The Complex Costs of Calamari

Every time I get near the Central California Coast, I try to arrange a side trip to Cambria by the Sea. It is a beautiful little town, though rather too “touristy” these days. And, of course, the beauty of the seacoast is a major draw for this ol’ California Jubilado. But it is one simple fact that draws me to Cambria more than all the rest. The Sea Chest Oyster Bar has the best calamari in the world! The world as I have experienced it anyway. Yet, all the Costs of Calamari are greater than the price of the meal.

Anyone who enjoys seafood knows that ordering Calamari is a haphazard proposition in most restaurants, even the “best” (expensive) ones. Nearly always, you get a plate of those little deep-fried breaded rings and tentacles. They may be tender or tough, or even downright rubbery, whatever the price. I was unequivocally shocked when, during my inadvertent adventure in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, a waitress delivered a large plate of calamari strips I had bravely ordered for an appetizer. We quickly learned that they serve huge portions of everything in “T or C,” and all the people are above average…weight. Out in the middle of the southern New Mexico desert, I tasted Calamari that was in my top ten ever. I was surprised that I got strips, not rings and tentacles. They were amazingly tender and tasty. More can sometimes be better.

Best Dinner

However, the calamari strips or steaks at the Sea Chest in Cambria are clearly number one. According to Steve, who has cooked there forever, they buy their Calamari from a fishing outfit somewhere in the western Pacific. Those squid must be huge. Once tenderized and lightly breaded, the steaks range to ten inches across and about a quarter inch thick.

Calamari.SteakWatching the cooks behind the Sea Chest Oyster Bar is an entertainment in itself. They prepare everything on industrial grade high-fire stoves, mostly in large pans and pots. Scallops, halibut, crab legs, whatever, it is all fresh and delicious. A Sea Chest calamari steak is a meal in itself, so tender you can cut it effortlessly with a fork. It is lightly breaded and sautéed in butter to a golden brown. The action at the stoves among the five or six cooks is a study of efficiently orchestrated motion as they weave their motions in the small space between the prep counter behind the bar and the stoves at the back wall.

“External” Costs

So, there I was the next morning recovering from calamari overload, a once in a few years delight. Yet I wondered what the real costs of this extravaganza might be. Sure, we know that the restaurant incorporates various materials (calamari, butter, etc.), labor, rent, supplies, power, equipment maintenance, and overhead in the price of its dishes. The costs of extraction from the western Pacific, shipping, refrigeration, etc., go into the price tag as well. However, as with so many of the production processes of industrial society, the so-called “externalities” of such supply chains are not part of the equation.

I might find it difficult to calculate easily the global carbon emissions from the entire chain of energy consumption from extraction to consumption and waste in the ‘calamari trade.’ The costs of calamari were not all reflected in the price of the meal. I did not waste any of my dinner; it was too good, so I had my leftovers for breakfast. Yet, if I could calculate the external costs, how much of the $29- price of my fantastic meal would reflect the damage done to the planet?

Not much, if any, I suspect. If all the costs of the Calamari trade were included in the price of a meal, I doubt that I would ever afford to eat a calamari steak again. We must recognize that even with the best of policies responding to the converging crises of the early twenty-first century, life will not be the same. We must shape it anew. For more on carbon emissions and the costs of affluence, see other posts on www.thehopefulrealist.com.

So Much More than Warming: Misunderstanding Climate Change

The words we use to describe the world tend to “frame” our understandings by bracketing the range of images and meanings that make sense to us. Our reasoning builds on deep emotions. Moral reasoning also rests on an emotional sense of right and wrong and the beliefs and personal relationships we hold dear.

1200px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Global Warming ~ Source: Wikipedia

The terms used to describe the effects of human induced emissions of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, are a good case in point. The facts are quite simple, though their implications are very complex. We gradually changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere over the 200 years during which we accelerated the burning of fossil fuels. In doing so, we humans have caused climate patterns to change.

 

The Rise of Civilization…and Danger

So much of what humans do depends on climate conditions that remained relatively stable during “the ascent of man.” The discovery of fire, the invention of cooking, the advent of agriculture and growing populations they supported, all occurred within the Holocene, the geological epoch of stable climate during the past 11,000 years or so. Some scientists now conclude that the Holocene is over and we have entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene, a period when the activities of humans have so disrupted complex Earth systems that the changes will likely last thousands of years.

