Mark Lovett

Why Climate Action Is Unstoppable and Climate Realism Is a Myth – Al Gore at TED Countdown 2025

/in , , , , /by

The narrative of planet earth, and of humanity itself, is being written by many authors. Some positive, others negative. And sometimes, extremely negative.

At the top of that list is climate change. A narrative the didn’t exist before the industrial revolution, but it’s now causing widespread death and destruction, today, through the end of the century, and beyond.

Former Vice President Al Gore knows this well, and continues to be a voice of reason, as well as hope, during these turbulent times. I wish I could share his enthusiasm, and I do hope that we take his advice and take action, but at the moment I don’t believe we’ll do enough, soon enough.

Which means that future generations will suffer. This outcome has become far worse do to the current administration’s intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible in the decades to come. Their climate change policy is nothing short of barbaric.

But I digress, as this article is highlighting Al Gore’s recent talk at the 2025 TED Countdown Summit on June 16, 2025. As we all know, a narrative thread that’s designed to slow progress on addressing the climate crisis involves a nonstop stream of lies and misinformation disseminated by the fossil fuel industry. In their latest PR con job, they’ve introduced the phrase “climate realism”.

Is it realistic to ignore the 1 to 2 billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis?

And over the next half century, according to Deloitte, it would cost the economy $178 trillion if we don’t act. But if we do act, we can add to the global economy by $43 trillion.

Granted, climate change is a complex subject, and there’s no single answer. But without question the answer involves a dedication to mitigating the use of fossil fuels whenever and wherever possible. In his talk Al Gore features some of the progress that’s been made, but also talks about what still needs to happen.

I believe that we as human beings have the capacity to recognize that our survival is at stake and that we need to move faster even though the big polluters have the political and economic power to try to block us.

And the interesting thing to realize, is that doing so is not only beneficial to the health of humanity, it’s financially beneficial. Win-Win. But the need for profit at any cost continues to threaten everyone on this planet. Our story is now being written by some very bad actors, and it’s a story I wish had a happier ending.

A lot of people are suffering. But do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?

Transcript

Thank you very much for the warm welcome.

It’s been 10 years since the Paris agreement, and every single nation in the world, 195 nations agreed to try to get to net zero by mid-century. And let me deal with the elephant in the room, one nation, only one has begun the process of withdrawing, and the Trump administration has also:

  • Cancelled executive orders on climate and energy
  • Withdrawn from international climate organizations
  • The have declared a so-called “energy emergency,” in order to promote fossil fuels
  • Phased our government support for clean energy

But bear this in mind. During the first Trump four-year term, investments in the energy transition doubled. We have seen solar capacity more than double, electric vehicle sales have doubled, wind energy went up by almost 50% during his first term.

And we are seeing that 60% during his first four years of new energy came from renewable energy and coal investments went down almost 20%. So, there’s good news and there’s bad news. A lot has happened in the last ten years.

But I want to ask this question. The fossil fuel industry wants to ignore the amazing good news and they are labeling the commitments that the world made at the Paris negotiations as a fantasy, and they’re calling for an abandonment of the efforts to reduce fossil fuel burning. And they’re now advocating a new approach that they call, “Climate Realism.”

Well, climate realism, according to them, we should abandon the efforts to deal with the principal cause of the climate crisis, 80% of it comes from burning fossil fuels, and we should focus on adaptation as well, almost exclusively. Well, we need adaptation. A lot of people are suffering. But do we want to vastly increase the number of people that have to go through that hardship and suffering instead of dealing with the cause of the crisis and solving the climate crisis?

They, according to climate realism, historically, the energy transitions have taken place very slowly. So we have no right as human beings to even imagine that we could go faster in the future than what history has told us was the reality in the past, even though human civilization is at stake.

For the so-called climate realists, the goal of solving the climate crisis is way less important than other goals such as, especially, increasing energy access to developing countries, which is, obviously, important, we’ll deal with that, but they want to do it, obviously, by burning more fossil fuels.

According to climate realism, it’s just not practical to stop using the sky as an open sewer for the emissions from burning fossil fuels and the other emissions, Instead, we should just continue using the sky as an open sewer. So, where climate realism is concerned, I have some questions.

Is it realistic to ignore the 1 to 2 billion climate refugees that the climate scientists are warning us will cross international borders and have to move inside their own nations by 2050 because of the climate crisis? You know, the temperatures keep going up. Ten hottest years were the last 10. Last year, 2024 was the hottest year in all of history.

Yesterday in parts of the Persian Gulf, 52.6 degrees, and for those of us who use Fahrenheit, 126.7 degrees. A few days ago in Pakistan, 50.5 degrees, that’s 122.9 in Fahrenheit. And they’re telling us that as the temperatures go up and the humidity goes up, the few areas in the world today that are labeled physiologically unlivable for human beings are due to expand quite dramatically by 2070 unless we act to cover all of these vast, heavily populated areas.

Is it realistic to ignore this crisis? Look at what a few million climate refugees have done to promote authoritarianism and ultra nationalism. How can we handle 1 to 2 billion in the next 25 years? Already here in Kenya, there are 800,000 refugees. 300,000 of them in in this place, where of course the USAID cuts are now cutting the food aid 70%. Is that what they mean by adaptation?

