HOORAY! The Massachusetts State Senate Transportation and Utilities Committee released its version of the energy bill WITHOUT a loathsome and undemocratic nuclear protection repeal that was in the House version. Our opponents say by opposing the repeal, we’re trying to ban nuclear power. But while banning nuclear power would be a smart thing to do, there’s nothing in the relevant law (Chapter 503 of the 1982 Massachusetts laws) that bans nuclear power, as long as it meets the very reasonable conditions in the law (I list them a bit later).
We’ve been battling the repealers for more than a year and a half. Huge thanks to my own Senator Jo Comerford, along with next-district-over Senator Paul Mark in the Berkshires and Hilltowns and Julian Cyr on the Cape. The three of them led the effort to keep this horrible provision out of the bill.
Thanks also to Senator Michael Barrett of Lexington and Concord (yes, THAT Lexington and Concord—how appropriate as we are weeks away from the 250th anniversary of the birth of the US), who chaired the committee, wrote the bill, and as recently as a few weeks ago was still saying he supported the repeal. Being able to change your mind as you learn the facts is an important skill, and not all legislators or members of the Executive Branch have it.
And of course, big thanks to my dozen tireless colleagues in Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy—and in the leadership and ranks of the many other organizations who joined this effort, among them the Sierra Club, Indivisible-MA, and Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. And the dozen or so other orgs I don’t have space to name. But I WILL name Clamshell Alliance, which I represent on the coalition along with two other members. Clam has contacted every Massachusetts resident on its list.
The work is not done yet, though. This victory has to become permanent. We have to make sure the repeal is NOT added back in during conference committee, because the House version includes it. And if it does go forward with the repeal, we’ll need to blanket the legislature and let them know this has to be a deal breaker and MUST be amended out, or else they should vote no on the overall bill.
If you vote in Massachusetts, please convey to the members of the Conference Committee (AND to your own State Senator and Representative) that repealing 503 is unacceptable. Here are the committee members:
Contact all six of them—today!
Sen. Michael Barrett: 617-722-1572 / Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov (Room 312-B) Sen. Cynthia Creem: 617-722-1639 / Cynthia.Creem@masenate.gov (Room 312-A) Sen. Bruce Tarr: 617-722-1600 / Bruce.Tarr@masenate.gov (Room 308) Rep. Mark Cusack: 617-722-2030 / Mark.Cusack@mahouse.gov (Room 43) Rep. Bradley Jones: 617-722-2100 / Bradley.Jones@mahouse.gov (Room 124)
The bill our opponents want to repeal was passed by 67% of voters in every county back in 1982. It requires a permanent waste storage facility, an emergency evacuation plan, and voter and legislative approval. Here are the relevant sections of the law (click here to read the entire law):
Section 3. No new nuclear power plant shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that there exists an operating, federally-licensed facility for the timely and economical permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes generated by the proposed nuclear power plant;
(ii) that an adequate emergency preparedness plan for the proposed nuclear power plant has been developed, approved, and implemented by the Commonwealth;
(iii) that effective emission standards applicable to the proposed nuclear power plant have been promulgated by the Commonwealth to protect the public against health and safety hazards of radioactive air pollutants traceable to nuclear power plants within the Commonwealth;
(iv) that there exists a demonstrated, federally-approved technology or means for the timely and economical decommissioning, dismantling, and disposal of the proposed nuclear power plant; and
(v) that the proposed nuclear power plant offers the optimal means of meeting energy needs from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation.
Section 4. No facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed waste facility have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that the particular technology or means to be utilized at the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available technologies or means from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use ACTS, 1982. – Chap. 503. planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation; and (ii) that the site of the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available sites from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and environmental dislocation.
Section 5. The Commonwealth shall not enter into any compact or agreement with any other state or states concerning the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) the compact or agreement has been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that construction and operation within the Commonwealth of any facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes pursuant to the proposed compact or agreement shall be subject to the conditions of Section 4 of this Act; and
(ii) that the responsibilities and commitments of the Commonwealth under the proposed compact or agreement are no greater than those of any other party thereto.