Yet we continue to frame our understanding of the changing climate conditions brought on by the industrial era in very strange ways, which stem from our emotional attachments to the past and current course of economic growth. We identify with the utopian dreams of economists who project endless growth of resource use and energy expenditures in a finite world. Such illusions directly conflict with the facts resulting from diverse scientific research findings. The current trends in resource depletion and global warming have already destabilized many of the living Earth systems that we depend upon to survive. Clive Hamilton illuminates these forces in his book, Defiant Earth. Those trends are accelerating as political ‘authorities’ around the world bicker over what reductions in carbon emissions are necessary and who is responsible to achieve them.

Utopian Dreams and Political Power

In the U.S., political debates rage on. Now we have a federal political administration, riddled with Trumpery, which denies the facts of science in order to further its aims to consolidate political power and to enrich the rich ever more. Yet, we all live on the same planet. Even though the initial damage caused by global warming has already begun to affect the most vulnerable populations, ultimately everyone is at risk, even the super-rich. Everything is moving faster than expected.

Scientists frame the processes that are changing the conditions on the planet in ways that reflect the best available data. Unfortunately, the facts challenge long held assumptions about the ability of humans to control nature. Yet, people identify with those who have achieved ‘success’ in the past, before we reached the natural limits of economic growth.

Social Illusion or Hopeful Realism

Propaganda encourages people’s emotions to align with the interests of those who bribe politicians through campaign contributions, personal “expenses,” and various lobbying strategies. As political scientists have demonstrated, most of what passes as “legislation,” consists of actions that favor the economic interests of the rich and powerful, both individuals and corporations. What the public wants or believes in pretty much does not count, except for pandering to the misunderstandings of reality that politicians encourage among their “base.”

So, what about “global warming,” or the current analgesic, “climate change”? Only when deteriorating conditions sufficiently infuse enough people with fear and anger, will direct political action, both locally nationally, take place. Will it be too late? Nobody knows. We can only find hope in realism.

Urban Agriculture and the New Great Transformation

One of the most informative websites out there, if you are interested in the fate of humanity on the planet, is http://www.resilience.org. The site offers a wide range of original and republished articles on the full range of matters related to getting to a place where climate and the other converging crises of our time can be mitigated and human groups can become more resilient and prosper in a post-carbon world. I just read an article by Jody Tishmack there, which I consider well worth anyone reading. It is titled, “Urban and Small Farm Agriculture.”

Jody Tishmack reports on research showing that expanding agriculture into cities could improve food security, ecosystem health, and have other benefits as well. I would suggest that such efforts will become increasingly necessary as the global industrial agriculture system begins to collapse of its own fossil-fueled weight.

NYC.Riverpark.farm

Riverpark Farm, New York City

The developments Tishmack describes are certainly heartening, not only for the community spirit and potential for continued development of major local/regional movements in urban agriculture. They also represent something even deeper and more important than she acknowledges in this article. This kind of work not only IS doing something about climate change, it will be an ever more important component of the New Great Transformation of human social organization that at this point appears to be the only viable collective response to the converging global crises of climate chaos, ecosystem destruction, economic disintegration, and political corruption.

After over a decade of research on the emergence and acceleration of these crises, I have concluded that the greatest chance to act to counter them is to act locally and cooperate regionally. The exponential growth of the global economic system, including industrial agriculture, is definitively unsustainable, as is mathematically demonstrated in renowned physicist Geoffrey West’s important 2017 book, Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of life in Organisms, Cities, economies, and Companies.

The governments of the world are so far behind the exponential growth of the converging crises of our era that we cannot count on getting them to do anything serious to address them. They remain pawns of the petro-chemically driven corporate system of growth that refuses to face scientific facts. National protests over political catastrophes and corruption are important symbolic expressions of objection to such failures, then everyone gets in their SUVs and hybrids and goes home.

The.Druids.Garden_organic_farm

“Druid’s Garden” permaculture organic farm

We have already entered a New Great Transformation of the global economic, climate, and ecological systems, which barring massive intervention is leading to widespread collapse of living Earth systems, from local ecosystems to global climate. The primary question is whether we can act comprehensively and quickly enough to avoid widespread societal collapse. We will not be able to thwart the imminent collapse of industrial agriculture by convincing agribusiness to “go organic” or stop using neonic’s or GMOs. The most viable way to RESIST failing institutions is to turn away and create new social formations to REPLACE THEM.