We have to also ask if it’s realistic to ignore the devastating damage predicted to the global economy. Whole regions of the world are becoming uninsurable. We see this in my country where people are having their insurance canceled, they can’t get it renewed. We have seen predictions that we could lose $25 trillion in the next 25 years just from the loss of the value of global housing properties.

And over the next half century, according to Deloitte, it would cost the economy $178 trillion if we don’t act. But if we do act, we can add to the global economy by $43 trillion. You know, I had a teacher said we face the same choice in life over and over again, the choice between the hard right and the easy wrong. It seems hard to choose correctly, but it would turn out to be even harder to take what looks like the easy wrong.

Is it realistic to ignore the fact that right now Greenland is losing 30 million tonnes of ice every single hour? In Antarctica, decade by decade, the ice melting has accelerated. We’ve seen the doubling of the pace of sea level rise in the last 20 years and the predictions are that it’s going to continue dramatically.

Is it realistic to ignore the rapidly increasing climate crisis, extreme events that are occurring, practically every night on the television news? It’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. We lost 3.5 trillion dollars just in the last decade.

And you know, the fact that these scientists were absolutely correct decades ago when they predicted these exact consequences, should cause us to pay a little more attention to what they’re predicting is in store for us in the years ahead if we do not act. The drought last year and continuing at some level in the Amazon, the worst drought in the history of the Brazilian Amazon, 90% of the Amazon River in Colombia went dry.

This is the third year in a row that we’ve had these massive fires in Canada. When I left Tennessee to fly over here, we were breathing in Nashville, Tennessee, smoke from the Canadian wildfires. And they’re still getting worse today. The wildfires have doubled over the last 20 years in frequency and they’re due to increase even more.

Is it realistic to ignore the massive health impacts of the climate crisis? You know, the University of, well, the World Health Organization has long told us it is the most serious health threat facing humanity. Just last week the University of Manchester released a new study warning that three species of fungi in the next 15 years, because of increasing temperatures and increasing precipitation, will pose a significant risk of infection to millions of people. The fact that the fungi are being pushed into the range where they can threaten humans, that is not a fiction.

The particulate air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills almost 9 million people a year, costs almost $3 trillion per year from the burning of fossil fuels for both energy and petrochemicals. Let me show you an example from my country. Cancer Alley is the stretch that runs from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All these red plumes are particulate pollution that people are breathing in.

The green areas by the way are are majority minority, mostly African-American areas. In the middle of Cancer Alley, Reserve, Louisiana has the highest cancer rate in the United States, 50 times the national average, and they want to put even more petrochemical facilities there.

Is it realistic to totally ignore the acidification of the world’s oceans? 30% more acid than before the industrial revolution and 93% of all the heat is being absorbed in the oceans. That’s why the coral reefs are in such danger. 84% in danger right now, we’ve seen massive die offs.

That’s why a lot of the fish are at risk. 40 to 60 percent of all the fish species face an extremely high risk, as the rivers and estuaries, where they have spawning and in their embryonic stages, continue to heat up. And 50 percent of all living species that we share this planet with are at risk of extinction.

Is it realistic to ignore that? My faith tradition tells me that Noah was commanded to save the species of this earth. I think we have a moral obligation as well. Is it realistic to ignore the predictions of a fresh water scarcity crisis? Already 40% are are facing water scarcities.

In the mountain glaciers here in the Himalayas, one quarter of the world’s population depends on that meltwater, but depending on whether or not we act, 80% of all those glaciers will disappear in this century.

We can act. Now this just happened in Switzerland. A 600-year-old city was completely destroyed by a glacial avalanche. Now they’re adapting.

Is this realistic? To put white sheets over the remaining parts of the glacier? Well, God bless them, I hope it works. But these are the kinds of extreme measures that people are being pushed to in order to avoid reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Because the fossil fuel industry and their petrostate and financial allies have control over policy.

In lots of cities, particularly in places like India, the water wells are going dry. In Bengaluru, 4 million people now have to buy expensive water trucked in because their wells have gone dry.

What about the food crisis that scientists are predicting? Is it realistic to ignore that as well in order to avoid doing anything to reduce fossil fuel emissions?

Now, why also, do these so-called climate realists ignore all the good news about the miraculous decline in the cost of the alternatives to fossil fuel? Is it possibly because their business models are threatened ff there is a cheaper, cleaner alternative that creates many more jobs? Might not be good for them the way they calculate it. But the rest of us have a stake in this.

This could be why they’ve been consistently wrong in their predictions in the past. For example, Exxon Mobil in the year of the Paris agreement had a prediction about solar capacity in 2040, 840 gigawatts. Well, this year we’ve already tripled the number that they predicted for 15 years from now. In OPEC the same year predicted electric vehicle sales would barely increase.

Well, they were wrong. Here’s what it is actual sales to date right now. Same year, OPEC predicted that it was just unrealistic to think that solar power would ever be able to compete in cost with the burning of fossil fuels, but now it is by far the cheapest source of electricity in all of history.