Responding to something I posted on Facebook saying the US “has signed a colonialist and exploitative agreement with Venezuela on oil rights (an unsurprising outcome after the US coup against that country some months back),” someone responded, “Yeah, let’s have China control Venezuelan oil.”
This is how I answered:
I’ve got a better idea. How about we let VENEZUELA control Venezuelan oil. And while we’re at it, support the democratic elements in Venezuelan politics (who are not a part of the new T-backed government). And simultaneously with that, let’s get serious already, 40 years behind when we should have, about switching to fully renewable green energy. We have the technology. We know the benefits. And we sure as heck have the sun, wind, and water.
I didn’t get into the weeds about the Venezuelan pro-democracy movement. It’s enough to know it exists and has been heavily repressed by the last several Venezuelan presidents.
But this isn’t the whole story. The comment from this other person reflects a mindset that I find disturbing. If you follow the thinking implicit in that post, it says that the US should control all the important resources in the world.
Historically, most economic or political empires (and in the last 500+ years, especially the US and our European allies) have been exploiters and colonializers of resources that should be under the control of the Indigenous people whose land they’re on—and when our control is questioned, we go to war. Every modern war, and many ancient ones going back at least to Biblical times, is based on wanting resources someone else claims or protecting resources someone else wants. The ethnic and religious cloaks these struggles might be wrapped in don’t change that underlying reality.
In 2026, we are even seeing our own president blowing up decades long alliances that have kept a fragile peace in Europe and North America, because he wants the resources of places like Venezuela, Canada, and Greenland. But in 2026, we are old enough to know better. Diplomacy-based peace and stability are hard to obtain and easy to lose. But the past 80 years have shown they are indeed possible and can spread to other corners of the world—not by force, but by the power of example.
It will take decades to undo the damage T has inflicted, to create better safeguards against authoritarianism here in the US, and to rebuild the shattered trust of the US around the world. It’s difficult—but it’s doable.
“We have built the safest civilisation in human history while convincing ourselves that we live in the most dangerous. Billions of people experienced measurable improvements in health, safety, and material conditions in 2025. That progress didn’t make the news. But it happened anyway, one vaccine, one school meal, one kilowatt-hour at a time.” —Angus Hervey, Fix the News
From Fix the News, one of several good-news publications I receive—and one that skews toward science-based progress. This one does start with a depressing summary of the news we’ve all heard—but then moves into a long series of victories that most of us didn’t even now about. It pauses to excoriate mass media for amplifying the negative and superficial (e.g., celebrities) while ignoring unsexy but vital stories such as the amazing ocean treaties and the actual elimination of rampant fatal diseases, country by country. And then it finishes with another long list of victories for humanity and the other creatures we share this amazing planet with.
You won’t be sorry to spend ten minutes with this. https://fixthenews.com/p/the-telemetry?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4861955&post_id=182468358&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=sl4r&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Some did, although I hadn’t heard. A suit by an organic farming association was dismissed because the court didn’t find any evidence of farmers being sued in this situation.
All this is prelude to a news story in yesterday’s Daily Hampshire Gazette (my local paper) describing a lawsuit by a local pot farmer over pesticide contamination from an adjoining chemiculture berry farm. Apparently, because Massachusetts state law prohibits any pesticide residue in pot, the farmer lost one year’s crop to contamination and at least two more years because their storage freezers were filled with the contaminated crop, which the state is requiring them to keep as evidence—leaving them no room for current crops.
First, the obvious question: if these pesticides shouldn’t be ingested by adults eating or smoking cannabis products, why are we allowing kids to eat them unwashed as they accompany their parents in the u-pick fields? Why should pesticides be allowed on fruits whose sprayed surfaces are directly consumed? While an especially thorny issue (pun intended) for berries, it’s also an issue for apples, pears, plums, cherries, etc. And frankly, even rind fruit is not necessarily uncontaminated.
Second, could this admittedly extreme case finally set legal precedent allowing farmers to sue successfully over threats to their organic status?
We are at the dawn of a new era in ESG (Environmental/Social/Governance, often rolled together as “sustainability). Following a long Model T Ford stage of kludged-together bandaid fixes, we are finally evolving into a much more holistic, much more regenerative approach. This incorporates several deeper methodologies like biomimicry, lifecycle costing, product take-backs, and multiple functions from single innovations, as well as massively scaled climate solutions that can actually reverse atmospheric carbon.
A lot of this progress is happening because the increasingly extreme weather of the last few years makes it obvious that we have no choice; we either learn how to be good neighbors to other species, ecosystems, and the planet—or the planet will drive us out. It’s going to be exciting.
We will see:
• Much deeper understanding of what the actual problem is. As one example: rather than focusing on building a better car, design ways to move people and freight across distances without requiring new roads, clogging existing ones, or pollution: something that would eventually make the private personal vehicle obsolete. It might look like modular mass transit bubbles that link together to move great distances at high speeds, then separate for last-mile door-to-door delivery—or it might look like “Beam me up, Scotty”—or, much more technologically and financially achievable, a group-conference immersion platform that simulates in-person contact through holography, smell receptors, and other techniques.
• Nature-based solutions that are far simpler, less expensive, and more effective than present approaches: emulating desert beetles for pure water supplies, bacterial fermentation to turn waste plastic into something useful, adhesives that replicate geckos, etc.
• Far more attention to the S in ESG, and integrating it with the E. For instance, green agriculture could create whole new industries that provide jobs and economic power to marginalized inner-city neighborhoods and depressed rural areas (or entire countries). And they could use open hiring procedures like the one that’s been so successful for Greyston Bakery to provide ladders out of poverty to ex-addicts, ex-felons, and ex-mental patients who have very little hope of finding a job through more standard approaches. Greyston is now consulting to other companies on how to implement a successful open hiring program.
Within a few years, these will be moving into the mainstream—providing significant competitive advantage over the companies that don’t embrace them: in energy and materials efficiency, reduced labor costs, and other direct operational benefits—and ALSO in marketing. These major steps forward will attract and retain customers, perhaps even turn customers into unpaid brand ambassadors.
We’ve been shown the path by visionaries like Amory Lovins, Janine Benyus, and Gunter Pauli for more than 20 years. We already know many of the solutions. Now we have to implement all these great ideas.
This could be quite the game-changer: a new technology that turns gas piping from a useless and expensive “stranded asset” to a powerful lever to green entire business and residential districts. And New York State just passed a law to encourage it.
On a quick look, I don’t see any obvious flaws. Do you? Please leave it in a comment. I’ll be taking a more in-depth look at this in my March newsletter. If you’re not a subscriber yet, please visit any page at my main website, https://goingbeyondsustainability.com/ You’ll get some nice gifts for subscribing, too.
NASA photo tracking 2011 Superstorm Sandy. Attribution: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center from Greenbelt, MD, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Tracking_a_Superstorm_(8970258657).png
A friend posted her fears that the extreme weather we’ve pretty much all been experiencing is only going to get worse…that coastal cities (which includes most of the world’s great centers) are going to be hammered by storms that will make Hurricane Sandy—which wreaked havoc in NYC and elsewhere—feel like a gentle rain…wildfires that consume vast acreage, depleted aquifers that cannot regenerate and can no longer supply our farming needs…
I agree with her that the current path will lead to multiple calamities. But I remain optimistic that the rapidly closing window to fix it is still open for now; we can still reverse the destruction. We know how: innovation has reached astounding levels in the last 20 or 30 years, and we humans have developed and piloted hundreds of cool technologies and processes that accomplish multiple good outcomes with zero-to-minimal harm.
But we are 50 years late in making meaningful progress and we can’t be wasting time debating whether human-caused climate change is real. Nearly unanimously, scientists who are not funded by polluters agree that humans have accelerated climate change significantly. And even if the climate change is nothing more than the earth making course corrections, we still need to address/reverse/prevent the effects if human civilization is going to continue in anything like the way we know it.
With light editing for context and to mask the identities of others who posted in the thread, this is my response:
My Response to the Gloom-and-Doom Post
One thing we can all do—homeowners, tenants, farmers, business owners—is STOP SQUANDERING CLEAN WATER! We waste far more than we actually consume, and this has serious consequences as aquifers dry up. I just read this morning in a book called The Sustainabiity Scorecard that certain prescription drug manufacturing processes generate up to 7700x the product weight in waste, most of it water. I’ve said for more than 20 years that while our descendants might forgive us for squandering oil (which has substitutes), they will NOT forgive us for squandering water, which is essential to life.
Like most pieces of climate change, we’ve known how to fix the problems for decades—but we can’t find the political will. We should be living in a circular economy by now, where waste is transformed into input. We should be powering that economy with clean and renewable power sources including not only the common ones like solar and wind but more advanced, less well-known technologies like harnessing light and natural electrochemical reactions (see Gunter Pauli, The Blue Economy 3.0). We have known how to do this since at least 2001, and we’ve known we need to do it since at least 1970. This is our last chance to get it done before the scenarios [the original poster] is worried about become everyday reality—and lead to constant civil unrest, widespread famine, and various other calamities that dwarf anything we’ve experienced. Science fiction writers like John Brunner have been describing that awful world for generations, because they could see the logical consequences of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending everything can go on as it has.
BTW *I* am actually an optimist on this. I believe we can still fix it, but we damn well better hurry up and commit society to solving these interrelated problems just as we committed ourselves globally to de-fanging COVID (with amazing success in a very short time)—but the longer we wait, the harder the task. The window is closing while we squander the 50-60 years we’ve had to get it done.
And thus I AGREE with [another commenter]’s paragraph about mitigation. Yes, engineers and designers can fix a lot of stuff—especially if they come in not attached to particular solutions but look holistically at how integrated solutions can not only address multiple problems at once (e.g., climate, waste disposal, water and food insufficiency, human comfort) but provide lots of jobs and community revitalization at the same time. But too many engineers have been trained in the existing, failing ways of thinking. We need to think circular and lifecycle impacts (including end-of-product-life disposal or repurposing), with closed loops, zero waste, net energy consumption, or pollution, etc.—and not linear thinking that only acknowledges processes production cost. Engineering as usually practiced has a tendency to externalize things like disposal costs onto the backs of us taxpayers and our progeny.
I also agree that we need to look at pollution, waste disposal, etc. in other industries including chemicals and battery manufacturing, and I don’t see electric cars or solar panels as panaceas.
But I totally disagree with most of his other points. The overwhelming scientific consensus, at least of scientists not funded by fossil companies or others who would have to drastically alter their processes (and temporarily lower their profitability) to fix the mess they helped create, is that human-caused climate change is real, and extremely dangerous.
[Original poster] brings up fusion, as she often does. Fusion sounds great in theory, but I’ve been hearing for my whole life that it’s just around the corner, and yet we never turn that corner. We can’t sit around waiting for fusion. The most optimistic predictions still put it pretty far down the pipe as a mainstream energy source. Yes, let’s keep the research going, but meanwhile, dig ourselves out of this deep hole of our own making.
I know [the original poster] is also a fan of small-scale nuclear fission, but I am not. [In her response to my comment, she corrected me and said she is not either.] If you want to know why, visit https://clamshellalliance.com/statements/statement/ (disclosure: I provided some minor help in writing this, particularly the section on accidents). I have some expertise here: my first of ten books was on why nuclear fission is a big mistake. It was written in the aftermath of Three Mile Island (as a revision/update of a much older book by my co-authors) and I updated it again—for a Japanese publisher—after Fukushima.
Several years ago, I brainstormed a list of 111 things the average person can do to reduce carbon and water footprints. It’s not comprehensive, it’s not necessarily the most important—it’s just one person’s brainstorm from around 2009. It retails for $9.95 but I’m giving it away. Just visit https://goingbeyondsustainability.com/#Freebies and click “Painless Green” (yes, you will need to provide your email and subscribe to my monthly newsletter—but you can unsub if you don’t like it).