The most viable response to the converging catastrophic crises we face is to re-organize human groups into local eco-communities, both urban and rural, that in that process REPLACE the global industrial-consumer economy with local eco-communities, in part by RESTORING the ecosystems where we live. I have rambled on in various posts on this blog, TheHopefulRealist.com and at www.resilience.org awhile back as well, which has led to the book I have prepared for publication in the coming months. An early effort in that regard is found at http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-12-24/becoming-indigenous-settling-a-population-adrift-in-an-unstable-world/ You can find many other useful discussions of such matters at resilience.org.

Now we just need for the work Jody describes to grow exponentially…

Civility and the Climate Impacts of Denialism

Yesterday, I read an article in the Scientific American discussing a key dilemma that stymies climate action. No standards exist that could provide firm measures of how much carbon emissions reduction is necessary by what date to avoid the worst climate chaos. The article asked the difficult question of how much CO2 we must remove from the atmosphere to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The tendency of political elites to dodge such specific targets results from their avoidance of any basis for judging political policies for having failed.

The article also raised the issue of whether science could develop new techniques of carbon sequestration – “negative emissions” technologies – soon enough to use them to avoid catastrophic climate change. It also questioned whether deployment of such technologies might detract from direct mitigation efforts. Those are interesting and difficult questions.

I have to disagree with the continuing search for new technologies as the answer to the climate crisis. We must cut carbon emissions by reducing the energy we use and waste. Trying to capture the emissions from excessive use and waste cannot solve the underlying problem. However, I appreciated the thoughtful analysis and difficulty in finding and optimizing strategies for slowing, stopping, and reversing global warming before we reach a tipping point beyond which collapse of climate and ecosystems forces societal collapse.

Climate Discussion, or Not

I read that article right after participating in some “discussions” on a Facebook group called, Climate Change Discussion. Discussions of Climate change are not often actual discussions. On this Facebook group, responses to posts frequently devolve into rather juvenile name-calling and nasty shouting matches. On the one hand, some occasionally interesting and informative posts appear there. Too often, however, so-called skeptics attack the person offering such information or opinion as “alarmists,” and use far more hostile epithets. Well, that may be tolerable as far as it goes, but the “alarmists” become targets for a wide range of abusive accusations. Both terms, “alarmists” and “denialists,” are more accusatory than descriptive, with one exception. “Alarmist” implies unjustified panic, while “denialist” implies resistance to facts. The difference is not trivial.

It strikes me as peculiar that those who claim to have “sound reservations” about climate models become so angry with those who present facts that contradict their “skepticism.” Facts, of course, are denied or ignored. The so-called skeptics have no problem denigrating large numbers of scientists who have no other ax to grind other than seeking accurate measures of reality and projecting trends within reasonable parameters. Yet “skeptics” take extreme offense at the idea that insisting on being blind to obvious and demonstrated facts contributes to the delay of any action that might mitigate the devastation that Bangladeshis and others already feel, and some call criminal because the delays cause great suffering and death.

Rising Tides in Ghana

Rising Tides in Ghana

Climate scientists base their findings and projections on vast amounts of time-series data gathered by many field researchers and recording stations around the world. The duplicitous sanctimonious denial of fact and science are puzzling on the surface. Such behavior is at least callus and indifferent to the plight of others who suffer from what we participants in the carbon economy do that causes such suffering. It is understandable that some call it criminal for contributing to a political climate of do-nothing-ism that causes many more deaths than if people just faced reality and our own complicity in its path — and did something about it.

Refined Climate Models and Worsening Crisis

New data have repeatedly confirmed the predictions of climate science models as correct, except that they have repeatedly UNDER-estimated the effects of global warming because various amplifying feedback processes were not at first incorporated into their complex models. Arctic water exposed due to melting sea-ice absorbs more heat than the ice that melted due to atmospheric warming. Melting tundra releases methane, which is a far more damaging greenhouse gas than the CO2 we release directly, which caused the tundra to melt in the first place, etc., etc.

What that all means is that climate science is far beyond the initial hypothesis testing stage; it is at the stage of refining models that have already effectively described the trends in the data and do so more accurately as more data on feedback variables are added to the predictive models. The sad truth is that the improved models consistently forecast a very dire immediate future and are entirely consistent with current climate disruptions. That is why the situation is much worse than initially thought by climate scientists and why denialist politics is so ABSURD.