Now, you know, a lot of other people have been surprised by how quickly these costs have come down. University of Oxford studied 3,000 past projections and the average predicted decline was 2.6% a year, the reality was 15% per year. And when you compound the number like that, it makes quite a difference.

Here are all the past projections from the International Energy Agency of what solar energy was likely to do. Their projections year by year. And here is the reality of what has actually happened. Uh, it really is quite extraordinary. My goodness. Nobody could have imagined that it would be this incredible, but it is, and it’s right before us, and they still want to ignore it.

Since 2015, the world has installed twice as much solar as all fossil fuels combined. Solar is the breakout winner in fuel sources. Electric vehicles have increased 34 times over since the time of the Paris agreement. Vehicle sales in China, 52% are already EVs and within five years the prediction is 82% of all car sales will be electric vehicles.

Also by the way, China in April installed 45 gigawatts of new solar capacity in one month. That’s the equivalent of 45 brand new giant nuclear reactors in in one month. It’s actually incredible what is happening and the cost of all of these clean energy technologies has come down quite dramatically, particularly solar and even more dramatic is utility-scale batteries, 87% down. That’s making a huge difference as well.

But I have to say this, there’s one thing that the so-called climate realists are right about. In spite of this progress, we are still moving too slowly to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. We have got to accelerate it. We have the ability to do so, but the single biggest reason we have not been able to move faster is the ferocious opposition to virtually every policy proposal to try to speed up this transition and reduce the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

And the fossil fuel industry has used a lot of bright, shiny objects to divert the public’s attention and deceive them into thinking there are solutions other than reducing fossil fuel use. For example, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and the recycling of plastics. And, you know, they’re much better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions.

They’re employing their captive politicians and policymakers to help confuse the public. Here’s an example. Tony Blair, speaking for his foundation, his foundation gets massive funding from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, etc. He said, “Oh, well, the center of the battle has to be carbon capture and direct air capture.”

Well, he really should know better. You know, Upton Sinclair wrote in my country, years ago, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his income depends on him not understanding it.” The income goes to the foundation, as I understand it.

But here is carbon capture. These are the ones operational. These are the ones that have applied for permits. These are the ones that have had the big public announcements. Oh, boy, look, we’re going for carbon capture.

We don’t have to reduce the burning of fossil fuel. We’ll capture it all as it goes out the smokestack. It is a fraud. It is a deception imposed on the people in order to try to change policy and to make the policy what they want.

And because they’ve captured the politicians, they have been able to force the taxpayers in countries around the world to subsidize fossil fuels, to actually subsidize the destruction of humanity’s future. What would happen if we got rid of those subsidies?

Well, the International Monetary Fund said that we would get $4.4 trillion in savings, which happens to be just about the exact amount we need to finance the transition to renewable energy. That’s where a lot of the money can come from. We’d also save a lot of lives and we we’d also reduce emissions by a third in five years and we’d reduce income inequality.

So, is it realistic to ignore this urgent need to reform the world’s financial infrastructure so that we can properly invest in the climate crisis? Most of the financing comes from private sources, but developing countries are not getting their share of it. We need to reform the policies that are leading to this because 100% of the increased emissions expected are going to come from the developing countries.

We’re about to see massive reductions in emissions. It’s really it may have already started especially in China with all their renewables, but the developing countries, that’s where the emissions increases are due to take place. And yet they only receive less than 19% of the world’s financing for clean energy, but almost 50% of the money flooding in for more fossil fuels. The single U.S. state of Florida has more solar panels than the entire continent of Africa.

That is a disgrace because Africa has 60% of the world’s prime solar resources, yet only 1.6% of the financing for renewable energy. But look at what’s happening with the investments for fossil fuels in Africa. There’s a dash for gas, there all of these new facilities. There are three times as many fossil fuel pipelines under construction and proposed for construction to begin in Africa as in all of North America.

Uh and you take those LNG terminals, the cost of one of them, there are 71 in in the works, 31 already existing, $25 billion. That’s the exact amount that would provide universal energy access to all of Africa. So maybe we could spend that money a little bit better. But instead of financing actual energy access to renewable energy, they want access to the resources to export it from Africa instead of giving access for Africans.

You know the potential for solar and wind in in Africa is 400 times larger than the potential energy from fossil fuels. Every single country in Africa could have 100% energy access using less than 1% of its land. Most including the country we’re in, less than one .1%. of their land.

What else are they ignoring? Well, they’re ignoring that with solar and wind, you don’t face the fuel supply chain risk, that you don’t face price volatility for fuel. Look at what’s happening energy oil and gas soaring because of the war in the Middle East. In fact, they don’t have an annual fuel cost at all.

So we should be moving in this direction, not least because it creates three times as many jobs for each dollar spent as compared to a dollar spent on fossil fuels. Why do they also ignore the fact that methane is as bad as coal when the leaks are factored in and the leaks are ubiquitous. And right now in the European Union, the fossil fuel lobbyists are arguing as hard as they can to stop legislation to try to deal with methane leaks because they think it’ll cause them some money.