More than anything else, this is a piece about hope: about the power of each of us to have impact in our own lives, in the lives of those around us, in our communities, and to our ecosystem and the entire planet.
Sign by Nancy Hodge Green, used at Seabrook by Shel Horowitz, 1977. Photo by Shel Horowitz
Two case studies from my own life:
How a Single Demonstration Redirected US Energy Away from a Super-Toxic and Dangerous Future to a Much Saner Alternative
At age 20, I was one of 1414 protestors arrested as we occupied the construction site of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. At that time, the US government was envisioning 1000 nuclear power plants around the country. They never got past about a tenth of that, and I’m convinced that the ripples from that demonstration have a lot to do with why. On the 40th anniversary, I wrote a five-part blog series about what happened and my take on why. That link will take you to part one, with jumps to each succeeding part at the bottom. It’s really important reading for activists, authors, business innovators, educators, and others who want to change the world.
How Changing What I Eat Led Me to a Writing and Marketing Career I don’t know the exact date, but I think some time last week marked 50 years since I stopped eating meat. I know that I threw a party to mark my conversion and planned to stop eating meat as of that late August date, but I’d actually stopped several days earlier. I’m grateful for several things about that transition:
1) that after almost four years as an activist it was the first major step I consciously took toward living lighter on the earth, changing my lifestyle to match by beliefs;
2) that it was the first time I was really thinking long-term and strategically: I came home from a fishing trip at age 12 and announced I was turning vegetarian. My mom immediately responded that vegetarianism would stunt my growth. I was already a runty kid, small and weak for my age, and we didn’t have the Internet to check easily—so I promised her that I’d wait—and promised myself that I would remember and honor my promise to go off meat once I’d reached that milestone);
3) that I actually was capable of remembering and fulfilling a promise made four years earlier
4) that the whole world of food alternatives began to open up to me with this transition. Although Yoshi had been part of my life for about five years and thus I had some exposure to Japanese food, we had very little money and seldom ate out, and my mom’s cooking was tilted heavily toward kid-pleasing macaroni casseroles and meat loaves. She was into whole wheat and brown rice, so we were a step ahead. But I knew nothing about the flavor and nutrition and cooking techniques of Indian, Thai, Turkish, Mexican, Ethiopian, Vegamerican, Szechuan, Arabic… I’d never made bread, or yogurt, or sprouts, or pretty much anything from scratch other than salad dressing. The deeper my explorations, the more exciting eating became.
5) that I would arrive two months later for my first term at Antioch College with a new identity and lifestyle, and would not have to remake myself later in the eyes of my peers: something that deepened once I did arrive on campus and (with 600 miles between me and the stairwell where I was raped by a stranger several years earlier) almost immediately got in touch with my bisexuality and became active in the school’s flourishing LGBT community—which in turn led me to be involved in campus theater, campus radio, my first public speaking, my first time running an organization, an extended and public dialogue with the town’s mostly-progressive but homophobic newspaper that gave me a window into the power of the press (and thus my career as a writer and marketer), and more.
Lessons for Organizers, Change Agents, and Business Visionaries
In other words, there’s truth in the parable about a single butterfly’s wings changing the climate on a different continent. Our actions ripple out and ripple out and ripple out again, and we never know the full consequences of those actions when we undertake them. I had no idea when I stopped eating meat how far that would reverberate and how much it would shape me. I had no idea when I took the training ahead of the Seabrook occupation that we would leave a national movement in our wake whose effects are still felt almost 50 years later. Did Gandhi, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Edison, Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web), Mother Teresa, or Nelson Mandela know at the beginning of their careers what impact they’d have? I very much doubt it.
El Greco’s painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.
There is a part of me that hopes the Republican Party nominates DeSantis, because when he loses the general election by a huge margin, it will be a repudiation of the entire loathsome cloak of hatred that DT and RDS both stand for. No one will be able to make a case that it was merely a rejection of DT’s criminal activity, egomania, lack of loyalty to those who stood by him, and/or incompetence.
I like to think–and maybe it’s a delusion–that the vast majority of US voters want no truck with either of these men’s open racism, homophobia/transphobia, self-defined “Christian” nationalism, xenophobia, attacks on women’s reproductive rights, love of guns more than the right not to be randomly shot, and all the rest of it.
If I were to flag every passage of Jesus living His life and preaching His truth in direct opposition to the intolerance, violence, and small-mindedness of these “Christians,” this post would go on for many pages. But the elevator-pitch version is simply this: If you call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, you must be willing to accept and even celebrate values like peace, nonviolence, diversity, equality, respect for the natural environment, fair treatment of “the stranger” (immigrants, those of different races or ethnicities or gender orientation), and improving the lot of the poor and the ostracized.
And as an immigration justice, social justice, and environmental activist who has read the Gospels more than once even though I’m not a Christian, I welcome His allyship.
Chris Brogan borrowed an idea from James Altucher: “Write a list of ten things every day. They can be 10 anythings. Ten terrible dates. Ten places to visit. Ten desserts I want to eat this year. Whatever.”
I won’t commit to making a list daily, but I was inspired to create these two after reading Chris’s post (which includes several samples of his own lists).
World Issues
Help figure out how the 30-40% of food that’s wasted can instead be rechanneled to feed those who are starving–and help that get implemented (perhaps this is a place I can target my speaking; see Personal Goal #2, below)
Help amplify the voices of those better qualified than I am to show countries how to solve disputes without going to war
Help build more bridges between/among Left and Right/”woke” and “non-woke”/Muslims and Jews and Christians, etc.
Corollary #1 to #3: Explore and amplify alternatives to counterproductive communication styles: calling-in instead of calling out, respect and listening while searching for common ground instead of shaming
Corollary #2 to #3: Help people to understand that they are not stuck–that just because they have been caught in bad patterns doesn’t mean they are trapped there forever
Continue to demonstrate that baking environmental and social justice directly into companies’ products, services, and mindsets can be highly profitable–find ways for this idea to gain much more traction in the mainstream business world (without having to join that world)
Expose more companies to principles such as biomimicry, multiple function, and circular economy so that they can better understand the financial benefits of deep reimagining, deep re-invention, and regenerativity
Show companies that solving these big problems while increasing profitability requires a mixture of Great Leaps and Kaizen, different in different situations–and that they can do both at once
Corollary to #5: Bring the holistic and systemic analysis that helps determine the right solutions in the right situations, and recommend implementation strategies
Help change mindsets from despair to active, participatory hope: helping everyone I meet understand that he/she/they have the power to effect meaningful change, in their own lives AND in the wider world. Show how ordinary people (usually working with others) have created movements that changed history.
Personal Issues
Probe, discover, and overcome whatever internal barriers are still preventing me from achieving at a higher level–both in terms of impact and revenue–made good progress on this but clearly still have work to do
Book more speaking gigs that pay a fee, whether virtual or live-stage or hybrid–especially international speaking that allows me to explore more parts of the world
Land two or three new long-term consulting clients in the profitable social/environmental justice part of my business
Find steady, decently-paying markets for articles or other types of content, as I had before
Create the right offer for more readers/viewers/listeners to engage with me and come into my orbit
Implement more of the enormous amount of good advice I’ve been given over the past few years
Pick one of the several projects I’ve been tossing around, start it and run it: launch the retreat, the course, the pay-to-participate mastermind/mentoring group OR (not and) the resume-method licensing program
Address issues of fatigue and focus, including lack of motivation, lack of follow-through, and more
Keep up with the torrent of email, LI and FB messages, etc. and figure out a way to spot and respond to the important ones
Continue to be a force in my grandson’s life, even if his parents move out of the area
And what are yours?
Please feel welcome to comment with some of your own goal lists. You don’t need ten things. Even one or two. And yes, you can share a whole list of ten if you want to. Just keep in mind that comments will be moderated and abusive or spammy ones will be removed.
