it off the website, but if you now do a little digging, it still can be located here: https://nca-atlas-nationalclimate.hub.arcgis.com/

Will we see another before 2027? Problems don’t go away. Ask the ostrich. Instead, pretending the science doesn’t exist is a motto for the three monkeys. Let’s look at some data out of the 2023 Assessment  and you be the judge of whether this information is useful or should be erased.

·         Since 1970, annual average temperature in the contiguous United States has risen by 2.5 °F and Alaska’s average temperature has risen by 4.2 °F. During that same time, the average temperature for the entire globe rose 1.7 °F. For every additional 1 °C of global warming, the average U.S. temperature is projected to increase by around 2.5 °F (1.4 °C), with greater warming occurring in the northern and western parts of the country. 

·         At +3˚C, seasonal disruptions of agriculture are likely. Some areas in the Northern Great Plains (N. Dakota) may see swings of 8-10˚F from normal on a consistent basis.

·         At +4˚C, Humidity and temperature merge to disrupt agricultural production in vast areas of the country (S. California, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, to name a few) with the emergence of heat index values too extreme for human tolerance.

·         Precipitation patterns will also be dramatically altered with far stronger storms and precipitation in areas like Texas, the South Eastern US, and Northeast, while other areas suffer extreme drought (Arizona, Eastern Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas panhandle, etc).

Ask yourself, is the information helpful? Are you (and your children) better off without the facts being available? Or are you better off being one of the monkeys? We humans are a bright species. We solve problems. We adapt to the ones we cannot. That takes information.

ECO-TERRORISM V. RECKLESSNESS

This article appears in my Substack: K.LandPatrick’s Water Lawg

Eco-terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence to achieve an environmental goal. Usually, this involves bio-centric oriented individuals (who believe all living things should have equal protection from harm) who seek to disrupt or eliminate those persons or industries that harm the planet. Think Earth First, Animal Liberation Front, the Unabomber. Most people would agree eco-terrorists should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, right?

Well, what if the coin was flipped? If the eco-terrorism was committed out of ignorance or greed? Would you consider a pass for them? Of course not.

In my May 26th article, I touched on the extreme environmental harm that cryptocurrencies and their mining cause. For reference, a single cryptocurrency transaction uses 6.2 million times the water used in a single credit card transaction. And this is not just the wasting of scarce water resources, it’s affecting your electrical bills (more on that later).

Up to thirty million people in the United States suffer from water shortage. Worldwide, that figure is three billion. Water is a precious natural resource that knows no substitute.

Recent studies have found a 150% annual increase in the water footprint of cryptocurrency mining since 2020. The energy consumption of cryptocurrencies is estimated to now consume up to 2.3% of all energy consumption in the United States, and that figure is projected to rise.

Why do cryptocurrencies use such vast amounts of energy and water? It’s a long explanation essentially reduced to a couple of sentences: Value is generated by the creation of new blocks in an underlying blockchain through, essentially, a guessing computerized game. It’s a trial and error guessing game generating up to 350 quintillion computerized guesses every second by linked computers. That’s energy intensive. Water is consumed to generate the power and cool the massive computer networks. Roughly 3,520 gallons of fresh water is used in every transaction.

Cryptocurrency has already increased electric rates across the country by usurping other demands, forcing plant expansions, that all users pay for and requiring grid upgrades. Most people don’t like increased utility costs and appreciate the value of freshwater. So why?

Cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value. It isn’t a meaningful employment generator. It’s just another currency for those to speculate in. Cryptocurrencies create a cost to the environment and your pocketbook. The White House website now boasts the “value” of cryptocurrencies and a pledge to “ Make America the “Crypto Capital of the World,” while investors boast diversification through cryptocurrencies.  

So back to the word eco-terrorism. I’m not suggesting cryptocurrencies are forms of terrorism by any means, but they do fit a definition for blind, reckless, and wasteful use of natural resources. If people knew the economic and environmental cost of this nonsensical computer guessing game, most would have the ethics, morality, and common sense to pass on it.

WHY’S THE ENVIRONMENT SO CONTROVERSIAL?

This article appears in my Substack: K.LandPatrick’s Water Lawg

Say the word ENVIRONMENT to ten people and you will get ten different reactions from disdain to reverence. It’s always perspective. In these days where people form their facts from opinions, steeped in the echo chambers of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and (god-forbid) social media, chances are the spin is something they’ve been force fed.

It wasn’t always like this. And if you personalize the conversation, you’re likely to get a far different reaction. A rancher in Colorado who is forced to contend with the reintroduction of wolves and its impact on his livestock rails against the urban environmentalists who voted the reintroduction into law. Chances are that rancher has a far greater understanding and connection to the natural environment than arm-chair environmentalists in metropolitan Denver. The rancher respects the land, soil, and water on a personal level. The hunter, who is vilified by animal rights extremists (think ALF: Animal Liberation Front or PETA) often has a far greater love and appreciation for the natural environment than those that preach. It’s never black and white.

The transcendentalists of the 1800’s (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, to name a few), gave the natural environment a voice. Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot fostered Yellowstone and preserved 172 million acres of National Forests. Few would label Teddy a “radical” environmentalist. There’s that term again, “radical,” that’s being used far too often to voice disdain.

On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day, twenty million people, 10% of the entire population at the time, marched in favor of environmental protections. That led to the adoption of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Specie Act. Bipartisan votes in both the House (366 to 11) and Senate (74 to 0) overrode President Nixon’s veto of the Clean Water Act. Remember when bipartisan votes were a thing?

If you ask most people one on one whether they want clean air to breath, clean water to drink and swim in, and the natural environment protected for future generations, I suspect the vast majority would say of course.  The next time you hear terms like “the environment,”  “environmentalists,” or “climate change,” divorce yourself from the partisan echo-chamber and ask yourself honestly what you believe. The previous generation did. My generation did (except for a few outliers).

Now go out in nature and breathe.