So, what’s really behind this preposterous theory call they call climate realism? Could it be that they’re kind of panicking a little bit about the loss of their markets? According to the IEA, all of the fossil fuels are projected to peak within the next few years. We’ve seen since the Paris agreement a complete turnaround in where the majority of investment is going, and emissions may have already peaked in several of these sectors and this is according to the climate trace precise measurements of peaking and a lot of these sectors are ones that need even more attention.

Agriculture, steel, etc. But last year, if you look at all the new electricity installed worldwide, 93% of it was renewable, mostly solar. So, the IEA has told us long since. We have all the technologies we need and proven deployment models to reduce emissions 50% in this decade. And clear line of sight to the other 50%.

A friend of mine in Tennessee said, “If God wanted us to have unlimited free energy, he’d have put a giant fusion reactor in the sky.” Well, if you look at how long it took to install a gigawatt of solar 20 years ago, a full year, now it’s down to 15 hours and it’s on the way down still.

So, here’s what I believe that the climate, so-called climate realists are most wrong about. They don’t believe that we the people who live on this planet, have the capacity to make the changes necessary to save our future.

The greatest president in my country’s history, Abraham Lincoln, said at a time of dire crisis, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty. We must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew.”

I believe that we as human beings have the capacity to recognize that our survival is at stake and that we need to move faster even though the big polluters have the political and economic power to try to block us.

We’ve got everything we need. The people are demanding change. The one thing that they tell us might be in short supply is political will, but always remember, political will is itself a renewable resource. Let’s get out there and renew it.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Key Themes:

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Can the great barrier reef be saved from climate change? Theresa Fyffe gives us some insights at TED 2025

/in , , , , /by

I often write about the storytelling side of climate change, as this modern day phenomenon will shape billions of stories in the coming decades. Some of the effects can be seen and felt above ground — fiercer storms, more intense fires, increased temperatures, droughts, etc. — but a very different sort of damage is occurring out of sight, below the surface of our oceans.

Coral reefs are one such example that have been given a great deal of attention, as they are under assault in much of the world, and no spot has achieved more notice than the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. In her talk at TED 2025, Theresa Fyffe talks about the work being done to reverse this trend.

As you can imagine, the full story is quite complicated, and Theresa could speak for hours on the topic. But in ten minutes she give able to give us an overview of the situation. She doesn’t tell the entire story, but does tell us enough to get us up to date, and hopefully to inspire us to dive further into what’s happening on the reef. Check out her TED Talk: A new lifeline for the world’s coral reefs.

Coral reefs are the most biodiverse ecosystem on our entire blue planet, home to more than a quarter of all marine life.

Key Points of Concern:

  • Coral reefs affect the livelihoods of over one billion people
  • They’re also anchoring the economies of over 100 nations
  • Rising ocean temperatures can cause coral bleaching
  • Already we have lost half of the world’s coral reefs
  • By 2050 90% of coral could be lost

As the Executive Director Impact of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Theresa has a front-row seat to the innovative processes that are now being deployed to rebuild damaged reefs. Review the section from 4:09 to 4:56. In just 93 words & 47 seconds, she changes the tone of the talk, pivoting from problem to solution, and setting the stage for the balance of her story. She doesn’t go into depth, or use complex jargon that the audience won’t understand.

When Theresa introduces Uncle Bob, a Wopabara man from the Great Barrier Reef, her talk shifts from technology to human — it’s the story block I refer to as Someone Else’s Story — and we learn about the impact this innovation can have if deployed. To be honest, I would have enjoyed hearing more about Uncle Bob. By adding a minute, I would have developed a deeper connection to the topic.

So I’m asking you — don’t look away. Change your perspective and join us in the fight to sustain not just coral reefs, but the livelihoods, the cultures and the futures they safeguard. This isn’t game over. It’s game on.

Transcript

When I say Great Barrier Reef, what do you see? If you grew up in the 2000s, I’m guessing it might be Nemo and his best friend, Dory.

Or perhaps it’s this. It’s the best part of my job. Taking people underwater to witness such a wonder and so much life. Coral reefs are the most biodiverse ecosystem on our entire blue planet, home to more than a quarter of all marine life.

They are food, livelihoods and coastal protection for more than one billion people. They anchor the economies of over 100 nations and hold deep cultural significance for saltwater First Nations peoples, who see coral reefs as their family and the creators of life.

But increasingly, when I say Great Barrier Reef, people think of this. Or even worse, this. Sadly, our reef, my reef, has become the poster child for climate change. And here’s why.

Coral polyps, the tiny animals that build reefs, are incredibly sensitive to warming oceans. When stressed by heat, they expel the algae that nourish them, exposing their skeletons and turning them white, a phenomenon called coral bleaching.

Now a bleached coral isn’t dead, but it is sick and starving. And if temperatures stay too high for too long, it dies. Coral reefs are the absolute lifeblood of a thriving ocean. We thought them too big and too important to fail.

Already we have lost half of the world’s coral reefs. In 2024, the global extent of coral bleaching reached 53 countries and every ocean on Earth. By 2050, 90 percent of corals could be lost, and with coral reefs thought to be one of the most vulnerable ecosystems to climate change, we could witness their extinction in our lifetime.