When a prediction underestimates an outcome that it predicts, that does not mean the ‘theory’ is wrong; it means the theory is incomplete. It might seem unfortunate that climate models did not over-predict the effects, in which case, we would have a little breathing room. As it stands, we do not. On the other hand, over-prediction would have generated far more skepticism and denial than we must overcome now.

The intersection of denialism and science has its roots in complex relations between mainstream (corporate) economics, political corruption, and social-psychological processes within particular groups. But that discussion awaits another post.

Kleptocracy Rising: The Short Eventful Life of the Corporate State of Trumplandia

Just about every Trumpeted nominee for high office has obvious conflicts of interest with upholding the public trust, no less the United States Constitution. At the core of the problem is their basic attitude toward government itself. They furtively frame their intentions in the most patriotic sounding rhetoric they can muster. However, they are corporatists; they would prefer that corporations run the country, not heaven forbid the people or our representatives. Don’t get me wrong; we have plenty of problems with our “representative democracy” itself.

trump-signing-exec-orders

Trump Orders Greatness

As it is, the corporations pay our legislative representatives to work for them, not for us. We pay their comfortable salaries, generous health insurance and pensions, but the corporations pay for what really counts – the right to write or at least dictate the writing of laws. Corporatists are inherently anti-democratic. They want the government to work in their interests alone, thereby maximizing their power. They used to call that fascism, which is synonymous with corporate tyranny.

Simply put, the Trumpeted nominees oppose the fundamental purposes for which the institutions they want to administer were established. Moreover, their core values directly contradict the very concept of public service. The obvious analogy to these Trumpist Trolls running the government would be putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. They want to eat the hens and tear down the henhouse. Plunder is their preference.

Most entrepreneurs are at least somewhat predatory. They seek opportunities to profit from the conditions around them. In doing so, they often build great companies providing great products to the public, or perhaps to the Defense Department – because it is profitable. Trump’s Trolls are a cut below…

The Trumpeting of Inauthenticity

Predatory corporatists are a different breed. They want a stable system that they can control. They have no interest in producing anything other than greater power for themselves – certainly not the public interest. Nothing is sacred to them, including ethics, other than acquiring more money and power. Only their self-righteousness matches their evil. These highly skilled opportunists are super-predators.

As if that were not enough, most of these Trumpists are corporate crooks or shills, with an occasional congressional bribe-taker or self-dealer thrown in. Of course, their outlook fits perfectly with that of their new boss. Their Trumpery is nearly transparent. I need not go into much detail here; they are all over the nomination-hearings news. The shortest way to summarize this attempted robbery of the commonwealth is this:

trumpery-dictionary-definition

Trumpery Defined

In each case, one form or another of the protection of the public from corporate predators is now under direct attack by the corporate kleptocracy itself, by Trump assigning activist predators the task of blatantly taking over – in order to disempower or destroy them – the institutions that were put in place to protect us from them. An anti-environmental activist will oversee environmental protection. A billionaire fundamentalist privatizer will oversee public education. The long-term CEO of Exxon-Mobile, poised to cut deals for petroleum profits at the expense of the health of the people and planet, will run the State Department. Rick Perry is to head the Department of Energy, which, although he could not remember its name at the time, he wanted to abolish, until nominated to direct it. The list goes on.

From One Great Transformation to Another

In 1944, Karl Polanyi explained in his now classic economic history of the rise of industrial capitalism, that the industrial revolution constituted a Great Transformation of society. A fundamental transformation of the relationship between society and economic activity was central to the process of industrialization.

Industrial capitalists invested large amounts in building factories in towns and cities. Industrial capital financed the “enclosure” of small traditional farms in the British Isles, combining them into larger tracts for the new industrialized agricultural operations, much of which would produce wool and other products for export. They simply evicted people who had worked the land for many generations under relations of mutual obligation with their land owners. People would have to buy the food they had formerly produced for themselves. The enclosures destroyed landed communities, their culture and traditions, along with their means of livelihood. Seeking new work to survive forced them to migrate near the new factories. This transformed society and caused great suffering along with increased production.

