TrueLife - Classroom Earth - Dan Hawk

Episode Date: August 2, 2022

“The stream of thought” The flowing river as a felicitous description of ongoing consciousness. Do the traditional rubrics of perception, sensation, and imagery suffice to capture the complexity of private experience? Today we speak with Dan Hawk. We will explore some of the obstacles past, present, & future. Dan Hawk is the Principal Scientist at United First Nations Planetary Defense. This wide ranging conversation will allow the listener an opportunity not only to see through, but break open the ceramic model of the universe.

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Hears through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Almost there, and we are alive. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the True Life podcast. We are here with an amazing man, Mr. Dan Hawk from the First Nations Planetary Defense. got some interesting ideas and maybe just some conversation we're going to chat about today. Dan Hawk, how are you today? Good morning or afternoon. You are in the mountain zone. I'm in the

Hawaii. So good afternoon to you. How are you? I'm doing great. It's glad to be, I'm glad to be back on the podcast with you today. Yeah, thank you very much. I, um, I've been doing a little bit of thinking about the world we live in, Dan, and I wanted to get your opinion on this. It's kind of a broad topics. I'm going to throw it out here and just see what you have to say. What do you think about the earth as a classroom? Well, I have to say that, you know, as you know, I'm Native American, so I'm Oneida. The earth, the earth is, it's our teacher for sure, okay? It's where we live. you know, we call this maybe, let's say, a boat where we are all in. So we are all in this together.

So what I would like to say about Earth is that what people don't understand is that when you look at it as a web, right? So when you have many strands in a web. And so when you harm one strand, you are actually harming the entire web. So I look at it when we look at Earth in a way that everything, everything is connected. And we don't see it that way. Even, you know, even extending that to our orbital space,

which I recently, you know, we, you know, have been doing along with, you know, going, you know, to the moon of Mars, an example with Artemis. But everything is connected. We need to see it that way. And if we don't, then what happens is that, you know, we harmed a strand and someone else gets harmed because of it.

So that's how I see it. Yeah, that's a great, when I think of a relationship, I think of the word ship. And if you're on a ship together, you hurt one person, you hurt the entire boat. You know, I think it's a great metaphor to think about like that. I often wonder. Well, I was going to say, you know, being on submarines, it's like that, right? Okay, so I served on two submarines, two fast-tax submarines, U.S.

Flying Fish and Atlanta, the last one being SSN. 712, which is 68-class submarine. And so you have to realize that when you're underwater, that anything can happen at any time, everyone on that submarine is responsible for everybody else. We do something wrong. We can hurt somebody. We can kill some. We can, you know, the entire submarine is at risk just by one person. So when you talk about ship, you know, I talk about submarine, right? But it's true, you know, especially on a submarine.

You have to rely on everybody else to do their share, to do their part. You look at the ship of Earth. We all have to do our share, our part. And for some reason, it seems like a lot of people don't want to do their share. They don't want to do their part. And I see that, especially today, where they say, you know, let's leave it to the next generation. Let's leave it to the next generation. And recently, you know, we're just looking at, you know, the idea of, you know, the 25-year rule for having, you know,

satellites in space. It's okay to have something up there for 25 years. It'll automatically somehow, you know, disintegrate or, you know, deposit itself over the ocean and burn up. That 25 year rule was made because of people who like, oh, yeah, let's just, you know, just let's have 25 years in space for a spacecraft. And 25 years from now, we won't be here to deal with the fallout of that. And so that's crazy thinking to think that way. But that's exactly what happened. You know, people's like, let's make 25 years and things give you up in space for that long and and that that's okay. No, it's not okay because when you're done with your mission, you need to de-orbit, you need to, you need to take care of the debris.

Anything in orbit, you know, this man-made that doesn't have a useful purpose, it's debris. It doesn't belong there. You need to get rid of it. So that's how I see it. But yeah. It's interesting. It seems to me some similarities between a ship in space and a submarine or a ship on the ocean is that, on that ship you would want to have shared sacrifice and shared goals. Thus, you share the mission

together and have a good outcome. Do you think that in my mind, it seems like some of the setbacks are probably, it's got to be money that's involved, and it's got to be the interest of different nation states that are competing against each other. Like, what stops us from having the shared goals and the shared sacrifice to achieve a goal that's good for everybody? You know, okay, so look at space. Space is supposed to unite us as a world people. That's what the International Space Station has done. It's taken countries together and we come together for a common goal,

research in space as an example. We do the same thing should and ought to do the same thing when we go to the moon and Mars. We should be there as a community of people. No colonization thing when you talk about Native Americans, right? So it's about communities going to, going to Mars and then having, you know, maybe a research capability there as an example. So I'm not going to say outposts. I want to say that, but I'm not going to. So, you know, research capability there.

And so, you know, space is supposed to unite us. And so when we look at it from the world coming back down, right? So what's happening on Earth that prevents us from doing that, from going to? going to the moon and having all of the communities come together and participating as explorers, as an example. And it seems that we have these, you know, these problems on Earth where we want to go to war. We want to fight each other. And it could be over resources. It could be, you know, over, you know, you know, ideology or, you know, religion. And even in our own, you know, in America, you know, we find, you know, just cross the aisle kind of thinking, you know, you're not thinking like I'm thinking

and therefore our United States. We're split. We're a fractured nation. And so we need to figure out a way to come together. And that's difficult to do, you know, to change one's mind and to change one's heart, two different things. And so it's difficult. Yeah. Yeah. One thing I do see that has brought me a lot of joy and it allows me to do some deep thinking on is ever since we've begun to go into space, it seems it has allowed us to see the world differently, literally and figuratively. I remember, I forgot what mission it was on, but they showed, and sometimes astronauts will talk about looking back and seeing the earth from from outside of the planet.