Because of this, many people have already given up. They see the problem as just too big and the progress too slow. But I haven’t given up. And I’m here to tell you why you shouldn’t give up either. Prior to working at the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, I worked in medical research, and the parallels are surprisingly striking.

While many cancers have no cure, a cancer diagnosis is no longer a death sentence due to the expanding toolkit of treatments. This is how we must think of coral reefs. Yes, we need the cure. The solutions to climate change itself.

But right now, corals also need treatments to buy them time. Enter reef restoration. Reef restoration has been around since about the 1970s, mainly through coral gardening. It’s pretty simple. You take small pieces of coral, you grow them in an underwater nursery, and when big enough, you replant them in a reef.

While an important part of the reef restoration toolkit, this approach is slow, expensive and very difficult to scale. As a result, it is thought that less than 200,000 corals are planted across the world’s oceans each year, with many of these corals not surviving. We needed a breakthrough.

Over the past five years, 350 Australian scientists and engineers have been working on just that: technology to make reef restoration faster, cheaper and smarter. We’ve made more advancements in the last five years than the previous 50.

Using an automated process, we can now produce millions of baby corals, not just thousands. We can naturally increase the heat tolerance of these corals so they are better adapted to warming oceans. And we have developed ceramic cradles for mass deployment, eliminating the need for divers to replant each piece of coral by hand.

But in a race against time, the key to dramatically scaling our impact is to deploy this technology in a highly targeted way. We will focus our restoration solution on the reefs that are the most connected to other reefs via the ocean’s natural currents.

By seeding these highly connected reefs with more heat-tolerant corals, their subsequent and stronger offspring will be spread far and wide. By using this precision approach across the Pacific, restoring as little as three percent of coral reefs can drive the recovery of 50 percent of the entire ecosystem. This would be restoration on an unprecedented scale. And we’re making it local. Thank you.

Packaging these technologies into portable coral micro-nurseries for coastal communities to own and operate. The productivity of one single micronursery is expected to exceed that of all global coral gardening efforts combined today.

By 2031, we will be planting 1.2 million heat-tolerant surviving corals per year, about 30 times more than planted across the Pacific today. By 2040, it is our ambition to increase the global scale of reef restoration by 120 times. But we know — Thank you.

We know that the technology on its own isn’t enough. To have real impact, this technology needs to be in the hands of those on the front line, those that know the oceans best.

Meet Uncle Bob, a Woppaburra man from the Great Barrier Reef. His people have been caring for their sea country for millennia. Now when Bob talks to me of his country, he says, “Country is sick, country is crying.”

But with this technology, his community is empowered to be the first responders to heal their sea country by blending this modern innovation with their ancient knowledge. For many coral reefs, unfortunately, it is already too late. But for the half of the world’s reefs, including our Great Barrier Reef, that call the Pacific home, there is still time.

These corals haven’t given up. They are still resilient. They can regenerate. So if the corals haven’t given up, how can we? Now hope without a plan, it’s nothing more than a wish. But thanks to the generosity of the TED community, we have a plan. A lifeline for coral reefs.

So I’m asking you — don’t look away. Change your perspective and join us in the fight to sustain not just coral reefs, but the livelihoods, the cultures and the futures they safeguard. This isn’t game over. It’s game on.

Thank you.

Back to you…

If you have a complex topic that you want to talk about, whether it’s a scientific story or not, think about how Theresa was able to craft a narrative that was both brief and informative. That explained the problem and solution. That ended on a hopeful note, but in this case, with a call to action too. After someone hears your story, what do you want them to think, to feel, and to do? Have you enlightened them? Inspired them? Given them food for thought?

If you enjoyed this article…
Buy me a coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

It Took Thousands of Personal Stories to Create the Mariner 9 Story

/in , , , /by

Fifty-four years ago today, on May 30, 1971, a symphony of human ambition lifted off from Cape Kennedy. Mariner 9 wasn’t just a spacecraft — it was the culmination of thousands of individual stories, each person contributing their unique thread to a tapestry that would forever change how we see our place within the cosmos.

Launch of Atlas-Centaur Rocket Carrying Mariner 9 Mars Probe

Launch of Atlas-Centaur Rocket Carrying Mariner 9 Mars Probe

The Genesis of a Dream

The Mariner program began in 1962, nine years before the launch of Mariner 9. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory conceived this series of robotic explorers as stepping stones to the planets. Each mission built upon the last — Mariner 2 had whispered past Venus, Mariner 4 had glimpsed Mars in passing. But Mariner 9 would be different. It would stay, orbit, & see.

The development of Mariner 9 took approximately four years of intensive work, from initial design concepts in 1967 to its 1971 launch. Yet this timeline barely captures the human drama unfolding behind the scenes — engineers working through weekends, mathematicians recalculating trajectories late into the night, technicians hand-assembling delicate instruments with the precision of watchmakers.

A Cast of Thousands

Picture this: over 5,000 people directly involved in the Mariner 9 mission, with countless more supporting roles spanning across multiple states. From the assembly floors of Denver to the tracking stations scattered across the globe, this was humanity at its collaborative best. Each person — whether they wielded a soldering iron or a slide rule — contributed their personal skills and passion.