Polanyi pointed out that from the beginning, governments made efforts to protect society and its people from the damaging effects of predatory capital, beginning with the British poor laws. Later, in the U.S., the classic defense of the people against predatory capital was the New Deal and its legal protections from destructive speculation by the financial elites, which had crashed both the stock market and the economy with it. Those protections lasted until repealed by corporatist politicians like Clinton and Bush, who brought in Wall Street executives to run the U.S. Treasury and direct government economic policy. When it all collapsed in the Great Recession of 2008, their first and only impulse was to bail out the banks and other financial manipulators, not their victims, who were mere citizens.

It took a couple of centuries of the growth of industrial capital, but now we are at the culmination of the first Great Transformation, even as we feel the beginnings of a New Great Transformation that we have yet to properly recognize no less try to control. The system of predatory extractive capital driving an industrial-consumer society has reached its peak. Its sources of power are beginning to fade as resources deplete and the climate destabilizes. The industrial-consumer economy will either fade away or go out with a flash, in an accelerated race for what’s left of the planet’s resources, leaving its accumulated electronic funny-money increasingly worthless.

The Narcissist and the Other

It is perversely fitting, though tragic, that a narcissistic sociopathic predatory capitalist with pretentions of royalty should take the helm of the political system at this critical juncture in history. In the U.S., politics once formed the bulwark of protection of citizens and their land from the damage caused by the predations of extractive-industrial capital. That is what the New Deal, the poverty programs and the environmental protection laws were all about. However, the ascendancy of Trump and his Trolls does suggest that the financialized system of predatory corporate economic growth will more likely go out in a flash than simply fade away.

As Polanyi pointed out, economic activity had always conformed to cultural norms until the industrial revolution inverted the relationship between economy and society. Human values constrained economic behavior until the industrial revolution. The rule of industrial capital over society has grown stronger ever since. Now, the predatory economic system dominates even more powerfully, distorting culture and suppressing human rights. The corporate state compels society to fit its interests and its illusion of endless growth and power, bolstered by the fake science of mainstream economics. The utopian dreams of neoliberal economic theory, promoted in academia and the mass media, and funded by corporate benefactors, have penetrated the thinking of many people today. Such are the dreams of narcissistic sociopathy.

In the eyes of the Great Narcissist, we are all the Other; we are the Muslim, we are the immigrant, we are the racial or gender minority, we are the presumptively dangerous refugee, we are the Other America, we are the evil journalist who would dare to challenge “alternative facts.” We are all the Stranger, the Outsider, because we are merely the people. Remember, narcissism involves lack of empathy. Insensitivity to the needs of others breeds paranoia.

But a New Great Transformation has already begun. The damage done by the omnipresent economic machine has already reached proportions that make the continuation of that leviathan impossible beyond just a few more decades. Climate destabilization, along with financial crises, armed conflicts around the world, crop failures, droughts, floods, forced migrations of a magnitude unimagined by the xenophobic anti-refugee Trumpeteers of today, will bring it all down rather soon. Either the New Great Transformation will produce a new form of ecological human communities or it will spiral down into chaos and societal collapse. Right now, the odds are not looking good.

All the immigrant hating, racist, sexist, homophobic, disability-ridiculing, xenophobic, misogynistic, violence-encouraging demagoguery, we have seen before. It did not end well then and with the addition of the perverse denial of global warming and its imminent catastrophic consequences made into public policy, it will not end well now. Unless, of course, citizens everywhere rise up as they have in recent days at airports across the U.S. in outrage against persecutory anti-immigrant policies of disturbingly indecent and unconstitutional character.

The current kleptocracy will not likely survive very long. But will chaos and societal collapse be its legacy? Only if we let it.

Is California BERNing?

California could be the turning point. Or not… Growing numbers of Americans seek to live a parallel life by limiting their consumption as much as they can to low and no emissions products. But so much more is needed. California has led the nation in some of the steps it has taken against global warming, but giant steps lie ahead.

Californians are caught in an exceptionally severe drought. Water tables continue dropping. Its great cities depend on water from declining snowmelt and the oversubscribed Colorado River. At the same time, agriculture uses the vast majority of the state’s water, much in the wasteful manner it always has. The once fertile San Juaquin valley is polluted and under severe strain from over-use by industrial agriculture.

If any state epitomizes both the potential and the dangers we all face, it is California. Many trends of industrial consumerism begin and are fully realized in California, perhaps most notably the car culture. Much of the digital revolution, which has led to vast consumption of electricity by Internet “cloud” services, began and continues there.

As the urgency of achieving ecological sustainability grows, politics just gets crazier. The pundits babble over Trump’s brash buffoonery, including his pandering to climate deniers, as well as his peculiar popularity. Talking-heads question Hillary’s character as she waffles on various issues, including the climate, as she feigns a false populism and holds exclusive fundraisers for super-rich donors. They all try to ignore the exploding popularity of Bernie Sanders.  Yet we “feel the Bern.”

AParallelWorld.com (APW) is a website that brings environmentally conscious consumers together with vendors of minimal carbon-emissions products and services. It has avoided involvement in political conflicts or campaigns. But APW has now endorsed Bernie Sanders, the only candidate who publicly calls for major climate action. APW members are typically “sustainability voters” who want politicians to make urgently needed climate policy. Fear of the consequences of global warming has grown among all voters as climate facts have overcome climate denial propaganda.

Bernie_Slate.photoDespite media denial, the surge of public support for Bernie reflects an even broader public concern about global warming as well as social and economic justice. Bernie’s consistent record on diverse social justice issues has resonated with a growing number of voters. As the only candidate who refuses corporate contributions has become more widely known, so has his popularity.

Yet, because of the strange party politics of primaries, especially the DNC “super delegates,” pre-committed to Clinton, the increasingly clear preference of voters may not be realized. That is why the California primary is so important, with the large number of delegates at stake. The “political revolution” Bernie calls for must be achieved to move the nation anywhere near the halt to global temperature rise necessary for climate stabilization.

California at the Crux

Bernie supports local organic farming, which uses less water and does not use dangerous petroleum-based chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Industrial agriculture has so damaged California’s Central Valley – the bread basket of the nation – that only a revolution in farming practices can save it. Under the extreme growing conditions of severe drought, California agriculture is at great and growing risk; its productivity has already started to fall.

Californians have a very big stake in achieving the political revolution that Bernie Sanders calls for. California agriculture uses far more water than the cities or suburbs. Far deeper change than not-watering-your-lawns is needed to avoid the food production failures that agriculture-as-usual will allow to happen. The changes needed to seek a “future we can believe in” where the food chain is sustainable, require a political revolution.

The most important prospect right now to stabilize the climate and achieve economic sustainability is to realize Bernie Sanders’ political revolution. That, as Bernie regularly points out, is not just about Bernie becoming president. It is about mobilizing a broad public movement for change. If Bernie does not get the nomination, that will be much more difficult to achieve. That is why the California primary is so important.

Getting the nation to “feel the BERN” has been a long up-hill battle. Starting with very low name recognition, Bernie’s straight-forward message has resonated with voters as more people listen. If his views and policies had been as well-known at the beginning, he would probably have enough delegates now to clinch the nomination.

Overwhelming victories in the remaining states, especially in California with its large number of delegates, will place Bernie in a very strong position at the convention. Democrats know that in poll after poll, Bernie beats Trump be wide margins. At the same time, Hillary’s marginal lead over Trump has narrowed to a statistical draw.

With all her ethical and policy vulnerabilities, Clinton could very possibly lose to Trump. He is vulnerable too. Do we really want a president whose key business strategy is to file bankruptcy to avoid paying investors? With every appearance of being a narcissistic sociopath, the dangers of Trump’s unpredictability surpass even HRC’s risky neo-conservative interventionism and subservience to her Wall Street donors. Neither of them is capable of leading the kind of political revolution that is necessary to mobilize the people to make the fundamental changes required to mitigate climate disruption.

BERN, California, BERN

As Bernie has often said, this is not about Bernie Sanders; it is about all of us. The fight will go on, yet be so much harder if Bernie is not nominated. But go on it must, and it will not be easy in any case. Much of the work that needs to be done will involve the reestablishment of local and regional sovereignty over all matters of public health and welfare, including fracking, mining, and electricity generation.

At some point, early on, national-level policy transformation must be put in place to radically reduce carbon emissions nationally. No president can make Congress move on that, given the influence of corporate lobbyists, without a mobilized public consensus demanding action. The massive climate action that must be launched immediately, will not happen without a prescient president with a mass social movement to back him up.

There is just no way around it. The population will have to be mobilized to take the actions necessary to stabilize global temperatures. We must also undo much of the damage already done to the earth’s living systems upon which we all depend. But with Bernie Sanders in the White House, having trounced Trump, the political revolution to achieve national sustainability will be at hand. That is why we must hope that California is BERNing.

Renewables Transition: It’s Happening, But How, and is it Enough?