And so we're literally getting like a third person view of the world. And I think anyone who's willing to put themselves in that position, obviously you're just doing it from a mental exercise. But because we have a picture of what the Earth looks like now, that allows us to see our planet in a way we've never seen it before. And I want to liken it to everybody's probably had a friend that's been in a relationship that's not that good. And you as the outsider, you can see it.

You're like, oh, gosh, this is never going to work. You guys are too similar or, you know, this person is not right for you. You guys are always fighting. But to the people in the relationship, they're so close, they can't see it. So they stay and they fight and it gets worse. But to the outsider or the therapist, you can look at it and be like, this is not going going to work for these reasons. I think the same thing is becoming possible with us being able to see the earth from another

perspective, and that perspective is space. What do you think that's crazy? think that's something that's going on or is that possible well you know they were the we're the blue dot right right so you know you look at the our our the saying of golly locks right we're in this golly lock zone and then i i had people come to me and they say well you know dan look at this chart you know they're trying to convince me that that climate change doesn't exist so they're going back like six billion years on the earth right and they're or have this line that goes from six billion years to today.

And it goes down on an angle and they say, see here, look, this is why there's no climate change. I'm going to look, you know, we live on Earth. Human beings did not live on Earth six million years ago, right? So, you know, the idea here is that when we look at how Earth is in the Goldilocksum, right? So Earth will survive regardless of whether human beings are on. it or not, right? So Earth is going to be fine. It'll take care of itself. It'll renew itself. It'll put Band-Aids on its and on its cuts and wounds. But human beings being on Earth in this climate that we are accustomed to, right, whether it's not being too hot or not being too cold,

we are here now, right? So, but when the climate starts to change of Earth, you know, we are on it and we have to figure out a way to live with. with whatever the climate is that Earth provides us. And so that is really the issue. It's not, you know, how many millions of years ago, or, you know, we weren't here. We weren't here when the dinosaurs were here. The point being is that, you know, we are here now.

We have to live with what we are given as far as what Earth is going to be able to provide for us. And we have to accept it. So the whole point there is, is technology, is the scientists, or the engineers, are we going to be able to, when we are throwing this curveball by our climate, are we going to have the technicians and the scientists being able to catch that curveball and to mitigate it?

Are we going to be able to do that? And I think that that is the question that is going to be very difficult to answer. That's how I see that. You had mentioned in a previous podcast that we have the technology to start making real difference, but we don't seem to be applying it. What are some of those technologies? Well, I think right off the bat is the fact that we have the ability to mitigate climate change by sinking carbon, pyrogenic carbon.

So if you look just at the Black Hills alone, right, they have, and I'll have to tell you, the USDA will not even tell you how many dead and down trees are in the Black Hills because they don't know. They have so many trees down that they can. can't even get into the areas to be able to to monitor how many trees are actually down. So you have the mountain pine beetle kill trees. You have the emerald ash borer. You have some other types of diseases, but you have 10 million trees that are dead and down in the Black Hills low. Let's say 10 million, right? Okay. So what's happening to those trees? Those trees, they're rotting.

You know, they're going into methane and CO2. They're going into the atmosphere. Well, a few years ago when I call to discuss, you know, having tribal governments coming in, coming into the Black Hills to be able to take those dead and down trees. We're not just going to give them to you. You have to bid on them. We're not going to give a tree. We're not going to give dead trees to Indians. We're not going to do it. And that's the USDA, right? Okay. So, but the point here is this. If you take, if you take dead and down, right, so a couple of things are going to happen. First of all, it's a fire hazard. So you're taking the dead trees. You're turning them into into, into, into, carbon and you're putting it in the ground.

Amazon Black Earth, carbon is hundreds of years. It stays and sequesters for 100 years. You know, for every one ton of carbon, you're sequestering 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide. You know, so Amazon Earths are ancient technology that is sustainable agriculture. So you take the dead and down fuel, right? And you supply it to carbon and you sequester it. You sink it, let's say, on agricultural land, because we talk about. that a minute. But the other part of that is you're removing fire fuel loading. So when you're

talking about forest fires, right? You're talking about, oh, look at all these forest fires. It has a lot of fuel, right? So you're removing some of the fuel that would be, that would be, you know, from dead and down. So you're removing some of that fuel loading, which is really important when it comes to climate change. Now, you know, in the past, we've seen some of our, we've seen people who are killed because of forest fires. We have seen cities and communities evacuated and destroyed because of fires. Now, does it make sense to take something that's dead in a tree, carbonize it, put it in the ground, create sustainable agriculture from it, and sink carbon and then sequester the carbon dioxide in its process? Of course, it makes sense. And so why did the USDA say,

to tribal people that you know you have to pay for these trees so i think there's a mindset there that just does not it's it's it's not oh my gosh it they're out to launch let's put it this way so yeah it doesn't make any sense at all yeah that makes no sense it's whether it's greed or whether it's just short-sightedness or something else i i i almost think we have to figure out like that's the bound that's what we're up against we're up against this machine that just can say no for the fact of saying no there's no real rhyme or reason to it well you know uh maybe maybe the you know the the supervisor of the of the black hills was told in some way that you know you can't do this and you know well we have loggers out there you know maybe they want the

dead trees right some maybe that's their that maybe that's their understanding that hey wait a minute And we just can't just give you these trees. You know, we have loggers logging this land. We don't have tribal people logging land. We have other people logging the land other than you. And so I think that's where that comes from. I don't think it's necessarily a some type of derision or, you know, something against tribal. I think it's maybe their policy is not right.

But then again, you know, policy is what's driving some of our problems. And so, you know, you know, here take industrial hemp. as an example, we're still trying to deal with this industrial hemp issue, right? So, you know, consider this. If you grow industrial hemp and you turn it to ethanol, you have to have permits from the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms industry and the Treasury Department because you're not allowed to make ethanol from industrial hemp. You have to have permits to do that.

But if you were to turn it into, let's say, ethylene, that's not a problem. But if you turn it into ethanol, it is a problem. And so, you know, we have some, we have some crazy laws that are, that keep and prevent farmers, in this case, from actually planting industrial ham to be able to support a clean, green fuel. And, but for some reason, you know, the America, right, they'll set these goals of green goals, but then they'll put up a barrier to prevent you from getting there. And so it just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

In some cases, you know, it's just just nuts. Yeah, it seems like we have established a set or a parameter to get us to where we need to go. But this is just my opinion. But I think what you see is big business step in and squash any sort of innovation or any sort of, you know, any sort of thing that would overturn the Apple cart. You know, they have this long-term setup where they're making tons of money. And why would you let this startup come in and overturn your Apple cart? When you have preexisting foundation, you have a profit stream and you have, you know, from farm to table or whatever it is, you have it all set up. And then here comes somebody new.

It's like, oh, we're going to do this new thing. Like, it seems to me that that's the way that the corporations grow now is just by buying the smaller corporations. And that would explain why you have the goal set up and then all of a sudden there's a barrier. It seems like a lobbyist comes in and it starts making some rules. Yeah. So, you know, this is this is exactly true. You have you have politicians that are taking special interest money and they're the ones that are, you know, it just recently come up. You're like, hey, you know, China's buying all this land in North Dakota and it's right next to an Air Force base or whatever, you know.

And but, you know, they made the law. So right now in every administration, you know, you have farmers that are selling their land to foreigners, right? You know, into Iran and to China. And they're going and the politicians like, wow, we can't do that. well, they're the ones who made the law, you know. Yeah. So it makes no sense that they're complaining about the law that they made that says, hey, we got Chinese people that are, you know, building, you know, building this factory or, you know,

whatnot next to an Air Force base. They're the ones who made the law. And so it makes no sense to me that, that, you know, that they would make that kind of argument saying that, oh, well, we need to do something. Well, you made the law. Now you want to, now you want to go back and change the law because your special interest, money is used up or you didn't get any of that special interest money and somebody else did because that somebody got that special interest money that says hey it's a really good idea to sell all of our

farmland to foreigners let's do that and here oh by the way my pocket is open you just fill it up with some millions of dollars and i'll i'll agree to that and then i will go ahead and i will i will put my stamp of approval on that bill or whatever it is right and and that's how i think some of this comes to be but somebody's not really thinking a hat they're not thinking in the long run You know, because then who do you blame? Who do you blame for China buying land? Are you blaming the farmer for selling the land to China because they're offering more money? Are you blaming the farmer then for saying, hey, are you really an American?

You're selling land to China. Why are you doing that? And then, of course, then you look at, well, who's getting all the subsidies for that land now? is China actually getting to subsidies for the farmers that were, you know, on that land? And they're still continuing to get the subsidies. And so, you know, you have to wonder, what are we doing sometimes? It just drives me crazy. Yeah.

I don't think you're the only one it drives crazy. I think it drives the majority. You know what, this is the very thing that should be uniting us is the fact that if you, regardless of what color you are, what race you are, if you get up and you go to work for a living, you're seeing your livelihood being stripped away from your children's future because of the greed and the selfishness and the be it politicians or the boardrooms or the banking industry or even the insurance companies you know it seems to me that and it's not just happening here I read a pretty good article yesterday that spoke about some of the farmers in the Netherlands how while they have their problems with farming this guy was talking about their land that the major one of the major reasons

that the government's coming after them is because they want their land. That sounds a lot like what we were just talking about. Well, okay, so who wants their land? Okay, so is it the government or is it foreign interests? Is it, you know, is it the government for a reason? Is it the government saying, hey, we want you to land because we need to put up another dike or we need to put up another, you know, another, another form of mitigation because we're knowing what sea level rise and we know we're going to have to take this flooding and we're

going to have, we're going to have to do something with this. Is that the purpose? So what is the purpose? right so you know um when we when we talk about what happening in the netherlands right so we just talked about farmers a little bit but yeah the point being is that it they're the government has it wrong too and the farmers also have it wrong so here's how they have it wrong they're considering climate change through the lens of reactive nitrogen and not through the lens of carbon right so if you're not if you don't if you're dealing with with carbon climate change the lens has to be

carbon. It cannot be reactive nitrogen. So if you're if you're taking pyrogenic carbon as an example and you're sinking it, you're creating sustainable agriculture from that. So carbon, right, plus water, makes root sugar. So, you know, see, you know, so the carbon hydrogen, oxygen, chain of root sugar is there. So you carbon and water makes our sugar. Plants are cellulosic. Plants need sugar in order to grow. That's how they get their stocks. That's how they get their fruit. All of that. So if you put carbon in ground because they're probably carbon depleted most likely because that's why they're using more reactive nitrogen to be able to to offset that. So the point being is that if you reduce, if you reduce your reactive nitrogen, or in the case you're adding sustainable carbon and then you're

reducing your reactive nitrogen. So what happens is that you're increasing your yield by carbon and you're decreasing the amount of reactive nitrogen that you use in order to grow the plant. So you got NPK, which is NPK, which is your macronutrient, so you need nitrogen, right? Yeah, you need, you know, potassium and you need phosphorus. So you need those things. That's the macronutrients. But if you're carbon depleted, you definitely need the same carbon and then reduce your reactive nitrogen. So it can be done.

So what you don't want to do is you don't want to say, we're going to ban nitrogen because that is not good. First of all, you really can't do that. But what you need to do is you need to set standard. or like Netherlands, and you know what, look, you have all these nitrogen fertilizer companies

that are the ones, most likely, they're the ones that are raising the flag that says, hey, look at what they're doing to us farmers. And so it's probably the nitrogen companies, the fertilizer companies,

that are the ones that are leading to charge. But if you say to them, hey, look, you know what, if we reduce nitrogen, but we also then allow you, you be our carbon guys, You are now saying to these fertilizer companies, hey, you're not going to lose your job. You still can be in business, but you know what?

You're going to be doing more carbon and less reactive nitrogen. And so we're not looking at, you know, throwing you out, you know, putting you on it, you know, putting you underneath the bus and running you over a few times. But that's not the, but that's not the case. But they need to work together, the farmers and the fertilizer companies and the politicians because the politician should not. be making rules about carbon climate change by using reactive nitrogen. That's wrong. Can't do that. So what they need to do is they need to come back to the table and say, hey, a farmer, nitrogen fertilizer company, a politician, you get together around the table and say, look, you know what, we'll make a rule that says, you know, over a period of time, you sink carbon,

you reduce your reactive nitrogen and the yields will most likely become, will be better. And so why would they be better? They'd be better because if you look at what Amazon Earth can do, right, their yields are higher. So you're going back to ancient technology, the native people hundreds of years ago. You're using your technology to be able to create higher yields while also than using less nitrogen. But you have to have the three at the table, you know, the politician, the farmer, and the, you know, the fertilizer company say, what is, what can we do to work together to be able to do this so that we're not using the reactive, that is a cause of problem here.

And so that is what, that's how they need to go about that. It makes sense. But, you know, if you're, if you're raising that flag and you're in charge, it's difficult not to come back and say, oh,

farmers, you know what, we got it wrong, you know, so now they have to step backwards and say, you know, oh, you know, who should we listen to?

Should we listen to that Dan Hoc guy? Look at, look, what does he know? You know, he's just a crazy old Indian, right? But the point being is that we are just now starting climate change problems. And I mentioned before, you know, climate change is a 10-round boxing max, boxing match, right? And we're not even in the ring yet.

And we're already having these problems. And so we must come together now because, you know, when we get into it, when we start that first round with climate change, we all have to be on the same page. And right now we are not. And it's problematic. It's really serious stuff. Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate that.

One thing I really like about what you just said is that you kind of pull back the covers and you talk about the reality of it. Climate change is so charged on so many sides. And sometimes when people hear the word climate change, they already have in their mind like the one thing they know about it. And I think that people could really come. together and make the world better if we agreed on what it is. And as I tie that to politicians and corporations, it seems to me that there's the majority

of people that love the planet. I think most people love the planet and they want it to be better. However, it seems almost like a Trojan horse sometimes when you see corporations using the word climate change to or foreign countries using the term climate change to take over farms to come over and take over resources. I read a recent article in Greece, I guess it was a large fire, large forest fire. Because they didn't have the resources after such a tumultuous time, they had a private company come in and put out the fire for them. The private company said, look, we'll put out the fire for you, but we want to own all the carbon and all the resources

in this forest once we put it out for you. And the people were kind of stuck because they were like, well, we've got to get the fire out. And so they agree. to it. I'm probably butchering the article, but they agreed to it. And now it opened the door for private companies to come in and own all the carbon credits and exchange that. It just set up for some nefarious ways. What I liked was the way that you were able to peel back the onion and show that there's a lot more of the argument than that. But can you talk a little bit about maybe some of the people hiding behind the term climate change that don't have the best interest in mind? Well, well, you know, if somebody was arguing with me, it's like, hey, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm an

investor, you know, most likely an oil investor, right? And then, and then he's like, you know, but I dabble in hoaxes. And I'm going like, what? Well, you know, so the point is, he's investing, he's investing in the oil industry, but then he's dabbling in these hoaxes that climate change is not real. And so why would he do that? He would do that? He would do that because he's, he's investing in the oil industry. And so, He's trying to convince his clients that whatever he's selling is good, right? Yes. And that's not. That's absolutely insane.

But it happens. It happens. So, you know, what, you know, I had a farmer, you know, kind of like, you know, like not understand what I was talking about here about, you know, the dust bowl. Right. So in the dust bowl, I don't know if we've had an opportunity to talk about this, but, but the dust bowl is really something special. Right. So this happened in the 1930s, right? And a few things happened.

You know, we, World War I happened and not a problem of the dust bowl. But the Homestead Act, right? The Homestead Act would basically just took, you know, where the buffalo was grazing, where the buffalo was roaming and said, hey, you know what, you know, we have these farmers over here. We have Native American people. And you know what? we have 625,000 square miles of Buffalo range. And what we're going to do is we're going to take that 625,000 square miles of Buffalo range.

And we're going to give it to farmers. And you Indians, we're going to put you on reservation. Okay. So that's what happened with the Homestead Act. So what they did in the Homestead Act was they said, you know what, we'll give you this land. You pay $10 or the fee or whatever it is. And some agent got a little, you know, kick back from that. So we're talking lots of acres, you know.

I think it was like 80 acres, 120 acres. And then I think in the Kincahadi Act it went to 620 acres or something really, really big. But the point being is that part of the act said that you had to improve the land in order to keep the land in order to get the land. Right. So what they had to do was they had to plow. And what they did was, and this is the part of the act. So what they did took the farmers and they plowed 625,000 square miles of Buffalo Lange. Right.

And they did this for many years. Okay, this was during the World War I for effort. We need wheat. We need to supply our food to our, to our, our, our, you know, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, um, our soldiers. Yeah. To our soldiers, yeah. Farmers, we need you. You are, you are on the front lines.

You go out there and you plow, you plow, you plow, you plant, you plant, you plant. You get all this wheat. You get all this food. And you send, we send it because we're supporting the war effort, war, war, war, okay. Native Americans were a part of that, too, right? But what happened is that I come to find out that after World War I, you know, we had this period of time where Germany was having problems. And this is where the rise of Hitler was starting to come about. But what happened is that during all this plowing and howering and cultivating that the farmers depleted the carbon, let's say 100% we had 100% soil,

carbon at the time that the buffalo was on top of the land. At the time that the farmers were done plowing, right, doing what they did and this huge dust bowl came about, right? We're talking about huge sandstorms, but they only had less than 10% of the soil organic carbon left. Soil organic carbon was basically completely depleted. This was, you know, a work that was done in 1935 in Kansas City. So no carbon left. No carbon. You have water, a little bit of carbon. You're not going to in it, you're not going to grow anything, right? You have to have the root sugar to grow cellulosic plants, just the way it is. So you had this huge wasteland. Thousands of people died. You had, you know, people were, you know, breathing in electrified dust and they had dust pneumonia.

Their lungs would actually physically fill up with dust. They walk into the, if they could, they walk into a doctor and then they, they can't do anything for you. They open them up. Their lungs are full of dust. And that's when the grapes of wrath was, kind of written, you know, you know, the Oki-Sy. You had a million people displaced. But what people don't realize is that they had these huge sandstorms, huge. I mean, we're talking, they had airplanes at the time that were, you know, finding sand, you know, 16,000 feet in the air, right?

And these things were like miles long. And they had hundreds of kilowatts of lightning, you know, probably into the millions of volts of lightning. After the sandstorm had passed, you'd see dead rabbits and birds everywhere. It would cover the lakes and the water and dead fish everywhere. You know, electrified sand. You're talking these were huge coal fronts. They would fall in on each other and these huge sandstorms would just be moving.

You'd have a change in temperature of 40 degrees and less than 30 minutes. Wow. It was significant, real significant between 1935 and 1936. Every two weeks you had a sandstorm. We had a sandstorm that was so. significant that went all the way to Washington, D.C., we had sand that was in the Midwest on the decks of ships, 300 miles out in Atlantic Ocean.

This, we're talking some serious stuff. And then, and not only the time, but at the time of 1938, when the Long Island Express was forming off the coast of Africa, we were starting to have a coal front starting to appear in, in the Dust Bowl range, right? So what eventually happened is as the hurricane started to go up the Atlantic coast. At the very time that it reached New York, the sandstorms were in retrograde. They were going west. They literally took and sucked the Long Island Express hurricane onshore that should have gone,

should have gone northeast out to sea. So here you have this climate change. localized climate change that was so severe that actually changed the course of a hurricane. So think about that. And in 1930, in 1937, I think was the great flood. You know, so we had floods. We had great floods. We had huge sandstorms.

We had, you know, people dying. We had to it. The land was all destroyed. So what got us out of that? You're going to say, okay, well, then, you know, that's all great. So how did we get out of the dust bowl? How do we do that? Well, it just happens to be that you had some smart people that created the soil conservation service that, hey, look, we can't have farmers plowing anymore.

That's got to stop. So, you know, we got to create shelter belts. We have to buy the land that they're plowing. We have to get them out of here. You know, we have to start planting trees. We have the conservation corps. We need them to come in. We need to plant trees.

We need to stop them from plowing. You know, there's a whole list of things that they did, that soil conservation. Service came in there and they supported that. And World War II came along. And you have to realize that this overextension of all this land, the 625,000 square miles of land was all under banking. We need all this wheat. You need to support the war effort. They overextended themselves. We had the stock market crash of 1929. Hitler over in the Germany side said, hey, wait a minute now. He's telling people all about the Jewish question. He's telling everybody about the Jewish money and they weren't listening to him up until the time that the stock market crashed and all of a sudden he became the hero and everybody started listening to him and he rose to power in World War two, 75 million people dead later, right? So the point being is that the soil conservation service was the hero in this and they were able to say to the farmer, look, you know, what we did, we, you can't do this anymore. We need to buy you, we need to buy your land. You can't do this. We're going to pay you for not planting.

There's a whole series of things that they did, right, including the Conservation Corps. And then what the other part that saved us was the fact that World War II did happen. So you had these people that were in the conservation corps, they were already in this regime of being like military. They were able to go into the factors. They'd be able to go into war. And we were no longer at the point of wanting to plow like we had been before that. So you took the farmers that were desperate. They just left their farms.

They just got in their cars and they just left because they couldn't be there anymore. They had no way of making a living. And they just left. They left their mortgages. They left their house. They left. They left their equipment. They left everything.

And they just left. And it took the stock market and knocked it right down to nothing. In 1929, there were 200,000 tractors being made. In 1932, there was only 19,000 tractors being made. So you have to understand. that it was very serious stuff. And when we talk about carbon climate change, there's nothing to mess with. We have a lot on our plate.

And we're talking global this time. We're not talking about Midwest. We're talking global. That's a big deal. So I hope some of that made sense. Yeah, that made a lot of sense. Thanks for saying that. I've never heard the, I've never heard it put like that.

before. And then as I'm listening to it, it makes me think that we don't thoroughly understand, I guess I should have known this most people do, we don't really understand what the heck we're doing. You know, if you pull all the wildlife off the land and then you just rake it over the coals, it's almost like you're raking yourself over the coals. You know what I mean? Because it goes back to what you said in the beginning. Yeah, the strand, yeah. Yeah. It would have been okay. If they would have been okay if they would have said, you know, we're going to have X, you know, X number of acres, you know, but 625,000 square acres, 400 million, I mean, 425, excuse me, 5, 625,000 square acres, 400 million acres. Oh, no, six, I'm sorry, 625 square miles, 400,000 square acres. So, yeah,

we're, it's a lot. Let's put it this way. It's a lot. You know, all the way from Texas to Canada. a lot of land, right? Yeah. You know what? I wonder if it would be interesting to go back and do some research and see if like in the story you had spoke about the gigantic sandstorms that had pulled the hurricanes inland. It's almost as if that was the way the earth was trying to bring water to it by creating the sandstorm and then pulling the water that way. It's weird to think of it as an ecosystem like that. Yeah, well, you know, in retrograde, okay, so it was going west and typically that doesn't happen. And so if you look at what carbon does, so if you look at rain, right? So rain is, rain is what? Rain is water. You feel like, oh, it's just water. But if you take, if you take a carbon molecule,

and what happens is that the moisture will c c c, you know, it's carbon and it's, you know, 04H8, right? So what you're having is this, this carbon particle where you have water that colluses around it. And that's where rain comes from. So when you're when we're breaking open that land and right and that carbon molecule goes up into that atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Now you got that carbon molecule for which rain can then you know, the water can condense around it. And that's why, you know, we had the great flood of 1937. So, you know, they had this, this idea that if you, that rain follows the plow. In a certain sense it does up until the point to where you, you no longer have carbon anymore.

So if you continue to keep breaking the land open and you've got these carbon dioxide molecules going into the atmosphere, eventually you're not going to have any carbon left to do it. And then you get carbon depleted. So you no longer have the carbon and the soil to be able to grow anything because, you know, plants are cellulosic. Is that same reason the flaw in the argument when people say the more carbon, the better it is for the plant life? How do those two things score?

Sometimes I'll hear people say, look, man, we should have more carbon. because plants breathe carbon and it's better for the plants. It is. It is. And I did an experiment where I actually took a cactus, put it in a vacuum, and then I put it underwater to make sure that the seal would not break. And then I put it in the refrigerator. And then I left it in a dark for 14 days.

And I put the light on for 14 days. And I put it in a dark for 14 days in a vacuum underwater. So why would you do that? Okay. So obviously, you know, I'm trying to mimic the cycle of the moon, right? But the point being is that it was in a vacuum. There was no carbon dioxide in the air, right? It was in a vacuum.

Where did it get as carbon? How was it being able to grow? How was it able to respire? It was able to do that because of the carbon in the soil, right? So if you were to take biology books and you rip them up and if you take them and you rip them up and you're saying, well, you have to have carbon dioxide in order for plants to grow. No. No, not really. if we were living in a vacuum, if our earth was a vacuum, and we had plants, but they had carbon in the soil, would they still be able to grow?

Yeah, they would be. They may not be good, but the point being is that they would be able to get some of their nutrients that they need, their ability to grow, although not efficient in a vacuum, but the point being is it can happen. So the biology books are not completely right. But on the other hand, you know, the higher the CO2, what you're saying is the higher the CO2, the greater plants grow, because they have that ability to do that. And that's absolutely true. So that is not, like I'm saying, that that is true. You have to have the CO2 in a way that in our earth environment to be able to have something grow to its highest yield. Yeah.

is when we look at the earth is it like i i don't know i'm just asking these questions is it i've read a little bit about the earth being a closed system so if if indeed we begin to see places and even island places who's when the water level rises or the climate changes so drastically that it no longer becomes possible for people to grow plants does that all would that open up like say for greenland for incidents or uh would it make, with a higher temperature change, make life more livable in climates that are too cold to live now. You see what I'm saying? Like, wouldn't it recede to different areas, different parts of the planet warm up, different parts cool down?

Is that something we can look forward to in climate change? Yes. I'm not looking forward to it. You're going to have winners and losers. Right. You're just, you're right. The northern territories are going to fare better, better than the southern territories. Yeah. I believe that, you know, we're seeing some real drastic situations now happening in Australia.

You know, so I think that we're going to find that, you know, the idea of climate change refugees is going to be, going to be right front and center of us. You know, we're not going to be able to get away from that. I had some people saying, well, you know, we're worried about the border. We're worried about securing the border. And I'm going like, you know what, when we have climate change refugees at the border, you know, it's going to be too late. You know, if you're talking about not wanting to understand or not mitigating or not thinking about how climate change is real, right? That when it comes to real people standing at your border wanting to come in because they can't live where they're at, that it will be a significant issue. You know, you look at Bangladesh as an example.

I would say in 2050 that they're going to lose, you know, maybe 15% of their land. You're talking about 18 million people being displaced. Where are they going to go? You know, where are they going to go? And so would you expect the 18 million people that maybe one or two might show up at the border? Probably a lot more than that. And so what I'm saying is that we have a choice. We can say if we think, if for those people who don't believe in,

climate change. If we think that there might be an opportunity here that we think that there might be some kind of thing happening that maybe climate change might be real, then maybe we should pay attention because if we don't, so what is the alternative if we don't pay attention to climate change? We could then see an influx of people coming into America that we will not be able to stop. You know, so we can clamor about what's happening at, you know, the Mexican border now. But when climate change really starts to happen, I don't think we're going to have, we're not going to have the forces. We're not going to have the capability to withstand the influx of people that are going to be climate change refugees. It just, I just can't see that happening that we're going to be standing there with AK-47 or an M-16 and say, hey, you're not.

And that's happening in China. That happens with China now. with people wanting to come in to China that are on the borders, and they don't have a problem shooting. So that's my opinion. But the point is that we're going to see climate change wars where people are going to be killed. They're going to be, you know, how would you say,

there's going to be oppression from climate change. We're going to see a lot of oppression. I mean, it's just I don't know how we're going to appreciate. Benet. Yeah. It's it's quite a conundrum. I often want, on the topic of climate change, it seems like there are other, if we could just, I don't know, it seems odd to me when I think about climate change, how money can fundamentally change the climate. One example is like the desalination plants you see in the Middle East. Like that's a pretty amazing phenomenon to be able to see these desalination plants come in and, you know, create booming cities in the middle of the desert.

Now, I'm sure it's not without drawbacks. I mean, I don't know where all the salt goes or if there's some sort of carbon that comes out of that. What's your take on desalination as far as a climate effective solution? I think we're going to need to look at that. And the reason being is because I think our aquifers are taking a beating, you know, how do you recharge an aquifer, you know, like the Ogolaola aquifer is an example. body recharge that once the water is depleted. So, you know, we're talking about laws, you know, farmers being able to, you know, to take as much water as they want. And, you know,

eventually what happens is that when you have the reduction of water in an aquifer, as you reduce the water, what you're doing is you're creating the concentrations of the unwanted chemicals in the bottom of that, of the aquifer. So eventually over time, as you get closer to the end of the aquifer's life, which you have is, heavily concentrated, you know, chemical water, right? Could be all kinds of salts from the, you know, from, from the caverns of the aquifer and, you know, the runoffs from the, from the, you know, from farming and that kind of stuff. We see some of that right now in the Salton Sea, right? So Salton Sea, I think is 242, remember, it's 242 feet below sea level or something like that.

I mean, I'm just trying to remember some things, but it's where it drains in and it does. doesn't drain out. So, you know, there might have been a time when you had like Sunny Bono, like in his watercraft and he's jet skiing, you know, or whatever, you know, that doesn't happen anymore. And the reason why that doesn't happen is because it become too salty. So it's, I think it's the last time I checked the salt to sea was like 25% more saltier than the ocean, right? So you have this higher concentration of salt in this sea that's that's a negative 200 feet below sea level, I believe. And so you have the Imperial Valley where you have agricultural chemicals and pesticides and herbicides. Where are they going?

Is it possible that they're going downhill to the Salton Sea? you know so what I'm saying is that you know we have the ability to try to mitigate some of those things but on the other hand where do we go now when we have this Salton Sea which by the way was a freshwater flyway for you know let's say migratory birds that are no longer using the Salton Sea for migratory ways because they land and they say hey wait a minute why am I floating so much It's because there's so much salt in it. And so you don't have fish. You don't have those things that we're accustomed to that water because the water has changed.

And it could very well be just because of salt. But also because of pesticides and herbicides that are flowing into the salt and sea. So what do you need to do to clean that? How is it? Okay. So the question might be, like why should we clean? it up or how should we clean it up? And so those questions need to be asked because, you know, isn't fresh water important, you know.

And so we get back to the aqua for again, and you talk about desalination plants, you know, for California, if they have a desalination plant along the coast, are they not in need of that fresh water if they take the saline out of it? Consider a submarine, right? So you're a submarine guy, right? So where do you, how do you get your water? What do you drink your water from? And so you say, you know what? If we need water, we make our water. We're on a submarine.

You don't come up for air, right? We make our own air. We make our own water and we make our own potable water. We use, you know, we're able to use salt water, you see water, and being able to split it and being able to take the brine out of it and create potable water from it. So it can happen. We can do it. It does exist. these technologies.

It's energy intensive, yes. Yeah, you know, those, those things are, you know, important to understand that you're using a lot of energy to get fresh water. But we might have to do that. And, you know, I look at some of these streams now where, you know, they're blocked off or damned. And by the time it gets to Mexico, right, there's nothing left to it anymore. And so we have to realize that, you know, fresh water is a big deal. And, you know, we talk about the Native American point of view. you. The reason why I think that we were placed on the international traffic and arms regulation

list initially was because of no one wanted, somebody did not want us to go into space to monitor our water rights. So I think water is going to be a huge problem to deal with when we're talking about the face of climate change around the world. We're talking globally. So yeah, we need to, we need to get fresh water. Recharge our aquifers if we can. Yeah, it seems like there's been some politicians and corporations who thought maybe the way you recharge an aquifers by putting oil in it. Well, yeah, yeah. So, you know, obviously, you have enhanced oil recovery, you know, by using, let's say, you know, by pressurizing carbon dioxide, using it as a sink for carbon capture sequestration, you're getting more oil out. But when it comes to water, we're really in, we're not paying attention because we, first of all, so we write a blank check basically to farmers, right?

So in Wisconsin, where I'm at, you have this right to farm state, which means that they can do just about anything. And we see in the Kiwannee County as an example where what they have, they have fractured bedrock that's, you know, like 200 feet below the surface, something like that. It's called a karst bedrock in the Kiwani County in Wisconsin. So what the farmers have done is they've used liquid manure. And they put the liquid manure on the land. And so where does the liquid manure go? And the liquid manure goes down and goes down into the soil and goes through the fractured bedrock and into the water supply. And they do this again.

And again, they keep putting this liquid manure on their fields. And why did they do that? They do that because Wisconsin is a right to farm state that says they can. And so when you have the neighbor over there and you're opening up their tap and you're able to take a cigarette lighter and you're able to light it, not kidding, they are able to light it because of the gas that is in the well system. Because of the manure that is eventually making its way down into the past of karst bedrock. and into the water table in a water supply. So we have to pay attention, you know, to what we do as far as laws are concerned. So, yeah, you have a right to farm state, but does that mean that farmers can be allowed to continue to place liquid manure on land

when they know that the liquid manure is going into the water table, the water supply, and the neighbor next door can't do anything about it? That, to me, seems wrong, right? I mean, if I was a neighbor, I would be like, oh my God, you can't do that. Yeah. And so, well, it just happens to be that, you know, that that's the law. And so the law is wrong, you know, so that's all I can say is, you know, we need to make better laws. We need to have better, better positioning on how we deal with the environment.

We should not be allowed to be able to contaminate wells and water supplies and tables. And we should not be allowed to drain out our aquifers to the point to where they're not usable anymore. What are we going to do when the aquifer, when the ogola aquifer, there's no water left? What are the farmers going to do when that happens? You know, are they going to sell the land then to China? Say, hey, you know, hey, we got a great deal for you. We have this land here. But we're out of, we're out of Ogallala water, aquifer water.