Mariner 9 Mars Probe

Mariner 9 Mars Probe

The mission required an extraordinary convergence of skills, including:

  • Aerospace engineers designing the spacecraft’s structure
  • Propulsion specialists calculating fuel requirements
  • Computer programmers writing navigation software
  • Antenna technicians ensuring Earth-Mars communication
  • Planetary scientists planning observation sequences
  • Materials experts selecting heat-resistant components
  • Optical engineers crafting camera systems
  • Electrical technicians wiring complex circuits
  • Systems integrators coordinating all subsystems
  • Project managers orchestrating timelines
  • Quality assurance inspectors checking every detail
  • Mathematicians computing orbital mechanics
  • Thermal engineers managing temperature extremes
  • Power systems designers creating solar panel arrays
  • Attitude control specialists maintaining spacecraft orientation
  • Data analysts interpreting incoming signals
  • Mission planners designing observation strategies
  • Telecommunications engineers establishing deep space communication
  • Launch vehicle coordinators preparing the Atlas-Centaur rocket
  • Ground operations controllers managing the mission from Earth.

Five Gifts to Humanity

Mariner 9’s achievements resonate through the decades. First, it became the first successful Mars orbiter, proving we could establish a permanent robotic presence around another planet. Second, it mapped most of the Martian surface with unprecedented detail, revealing a world of stunning geological complexity. Third, it discovered evidence of ancient water flows — those mysterious channels that whispered of a warmer, wetter Mars. Fourth, it provided our first detailed study of the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, expanding our understanding of small celestial bodies. Fifth, it demonstrated that long-duration interplanetary missions were possible, paving the way for every Mars mission that followed.

The Ripple Effect

Imagine if Mariner 9 had failed. Would we have the rovers — Sojourner (1997), Spirit (2004–2010), Opportunity (2004–2018), Curiosity (2012–present), and Perseverance (2021–present) — exploring Martian soil? Would we still dream of human colonies on the Red Planet? Would countless young minds have been inspired to pursue careers in science and engineering? The mission’s success created a cascade of possibility that continues to shape our technological vision of space exploration.

Back to you…

I’ve worked with a long list of folks whose story involved technical achievements, from scientists to engineers and entrepreneurs. While digging below the surface we invariably discover a cast of supporting characters that made their project a success. If your story involves a team effort, weaving bits of their stories is one way to add depth and richness to your story.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

The Day America Reached for the Moon: Understanding President John F. Kennedy’s Bold Promise

/in , , , , /by

Yesterday’s article talked about Samuel Morse and the birth of the telegraph, and how an inventor’s vision, driven by grief, jump started the era of electronic communication. But that’s not to say that such technological achievements can only be initiated by someone with technical skill. Politicians with a vision of the future far different than the present can serve as inspiration for shifts in the timeline of humanity.

One such story began with a young man standing before Congress, promising to accomplish something that had never been done in human history. On May 25th 1961, President John F. Kennedy did exactly that, declaring America would land a man on the moon before the decade’s end. But this wasn’t just about exploring space. To understand why Kennedy made this audacious promise, we must first step back into a world gripped by fear, competition, and the urgent need for national purpose.

The Shadow of Sputnik

Four years before Kennedy’s bold declaration, the world had changed overnight. On October 4, 1957, a metallic sphere no larger than a beach ball began orbiting Earth, beeping its simple signal across radio waves around the globe. Sputnik 1, launched by the Soviet Union, represented far more than a technological achievement — it was a thunderclap that shattered American confidence.

Exploded view of the Sputnik 1 satellite

Picture the American families of 1957, stepping outside their homes to peer up at the night sky, knowing that somewhere among those familiar stars was a man-made object placed there by their Cold War adversary. The implications were terrifying. If the Soviets could launch a satellite, they could certainly launch a nuclear warhead. The same rocket technology that lifted Sputnik could deliver destruction to American cities.

The psychological impact was perhaps even more profound than the military implications. America had long considered itself the world’s technological leader, the nation that had won World War II through industrial might and innovation. Suddenly, we were playing catch-up to a communist rival we had underestimated.

A String of Soviet Triumphs

The humiliation deepened with each Soviet space achievement. In November 1957, they launched Sputnik 2, carrying a dog named Laika — proving that living creatures could survive in space. America’s first satellite attempt, Vanguard TV3, exploded on the launch pad in December 1957, earning the mocking nickname “Kaputnik” in the press.

Then came the ultimate blow: on April 12, 1961, just weeks before Kennedy’s moon speech, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth. The smiling young pilot returned to a hero’s welcome, his achievement broadcast around the world. Once again, America was second.

Consider the personal stories embedded in this moment. Gagarin, a farmer’s son who had worked in a steel foundry, now represented the triumph of Soviet ideology. Meanwhile, American parents worried about their children’s futures in a world where their nation seemed to be losing the most important race of the modern era.

The Cold War Context

To truly understand Kennedy’s moon commitment, we must appreciate the global stakes of the Cold War in 1961. This wasn’t merely a competition between two superpowers — it was a battle for the hearts and minds of the entire world. Newly independent nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America were choosing between American capitalism and Soviet communism. Every achievement, every failure, was scrutinized as evidence of which system was superior.