The report of the latest “Bloomberg New Energy Finance” (BNEF) annual summit in New York proclaimed on April 14, 2015 that fossil fuels had already lost the race against renewables. “The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there’s no going back.” The report by Tom Randall, published on the Bloomberg Web site, hedged no bets. It touted “the beginning of the end” for fossil fuel. The trends and forecasts clearly indicate a slow death for the buildout of new oil, gas, and coal fired energy capacity as “clean energy” capacity surges ahead over the next fifteen years. End of story? Well, not quite.

Not surprisingly, the Bloomberg forecast includes nuclear power in the clean energy category. Nuclear power advocates never do count the high environmental costs of uranium extraction, equipment manufacturing, or facility construction involved in nuclear installations. Not to mention the fact that the risks of nuclear power generation make such installations uninsurable unless the insurance is subsidized and guaranteed by the federal government. That is precisely because of the catastrophic proportions of a reactor meltdown and other risks. Nor do they consider maintenance and repair costs or the massive expenses associated with decommissioning worn out facilities.  Issues of storing the growing backlog of nuclear waste and its risks remain chronically unresolved. What’s clean about that?

At least the Bloomberg report implicitly acknowledges the complexities and time involved in building out nuclear energy capacity. It shows future nuclear buildout as rather small compared to that of new solar and wind capacity. However, we should also be concerned about the Bloomberg forecast for new gas-fired energy capacity. From 2015 to 2030 it is forecast to slow only slightly. Most new gas production results from fracking, with the result that total carbon emission is at least as bad as that for coal. The methane leaks alone should make it an unacceptable technology. So should the demonstrated damage to critical aquafers.  What’s clean about that? But wait, there is so much more.

New Economics of Energy Production

As we all know by now, the prices of wind and solar power continue to plummet, making them economically competitive with fossil-fuel sources. But the political economy is never that simple. Unfortunately, our future is not just about making rational decisions based on the evidence at hand. The myth of renewable energy sources being uncompetitive continues to be promoted, even by Bill Gates, who should know better. Entrenched corporate interests of investor owned utilities as well as the fossil fuel industry constitute a major drag on progress in converting energy production to low-emissions technologies.

Big investor-owned utilities continue to resist conversion to solar and wind sources of energy; their policy and planning criteria do not include the public interest.  Distributed solar photo-voltaic generation by residential and business customers is a threat to their monopoly power. They resist any loss of financial control of the energy markets over which, unfortunately for the public, they have been given legal monopoly power. The euphemism, “public utility” becomes absurd. They operate to maximize the guaranteed monopoly profits from expanded investments. The larger the investment, regardless of public need, the larger the profit. Nevada and New Mexico present particularly nefarious cases of obstructionism by investor-owned utility companies. Public utility “regulation,” agencies have failed to serve the public interest. They are embarrassingly compliant with the demands of the utilities they are supposed to oversee in the public interest. Energy is in its nature part of the nation’s commonwealth, but it is treated by “regulatory” agencies primarily as a legitimate source of private corporate profit.

In Nevada, NV Energy Inc., controlled by Warren Buffet’s giant holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, was successful in its heavily funded political campaign to dismantle the state’s net metering policy. Forty-two states have offered some form of net metering for residents who install solar panels to produce most of the electricity they use and “reverse meter” any surplus back into the grid. Many are now under attack.  Nevada’s elimination of its renewable energy credits resulted in 17,000 residents losing the economic benefits of having invested in renewable energy. The move has also cost the state some 8,000 solar jobs.

In New Mexico, Public Services of New Mexico (PNM) has been engaged in a public foot dragging exercise with regard to transitioning to renewables. It has received implicit and sometimes explicit support of most of commissioners on the state’s Public Regulatory Commission (PRC). PNM operates coal fired energy generating plants in the four corners area, where lung diseases and cancer – along with poverty – run rampant among Navajo residents. The Four Corners methane plume has been observed by orbiting satellites. Federal emissions requirements have led PNM to propose closing one of the obsolete coal-fired generators. But for their own financial reasons, PNM would keep the other operating, then “review” its continuation a few years down the line. Even if it were decommissioned after that review, the process would probably take a few more years before its environmental damage could be stopped.