So we can't, we can't do our crop circles anymore. So what is going to happen when that happens? You know, does anybody ask the question? What are we going to do when the aquifer doesn't have any water luck? How many people are asking the question? How many people care? You know, that's how I see it. Yeah.

Well, that's a great question to ask. And I'm hopeful that our conversation today will help other people ask that question. I think you've got a kid to go watch here. We've been on for about an hour right now. And I want to say things, Dan, like I really enjoy our conversations. I get to see things a little bit different and from a different perspective

from someone who's definitely got more knowledge and who has a much more experience than me. So thank you to me, from me and from my audience. Where can people find you? And is there anything else you want to leave us with? Well, yeah. I would like to say that, you know, when we start to deal with climate change,

I think that the soil conservation service, when they were created in 1935, they did a good job. We have the prescription. We have the ability. And it was shown. It was demonstrated in 1935 that we can make a difference. And I want to go back to the idea of the Conservation Service, the Conservation Corps. They created many, you know, road projects, dam projects. They created national parks.

They had different kinds of projects throughout the United States that still exist today. And so what I think has to happen in America is that we have to go back to these ideas of the Conservation Corps and say, look, we have this climate change problem. What can we do? What can we do? Bring some people and say, you know what? Maybe we need to create a dam. Maybe we need to create roads. Maybe we need to create, you know, new parks and those kinds of things and come back and say,

we have the people that have the ability to do what the Conservation Corps was able to do in the 1930s and then support America in a way that it enhances our mitigation of climate change. For example, you know, we had, you know, a forest fire in Colorado, right? I forget the name of it, the Marshall Fire, I believe it was. And so what if we had the Conservation Corps say, hey, you know what? We have this huge forest over here. We have all this dead and down trees, right? What if we were to ask the Conservation Corps, let's go clean that fire loading up.

So if there's a forest fire, then we won't have that problem that we've had here like we had in the Marshall Fire. And so we have to look at things differently. And the other part of that is that they could also use something what we call natural capital or natural capital architectures to be able to say, we have this thing that we call forest fire. And we have this city that's sitting right here. What do we need to do that natural capital to help protect that city? It could be the way that maybe a stream is mitigated or maybe how the forest, you know, the forest. is rearranged or maybe how we use cattails and maybe ponds as an example. How we were able to do that so that we, a forest fire that may be approaching might be able

to protect that city to use natural capital as architecture to be able to find ways that we can support and mitigate climate change as we go forward in the next 100 years. Those are great ideas, man. Yeah, that checks all the boxes. It builds community. it sustains the earth, it protects the environment, it brings people together. Those are great ideas, Dan.

Thank you. So, yeah. I think that, you know, like I said, you know, the Conservation Service in 1935, they had a long, I mean, a list as long as my arm, a prescription of how they're able to get us out of the climate, out of the dust bowl.

And I think we have to go back to that, you know, the 1930s and say, this is what happened. This is how they mitigated. And I think we use those techniques that they use to, to go forward in a year, you know, 2022. It never ceases to amaze me that when we get stuck, all we need to do is look back to our ancestors for the solutions.

It was serious. Right. Serious problem. And a dustbow was very serious. Yeah. And, you know, in Washington, D.C., you know, when they, they didn't realize how straight was. And they had to actually hire photographers to go out to the Dust Bowl and take photographs.

there's a huge collection of photography about the Dust Bowl. And it took these professional photographers to go out to the Dust Bowl to take this pitch and then send them back to Washington so people could see it. And then they still didn't believe it. And they had to have legislators that go out to the Dust Bowl to see for themselves. And in order for them to realize it. And it was happened, I think was 1934, a huge dust storm, a huge storm. So this legislator, I forget what, you know, the soil conservation guy that had actually created this, this, these prescriptions, was in Washington, D.C. at the time.

And they had reports. They were going like, you know, they had national, they had weather bureau services. They had this report flying over to, you know, to this guy in Washington that was about to go through this, this, this idea of what, what climate, what the dust bowl was all about. And it happened to be that they were able to delay it enough to delay that that hearing just enough. So at the time that he was in a hearing talking about how bad it was, dust storm came upon Washington, D.C. and just like made everything like dim and dark. It was like the sun was gone, right?

And they looked outside. It's like, oh my gosh, you're right. Oh, my. And so it takes, sometimes it takes miracles like that. And he was able to convince people and say, what you're saying is true. And because I can see it now. And sometimes that's where we have to go is we have to get people to see it. Right.

It has to affect them. And until it does, it's like, no, it doesn't exist. No climate change is, you know, hoax and all that. It does not affect me. But until it does, then when it does, then they say, okay, I understand now. Now I need to do something. but hopefully it's not too late when that happens. Yeah, I agree.

It's quite the conundrum right there. So, well, then, again, thank you very much. I love it, man. I look forward to talking to you on the first Tuesday next month. We'll do it again. All right. Sounds good. All right.

And where can people find you at if they wanted to track you down or read some of the things you've been reading? What can they find you at? United First Nations Planetary Defense. Yeah, so you have to. NPD WordPress.com. All right. You got any speaking gigs coming up or anything?

Actually, I'll be in England in the end of November, and then I'll be at the World Mining Congress in 23 in Australia. And there, you know, we're looking at, you know, using industrial hemp for rocket fuel to mitigate mining all around the world. So, you know, so we plant hemp, you know, create rocket. rocket fuel from that to mitigate some of the mind problems around the world. So, yeah, that's, we'll get a couple, a couple of things coming out. All right, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it.

Dan Hawk, he's a great man. He's doing good things. Get out there and support him. So we'll talk to you guys soon. Thank you, everybody. Aloha. Yes. All right.

All right. Oh, shoot. Okay. Awesome. Awesome.