Space exploration had become the ultimate proving ground. Unlike military might, which remained largely hidden and theoretical, space achievements were visible to all. When a Soviet rocket successfully launched, people around the world could see it, hear about it, and draw their own conclusions about Soviet capabilities.

Kennedy’s Personal Stakes

For Kennedy personally, the space race represented both tremendous risk and opportunity. At 43, he was the youngest elected president in American history, criticized by some as inexperienced and untested. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion had damaged his credibility. He needed a victory — something bold and inspiring that would restore confidence in American leadership.

Yet Kennedy was also a pragmatist who understood the enormous challenges involved. Before making his moon commitment, he consulted extensively with NASA officials, scientists, and engineers. He wanted to be certain that while the goal was ambitious, it was achievable. As he privately told NASA administrator James Webb, “I’m not that interested in space. But we’ve got to beat the Soviets.”

Beyond the Moon: The Deeper Goals

Kennedy’s moon commitment served multiple purposes beyond the stated goal of lunar exploration. First, it provided a concrete, measurable objective that would focus American scientific and technological efforts. Rather than competing with the Soviets on multiple fronts, America would concentrate its resources on one spectacular achievement.

Second, the moon program would drive innovation across countless industries. The technologies developed for space exploration would find applications in civilian life, from computers to materials science to telecommunications. Kennedy understood that the space program would accelerate American technological development in ways that would benefit the entire economy.

Third, the moon goal would inspire a generation of young Americans to pursue careers in science, mathematics, and engineering. The president recognized that America’s long-term competitiveness depended on nurturing scientific talent, and the space program would serve as a powerful recruitment tool.

The Ripple Effects Through History

Looking back across the decades, we can see how profoundly Kennedy’s decision shaped not just American history, but human civilization itself. The Apollo program employed over 400,000 people at its peak, driving innovations that gave us everything from cordless tools to freeze-dried food, from improved computers to advanced materials used in everything from aviation to medicine.

Earthrise, taken on December 24, 1968, by Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders

But perhaps most importantly, Kennedy’s moon commitment changed how we see ourselves as a species. When Apollo 8 astronauts photographed Earth rising over the lunar horizon in 1968, that image — our blue, fragile planet suspended in the cosmic dark — helped launch the environmental movement. When Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface in 1969, he spoke for all humanity: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Consider how different our world might be had Kennedy not made that commitment. Without the technological drive of the space program, would we have developed personal computers as quickly? Would satellite communications have advanced as rapidly? Would our understanding of Earth’s climate and environment be as sophisticated?

The young president who stood before Congress that May day in 1961 was doing more than committing America to reach the moon. He was choosing hope over fear, ambition over resignation, and in doing so, he set in motion a chain of events that would transform not just America, but our entire understanding of what it means to be human in an infinite universe.

The moon, as Kennedy understood, was never really the destination. It was the journey that mattered — and the proof that when we dare to dream beyond our limitations, we can achieve the impossible.

Back to you…

Maybe your story is not as dramatic. Not one that changed the course of history. But think about those moments when you made a bold decision that change the course of your life. Then consider how that decision rippled out to affect the lives of others. And the point of telling your story now, is that the lessons you learned, the wisdom you gained in the process, can continue to benefit others.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

What Hath God Wrought: The Telegraph’s Birth and the Transformation of Human Connection

/in , , , , /by

Picture this: It’s May 24th, 1844, and in a small room in the Supreme Court chamber of the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., a man sits nervously before a peculiar contraption of wires and metal. Samuel Finley Breese Morse, artist turned inventor, is about to send a message that will forever change how human beings connect across vast distances. With careful deliberation, he taps out a biblical phrase in his newly invented code: “What hath God wrought.”

Forty miles away in Baltimore, Maryland, his assistant Alfred Vail receives those dots and dashes, translates them back into words, and immediately sends the same message back to Washington. In that moment — lasting mere minutes — the world became fundamentally smaller, and the pace of human civilization began to quicken in ways that Samuel Morse himself could never have imagined.

Samuel Finley Breese Morse from National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; Frederick Hill Meserve Collection

Samuel Finley Breese Morse from National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; Frederick Hill Meserve Collection

The Man Behind the Message

Samuel Morse was not born to be a communications revolutionary. Raised in a strict Calvinist household in Charlestown, Massachusetts, he initially pursued his passion as a painter, creating portraits of prominent Americans and grand historical scenes. His artistic training at Yale College and later in London shaped his meticulous eye for detail — a skill that would prove invaluable in his later scientific endeavors.

But tragedy has a way of redirecting our paths. In 1825, while Morse was painting a portrait in Washington, he received a letter telling him his wife was gravely ill. By the time he rushed home to New Haven, she had already died and been buried. The slow pace of communication in that era meant that the most important moments of our lives could slip away while we remained blissfully unaware. This personal anguish planted a seed in Morse’s mind: surely there had to be a faster way for people to share urgent news across great distances.

The inspiration struck him during a ship voyage back from Europe in 1832. Conversations about electromagnetism with fellow passengers sparked his imagination.