The PNM plan also includes new long-term coal and nuclear commitments. Thus, the state of New Mexico and its people would be bound to continued high levels of carbon emissions and potentially huge legal liabilities resulting from PNM’s nuclear deal. A trivial gesture of adding little solar and wind capacity is also included in the plan. All but one of the commissioners either have engaged in behavior that any ethicist would call, at minimum, an “appearance of impropriety,” or have publicly indicated their political support for PNM prior to reviewing the case. The commission voted to approve the plan. Only one environmental group, New Energy Economy, has made serious attempts to stop the regressive proposal from being realized. The rest were coopted in secret negotiations with PNM and some state officials.

Renewable Energy Is Not Enough

The Bloomberg report rightly concludes that it “is no longer a matter of if the world will transition to cleaner energy, but how long will it take.” Therein lies the rub. Finance is a very big problem, and it is acknowledged by the BNEF report. Hundreds of billions of dollars are needed each year to finance just the amount of new renewable energy capacity sufficient to theoretically hold global warming to the demonstrably inadequate benchmark of 2 degrees Celsius.  Each year from 2008 to 2014, a decreasing proportion of the increasing billions in needed capital has been applied to new renewable energy buildout. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts a decline in new capacity from 2014 to 2020, or a paltry increase under an optimistic “accelerated case” scenario. Meanwhile, we find out that methane emissions, 90 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, have been undercounted for a long time. The Environmental Protection Agency has drastically increased its estimates of methane emissions in its draft 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

In all this, we find almost no public discussion of conserving energy and reducing waste. New scientific reports of accelerating climate-disruptive effects of global warming keep surfacing. For example, a new report from the University of Cambridge concludes that 78% of remaining wetlands will be wiped out by sea level rise this century. Many of the world’s great cities are on coastlines. Like island nations and delta populations such as those in Bangladesh, they too are at direct risk from rising seas. The result will be mass migrations forced by flooding. Yet, climate action rhetoric continues to be not only inadequate but is also in direct conflict with government economic policies of most nations. The continued promotion by all governments of economic growth of the only kind we have known is a sure path to defeat of any climate action. Only by curtailing growth, combined with energy conservation and suppressed consumerism, will we have a chance to restrain global warming enough to avoid catastrophic climate collapse. Then renewable energy can be part of a real solution. Yet the denial implicit in the omission of conservation and growth reduction from national and international policy discussions continues.

The Great Transformation or Collapse

The public policy priority of almost every nation remains on finding ways to stimulate economic growth, without any reference to the climate consequences. Some important non-conventional economists and others have pointed to the ultimate futility of a never-ending-growth economy: it will end. The accelerated warming of the earth is repeatedly documented in data released by NASA and other scientific sources. Despite the increasingly urgent situation, establishment politicians and economists are not listening. Even so, public awareness that the growth economy must be replaced by an ecological economy – on a planetary scale – is expanding. But nobody knows how to make the transition to zero-carbon/zero-growth ecological economics. Economies must now be developed ecologically, not grown further in the mode of conventional economics. That may be the most complex difficult challenge ever faced by humanity; nothing like it has ever been tried before – its scope is planetary and its urgency is absolute.

Such a complete transformation of national economies and indeed the global economy is an entirely unprecedented prospect. Most unfortunately, this transition must be made very quickly to avoid the gravest consequences of continued industrial civilization as we have it. The focus of every nation’s politicians, economists, and sociologists must be shifted one hundred and eighty degrees to developing strategies to radically transform the global economy. The prospects for widespread chaos are very high, even under conditions of maximum international cooperation and planning. Failing to achieve such a great transformation, we will join the sixth great mass extinction.

It is necessary to face the fact that the transition to an ecological economy will only be achieved by a radical transformation of society itself. The transition to renewable energy production technologies, important as it is, will be only a small part of the necessary New Great Transformation of the global political economy. Far less energy production than the industrial leviathan requires must support a far more constrained consumer economy than we have known.

We face a very hard choice: Best case is a massive social and economic transformation of society that may reduce emissions enough to avoid cataclysmic climate collapse. The ‘alternative’ case is the more likely modest conversion to renewable energy production with the industrial growth machine essentially in place – that would produce full-on climate chaos and societal collapse. Many who recognize the dangers of global warming still cannot wrap their minds around this reality. An ecological society cannot be a mass consumer society; it must hone in on the most essential and meaningful relationship to the natural world and shape social relations and economic behavior to fit that relationship. That will be far more comprehensive than Bernie’s political revolution. It will be a social revolution.