I often get email and other notices of career opportunities for people interested in environmental sciences, marine sciences, sustainability and conservation and adjacent fields. Here are some of the sources I have:

1. American Conservation Experience: Emerging professions in Conservation (ACE: EPIC)

This source has links to apply for jobs in several US government agencies: USFS, US BLM, USFWS, NPS, NRCS

1. From the site:
2. “ACE EPIC individual placements and fellowships provide recent graduates with focused, hands-on opportunities to work alongside and under the guidance of agency mentors as they apply their knowledge of resource management on their path to becoming the next generation of resource and land managers. The EPIC Program not only provides an invaluable step for those seeking a link between the academic and professional worlds but also allows members to explore, connect, and preserve America’s natural and cultural resources as they gain professional skills and cultivate their careers in the resource management field. EPIC operates in coalition with partners such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and other conservation focused groups. Positions available through EPIC and its partners are spread across a wide range of specialized conservation oriented vocations and typically last 2-12 months. “

https://www.usaconservation.org/epic/

2. Environmental Education opportunities:

The best place I know to get information on environmental education jobs is in regular newsletters from the North American Association for Environmental Education. To find jobs, you do not need to be a member, but can register with their professional network eepro. https://naaee.org/eepro/jobs

3. National Wildlife Federation

The NWF has internship and fellowship opportunities for undergraduate leaders. These can lead into later career opportunities.

Conservation Fellowship program https://www.nwf.org/about-us/careers

EcoLeaders Fellowship program, https://www.nwf.org/EcoLeaders

Internships https://recruiting.ultipro.com/NAT1047NWF/JobBoard/1ca8346a-33cc-401d-90d9-d7f752fdfd7d/?q=&o=postedDateDesc

There are other opportunities, but this will be all for now.

I recently got an email wondering if switching from fossil fuels was being described accurately to the US public. I get this type of question or read it online with some regularity and thought I would attempt to answer the writer’s question (s) in a three-part blog post.

Read Part II here

Read part III here

Of course, answers to the question of “can we really switch from fossil fuels to something else?” include, “it depends what you read” and “what is possible now is constantly changing. “  That is, there isn’t a simple answer.  However, there are a lot of misunderstandings out there that can be cleared up.  Following is a series of questions from the email with my answers.

Hello Dr. Boorse, 

Dear J.,

Thanks for reaching out, I’m happy to answer questions briefly; see my responses below.

J: I recently read the NAE publication, Loving the Least of These (something I had written- DB). Reduction of use of fossil fuels is a suggested means of reducing the impact on climate change. I’ve heard this from other sources and generally agree, but, all energy production requires use of another source of energy (if I have that right). 

DB: Correct, although two of the biggest ways to reduce fossil fuel use without switching energy sources are to increase energy efficiency and engage less in highly energy-intensive activities.

J: Many have suggested converting everything to electric. But electricity often comes from coal plants. I know there are other sources, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. But these base sources are not available or reliably available in many areas (i.e., political resistance/fear of nuclear power, northern states with clouds, variable/minimal winds in many areas and vast areas without water).

DB: You describe a real problem although you dismiss non-fossil fuel energy sources too easily, I think (Figure 1). Let’s look at a couple of other considerations that might change the way you think about energy sources.

1.  Electricity as a secondary energy source is extremely flexible. We can switch from one primary source to another without having to change the products we are powering on the receiving end.
2.  The efficiency and usability of novel technologies increase, and the cost decreases as a technology becomes mature.  Comparing renewable technologies that are just being developed to coal fired power plants is like comparing apples and oranges. The comparison today may favor older technologies but may not in the future.
3.  The easiest or quickest ways to lessen our production of greenhouse gases lie in using less energy totally.  Greater efficiency, less waste, and lower consumption are all important parts of climate change mitigation that do not necessarily involve switching to electricity.

J: In addition, electric vehicles need nickel for batteries, which destroys large tracts of land to mine for it, not to mention their eventual demise in a landfill, with a negative impact on the environment.

DB: Correct, there are many environmental costs to electric vehicles. 

What you are describing is life-cycle analysis (Figure 2.).  When people promote a potential solution as “green” or “environmentally friendly,” they need to consider not only the energy and its effects at point of use, but the whole process of raw materials sourcing, manufacture, transport, selling, using, upkeep, and disposal of the product. 

DB (Con’t.) Because of this need for accounting, people talk about a  circular economy (circularity),  described here as, “The circular economy is a model of production and consumption, which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended…. In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its life, its materials are kept within the economy wherever possible. These can be productively used again and again, thereby creating further value.”

We have to change many aspects of our economy in order to solve our environmental problems.  The way we use materials is certainly one of them.

Read Part II here

Read part III here

Figure 2

December 26, 2021

Do you know what the National Academies of Sciences is? I often ask my students this question and they almost never know. That is a shame because the NAS produces some of the best information sources for Americans interested in climate change. In case you have also missed out on this gem of a resources, let me tell you a little more…

This quote from the NAS describes its activity: 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. …. charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. … Approximately 500 current and deceased members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research….

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM, formerly the Institute of Medicine) — were founded under the NAS charter in 1964 and 1970, respectively. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions…. (http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/)

NASEM and NAS are great sources of information.  Here are two of the specific resources they offer:

National Academies of Science: Advising the Nation on Climate Change: This is a source for planners and policy makers about decision-making concerns regarding climate change and the US.

National Academies of Science: Climate Resources at the National Academies: This is a list of the dozens of reports and other resources available from the National Academies of Sciences.

US federal agency sources of information on climate change

Quite a number of US federal agencies do some type of work on climate change or carry out research that overlaps with climate research. The biggest federal program is a collaboration of federal agencies, the US Global Change Research Program.

US Global Change Research Program– created by President Ronald Reagan and codified in 1990 by congress, this collaboration provides integration between 13 federal agencies “to assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change”. They produce materials understandable to general citizens as well as researchers.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA Climate): NASA is one of the biggest sources of scientific research on global climate in the world. The agency has data and a variety of resources for the public on their site.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): NOAA does scientific research on oceanography and atmosphere. Much of this research overlaps with the questions asked by climate scientists.  Consequently, the satellite images and data from NOAA  oceanic buoys are important in climate science.

Just a few of the other good sources that may be helpful to you:

Science Daily: This is a daily summary of news in the sciences that includes articles on climate change, fossil fuels and other related topics. The site itself is not about climate change, but reports on a range of scientific research findings.

Skeptical Science: this is a blog that explains some of the misinformation you might here about climate science. It is run by climate scientists and gives references. Because, however, views on climate science are so politically divided, it can be hard to know if a blog is trustworthy. From my experience, this one is.

New York Times Climate Fwd: This is a weekly collection of climate news summarized.  If you do not like the NYT, skip that one. This is not primarily about science but includes scientific findings.

Inside Climate News: Founded in 2007, this is a non-profit, non-partisan news outlet entirely focused on climate change. Pulitzer prize-winning journalism and career opportunities for journalists are some of its notable attributes.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):  The IPCC is chartered by the United Nations to produce in depth reports that summarize the state of climate change every 6-7 years and shorter intermediate reports.  In 2021, the IPCC was mid-way through the release of the Sixth Assessment Report, a multivolume work released/anticipated to be released in 2021 and 2022 (below).

Three Working Groups Assessment Reports: 

Working Group I (WGI – The Physical Science Basis)

Working Group II (WGII – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability)

Working Group III (WGIII – Mitigation of Climate Change)

and  three Special Reports: 

Global Warming of 1.5°C, 

Climate Change and Land, 

The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

The AR6 Synthesis Report (SYR) is the final report in the series. It synthesizes the content of  all of the other reports. In the past, the IPCC reports have made sets of predictions that range in severity of effects, depending on what assumptions we make about human behavior over the next decades. This summary is designed to help policy-makers as international decisions are made about global carbon emissions. In the past, IPCC predictions have turned out to be quite conservative, not overly dramatic.

These are good places to start if you want strong , understandable sources about climate change.