What if electricity could carry messages instantaneously across wires?
What if human thoughts could travel at the speed of lightning itself?

The Day That Changed Everything

That May morning in 1844 represented the culmination of over a decade of experimentation, frustration, and persistence. Morse had endured years of financial hardship, skeptical investors, and technical setbacks. Politicians questioned whether the government should fund such a seemingly frivolous invention. Even on the day of the demonstration, many observers remained doubtful.

Morse chose his inaugural message carefully. “What hath God wrought” came from Numbers 23:23 in the King James Bible, suggested by Annie Ellsworth, daughter of the Patent Commissioner. The phrase carries profound meaning — it speaks to divine wonder at human achievement, a recognition that we sometimes create things beyond our own understanding of their consequences.

The technical specifications were remarkably simple by today’s standards. Morse’s telegraph used an electromagnet to move a stylus that marked dots and dashes on a moving strip of paper. The famous Morse Code — combinations of short and long electrical pulses representing letters of the alphabet — allowed complex human language to be reduced to binary electrical signals. The Washington-Baltimore line stretched across wooden poles, carrying a single copper wire with the earth itself serving as the return circuit.

When that first official message crackled across the 40 miles of wire, it traveled at roughly 186,000 miles per second — the speed of light through the copper conductor. Compare this to the fastest previous method of long-distance communication: a horse and rider, covering perhaps 30 miles in a day over rough terrain.

The Fabric of Society Rewoven

The telegraph didn’t just speed up communication — it fundamentally altered the rhythm of human existence. Within a decade, telegraph lines were spreading across America like a spider’s web, connecting distant cities and remote towns to a shared nervous system of information.

Consider how this changed the simple act of conducting business. Before the telegraph, a merchant in New York who wanted to know grain prices in Chicago had to wait weeks for a letter. Decisions were made with old information, and fortunes were built on who could move physical information fastest. The telegraph democratized market information, creating the foundation for modern commodity exchanges and stock markets. Suddenly, prices could be coordinated across vast distances, creating truly national markets for the first time in human history.

The transformation went far deeper than commerce. Families separated by migration could maintain relationships in ways previously impossible. A mother in Boston could know within hours if her son in California was safe after an earthquake. Young people could court across state lines through romantic telegrams. The very notion of “long-distance relationships” was born.

Watercolor painting of railroad tracks and telegraph poles running through the desert

Perhaps most profoundly, the telegraph began to standardize time itself. Before instant communication, every town kept its own time based on the sun’s position. But railroad schedules coordinated by telegraph required synchronized clocks across entire regions. The concept of time zones — which we now take for granted — emerged directly from the telegraph’s need to coordinate activities across vast distances.

The Ripples Through Time

Standing here in 2025, we can trace direct lines from Morse’s first message to the device in your pocket. The telegraph established the first principles of electronic communication: encoding human language into electrical signals, transmitting those signals across distances, and decoding them back into meaning. Every text message, every email, every video call follows the fundamental pattern Samuel Morse established that May morning.

The telegraph also birthed the first global communication networks. By the 1860s, underwater cables connected America to Europe. News of Lincoln’s assassination reached London in days, not weeks. The world’s first “information superhighway” was built from copper wire and wooden poles, but it established the template for our modern internet.

More subtly, the telegraph began humanity’s complicated relationship with instant communication. The same technology that could save lives by quickly summoning doctors could also spread panic through false rumors. The same wires that connected distant lovers also enabled new forms of fraud and deception. We see these tensions playing out today in our debates about social media, digital privacy, and information verification.

Imagining the Alternative

What if Samuel Morse had remained focused solely on painting? What if Annie Ellsworth had suggested a different biblical verse, or no verse at all? What if congressional funding had been denied by just one vote?

Without the telegraph, the American Civil War might have unfolded differently. Lincoln’s ability to coordinate Union forces across vast distances proved crucial to victory. The transcontinental railroad, built with telegraph coordination, might have taken decades longer to complete. The settling of the American West would have proceeded more slowly and chaotically.

Globally, the British Empire‘s ability to govern distant colonies depended heavily on telegraph cables. Without instant communication to London, colonial independence movements might have succeeded earlier, or imperial control might have required even more brutal local enforcement.

Perhaps most intriguingly, our entire relationship with time and distance might have evolved differently. Would we have developed different social structures, different concepts of privacy, different expectations about response times and availability?

The Timeless Lesson

Samuel Morse’s legacy reminds us that individual human curiosity, persistence, and ingenuity can reshape the world in ways we never anticipate. He set out to solve a personal problem — the slow pace of communication that had cost him his final moments with his dying wife. Instead, he created the foundation for the connected world we inhabit today.

The next time your phone buzzes with a message from someone thousands of miles away, remember that May morning in 1844. Remember Samuel Morse tapping out “What hath God wrought” and marveling at the power of human innovation to compress time and space. In our age of instant global communication, we are all still living in the world that telegraph built, dot by dash by dot.

Back to you…

Think about how communication technology has affected your life. Your romances, your career path, your view of the world. Imagine a life that didn’t have instant access to loved ones. Maybe there’s a thread of your personal story that involves a digital connection. Connections made, connections broken, or miscommunication.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved