Getting serious about climate change
For some time now, I have been trying to find a way to explain the sheer size of the climate change dilemmas. If merely pointing out the massive size were not a big enough problem by itself, the politicization of an engineering-industrial design-progressive economics matter made things worse.
So after a bunch of false starts, I have made a short video that approaches things from a "your roof has a hole in it and it needs to be repaired" perspective—only this time it's "the machinery that supports your lives is ruining the atmosphere and oceans and MUST be replaced!"
In case the underlying economics of this video sound unique, rest assured that it is as accurate a representation of the Institutionalism first postulated by Thorstein Veblen about 120 years ago. Veblen was one of those frontier economists who based their beliefs on observations of people trying to create some sort of prosperity from some very harsh prairies and wilderness. Generally speaking, they were the best of the "development" economists because most of what they observed happened right out their windows. So this is especially relevant if we want to create a new society that doesn't also destroy the biosphere.
This video covers the main points I had in mind:
1) The science of climate change is overwhelming.
2) The reasons why climate change is so difficult to address are mostly structural and technological.
3) Only a massive building effort can alter these structural problems.
Comments
Excellent video
Shared it on Facebook
Thank you!
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
@mhagle Thank you. This video was
Thank you. This video was just a crazy amount of work so I am happy someone appreciates it. And yes, spread the word. It may contain some of the most progressive economic assumptions since the 1920s, but I am willing to bet we can even get Trump supporters to buy into them. (I hope)
If we want to be a real Progressives, we simply must offer solutions to real problems.
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.
The pigs will never allow anyone to address this shit.
They'd rather let the planet and every living thing on it die than give up their unending profits.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Actually, there are many folks addressing climate change
Many people have worked very hard to bring down the price of solar cells from $75 per watt to $0.75. Statoil is investing major money in offshore wind. India and China have serious renewable programs. Even the Saudis are building massive solar farms.
Yes indeed, the pigs have slowed things down and made progress harder than it would otherwise be, but the tide has turned. Oil and coal have been magnificent fuels but it's damn hard to compete with free sunlight.
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.
There are some things this video can point out --
that would improve it as a video.
1) It could point out that the problem with "upgrades" isn't "sticker shock" (because after all governments can just print money to afford anything they want, such as the Pentagon's weapons arsenal). Rather there needs to be an ecological assessment of manufacturing the new technology as an additional problem to be solved. We'd probably be better off just manufacturing new, electric, engines and implanting them in old cars -- or better yet by just getting rid of the cars altogether, and everyone not using emergency transit would use mass transit. Upgrading indefinitely is no solution because the society of cars is a society in which everyone will have to want a car to compete economically and we will need a massive development of some sort of energy sources to make that happen.
2) It could point out that the immediate and obvious problem with the "cheap solar" theory is that we are not measuring "cheap solar" by assessing the environmental costs of developing enough solar power to run the world according to its current, profligate, energy diet. Rather, we've measured "cheap solar" according to how much it costs in money -- and money is this malleable social convention.
3) It could change its position, arguing that the primary problem with climate change is not technological ("massive building project") but rather finding the finding the political and economic will to stop extracting fossil energy sources at some scheduled later point in time. The builders will be sufficiently motivated to work for mass survival once the goal of a sustainable society is established. The goal of a sustainable society has not been established.
4) It could argue further that climate change is not caused by "humans" per se, but rather by some humans, operating in the context of a particular system of political economy, i.e. capitalism. It could point out that the initial "practical problem" solved by developing the present-day massive fossil-fuel-extraction infrastructure was one of how to profit and get rich under capitalism. It could suggest that another system of political economy might be necessary if the problem is to be solved at all.
5) It could credit Spencer Weart's book on the history of climate change where credit is due.
6) It could pronounce Svante Arrhenius' name correctly (the "h" is silent).
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Good points
1, 2) How much all this would cost, and how the money could be provided is a topic that I have intense interest. And quite honestly, I cannot cover this subject in less than 90 minutes. And yes, building necessary things is never inflationary because money is validated as the first act. And yes, there are real costs (resource depletion, waste, pollution) and money costs. Unfortunately, more people are interested in money than the environment. (sigh)
3) If we do not provide alternative sources of energy, simply cutting off the supply of fossil fuels will produce chaos. Yes indeed, I remember the angry gas lines of 1973-74.
4) I know absolutely no one who doesn't need and use carbon-based energy. So I made a conscious choice not to point fingers. Truly, we all in this together!
5.6) I chose Arhennius out of several choices for cultural and timeline reasons. Actually, I don't actually care who was "first." I am not British, after all. But yes, you are right on the pronunciation of Arrhenius.
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.
I don't see this as a problem.
The money thing is easy. Just print it. That is, after all, what the US does to fund Pentagon weapons systems. The banks absorb the excess money through Treasury bills, keeping inflation low. That's what they do now. Are you panicked about hyperinflation now? Is anyone? I didn't think so.
"Gas lines" were the symptom of an economy unprepared for a shortage. An end to fossil fuel extraction will be a planned event. It won't be a problem; but enough people have to be on board to make it work.
Pointing fingers is a great move, especially when the fingers are pointed at the fossil fuel industry and its biggest supporter, global capital! We might all be in this together, but we are not all in it the same way, or to the same extent. The bottom third of the economic pyramid has at most a marginal claim to any participation in the system; I certainly wouldn't blame them.
You have read the Weart book, no?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
The money thing is NEVER easy
Or Peter Cooper would have become president in 1876, Bryan would have never lost to Grover freaking Cleveland, the leaders of the non-Partisan League would have never been jailed in 1917, etc. The Money question dominated politics in USA from Franklin on. It's actually, really hard.
I took a run at explaining the primary thrust of the 19th-early 20th century monetary arguments back in 1987. We might agree after all.
http://www.elegant-technology.com/ETsix.html
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.
Good Video!
Thank you for producing it and posting it here. I learned some things I didn't know, and obtained a slightly different understanding that I had had previously. I will share it on!
If you're poor now, my friend, then you'll stay poor.
These days, only the rich get given more. -- Martial book 5:81, c. AD 100 or so
Nothing ever changes -- Sima, c. AD 2020 or so
i agree in many ways wih cassiodorus,
but his guardian article on the carbon footprint of a car linked to *other carbon footprints*, which sadly did not cover the carbon footprints of manufacturing solar panels nor giant wind generators (which i assume are either metal or plastic).
the other externalities of those products are these: i)the chokehold of the rare minerals needed for battery power storage, usually gained by war and plundering in nations outside the US, and ii) the poisons sent into the atmosphere by the production of plastics.
another consideration is that in the US, the largest carbon footprint is the military, and i assume that might mean in the 1000 global bases as well. while for a short time the military used biofuels to try to fly their planes, it was still a crap solution, of course. but what can solar and wind do for jets? one of my main chiches w/ the big green climate gods like klein and mckibben was that neither ever told the truth about the military and co2 ppm. but then they were both rockefeler foundation-funded, so they wouldn't, would they?
now had there been the will 30 or 40 years ago when climate change first became theorized, any of your alternative energy sources might have made some difference, and honestly examined for sustainability and actual carbon footprints and other externalities that might have been mitigated in time.
dunno if you'd read any of my three part climate chaos series here ('part III: water' is two diaries below yours), but as far as i can tell, it's all over but the choking, starving, rising seas, and dying of thirst already, and the 6th extinction is baked in already.
but of course, opinions will vary. best to you, jonathan.
wd
I thought your articles spectacular
And I believe we mostly agree here. I just have a different focus. Since we are blaming climate change on human activity, I have focused on the human activities that have made the problem almost impossible to address. We Institutionalists borrow from sociology and cultural anthropology all the time
Climate change is a scientific, engineering, and economic problem. It is NOT a political problem so ignore the politicians.