How can true "climate saviors" battle evil "climate devils" such as Manchin, Putin, Etc?
Divestment is a tool - Yes
Renewable Energy Sources are tools - Yes
Nuclear Energy is a tool - Yes
Political Action and Good Candidates are tools - yes.
There are many other tools. So what tools are currently in Bill McKibbens Tool Bag and how do we use them.
Bill, I hope you will consider reformulating the leadership and guidance panel for the Third Act as some of us feel we are not being properly utilized and the job getting done. How many Third Act members are there right now? How many chapters? Source and amount of funding?
We are witnessing the beginnings of a collapse of industrial civilization, not just in the US but in every country largely dependent on fossil fuels. And there is no prospect of getting any binding, enforceable agreement between the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Canada, Japan and the EU to rapidly decrease GHG by 50% in 8 years and get to near zero by 2050.
That means that earth's major nations will be fighting increasingly violent resource wars as they struggle to keep dying industrialized societies functioning. The war in Ukraine is the first of these wars but it will not be the last. While these wars are being fought, we will see new pandemics, massive immigration (and demands for walls and increasing violence to keep "them" out). Food shortages, homelessness, civil violence, even warlordism will become increasingly common as the old order breaks down.
We had a chance to become a global solar world at a high level of civilization but we were too addicted to fossil fuels and too under the control of the very wealthy & powerful. So now we will face the consequences: a series of collapses back to increasingly dark ages with far fewer humans on the planet.
Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Ministry for the Future" lays out what may prove to be a realistic vision of how grindingly difficult, chaotic, and protracted will be the global efforts to recover an even marginally hopeful climate future.
Given how much radical environmentalism was featured and even promoted in that book, I was really surprised that it advertises having the Obama book-list stamp of approval.
I think Obama found the book worthwhile because KSR's imagined future is: a) at least partially optimistic (i.e., no total collapse of civilization or human extinction) and b) because KSR seems to be envisioning some kind of financial approach (something like "green bonds") that would pay for a transition to a solar/wind/water power economy while heading off the very worst climate scenarios.
Again solar/wind/water economy is a silly fantasy. The only viable alternative to a fossil economy is nuclear. In fact the entire climate change debate is just silly. The real debate is about how fast to replace fossil with nuclear.
KSR is quite the optimist (even for a pessimistic future scenario). He assumes that somehow that nations & citizens of earth will somehow come together, create new financial instruments that finance a somewhat chaotic but still manageable transition to a society that could still be modern. I am much more pessimistic/realistic: I see something more like a deadly game of musical chairs where nations and regions fight over remaining resources in an overheated world riven with pandemics & a surging ocean & famines & lethal weaponry (just look at how armed the US is, both militarily and among the citizenry).
I would like to think that KSR is right - that finally a humanity desperate to survive and not plunge into a Mad Mad dystopia or new neolithic age will come to its senses. But so far I don't see any evidence.
I basically share your pessimisim about homo sapiens' future, based on our demonstrated failure to cope as a global society with our self-created and exponentially deepening crises, but I just don't want to accept that we really will sit by and watch the light die out.
I apologized to my granddaughter at her high school graduation for the mess of a planet we were handing over. She said "don't worry, Poppy, I got it!" I have to hope.
In some respects it depends on who "we" are. Clearly there will be smaller groups of people who struggle mightily to live a sane, sustainable life at some level of modernity. But whether they succeed, whether they are "overrun" by desperate humans willing to kill them and take their land/supplies, we just don't know.
Solar & Wind power are and have been a stupid and wasted effort. The big problem of solar and wind is all it really does is replace a bit of natural gas fuel worth 2 cents/kwh. And adds a lot of added infrastructure costs to that, like grid stabilization, storage, long distance 3-8X oversized transmission lines and inefficiencies in the shadowing fossil fuel power plants. What would solar PV cost if their manufacturers could only run on steady day shift? What do you think happens to NG/nuclear/coal/hydro power plants and the vast NG infrastructure when it has to fluctuate, operate reduced hours when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing? So end result even if you can sell solar and wind to the grid at 2 cents/kwh due to political edict (the utilities don't want the fluctuating unreliable solar & wind), it still is worthless. 2 cents/kwh fuel saving reduced by the problems I mentioned above, makes it worthless. You'd be much better off just running high efficient CCGT, far cheaper and same emissions. That explains why we already have rock solid proof that wind and solar is a complete waste of money. After spending well over $4 trillion worldwide on it with zero overall effect. A survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization.
Maybe it wasn't a good idea to rest our hopes on a political system designed to further and protect the personal business interests of a few white southerners? Asking for a friend.
Compare the GHG consequences of liquifying the comparable amount of American natural gas on the Gulf coast, shipping it across the Atlantic, and revaporizing and compressing it into European pipelines. How on earth can we possibly be considering this path?
It is a foolish pipe dream to believe US natural gas can even come remotely close to supplying European needs. The US will struggling to supply its own needs never mind Europe.
I think it is good to point out the corruption of the Manchin and his dirty energy money, but I think it also distracts from a deeper problem in the Democratic party itself. Big D's talk a big talk in the primaries to get all the progressives on board, then when it comes to pushing through the real legislation, putting serious pressure on holdouts like Manchin and Sinema, they roll over like wet noodles. Who does the democratic party represent, their corporate donors or their constituents? And at what point do we need to say to hell with it all and vote third party?
Yes I know, gotta vote against the big scary republicans, but if this is what we end up with then what have we really gained? I have voted Green Party since ever Obama led the troop surge into Afghanistan, bailed out the big banks, and tried to ram through the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership in his final days in office.
Progressives, if you ever thought Democrats would bring you fundamental climate legislation or green energy policy, I have bad news for you, you've been conned.
Manchin is worse than I thought. Why can't Biden and the Democrats lobby Collins, Murkowski, and Romney to join them, and maybe even Portman and Sasse. These people must have some decent cross-party friendships within the Senate, people who might be able to convince them that civilization depends on it, and that their names will be known to posterity for centuries if they support these efforts. (Or maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I prefer to think that these five GOPers are susceptible to logic and decency.)
1. The Constitution specifies two senators from each state, regardless of population. Thus, popular opinion is underrepresented in the Senate on every issue.
2. Mitch McConnell has established a stranglehold on the GOP senators. Thus, he can block anything he opposes.
3. The 2020 election resulted in a 50/50 Senate. Thus, Manchin has total power on any issue McConnell opposes.
The Democrats are not the main problem. It is McConnell's refusal to cooperate on climate policy that gives Manchin his power.
It is clear that Manchin is dedicated to petro-interests. Is there anything that would overrule this commitment? How about the fate of his children and grandchildren?
O Bill! May I call you Bill? Not only is this HEARTbreaking, I feel as if I'm going to exPLODE. !! Phenomenally ferocious fury. !! PFF! What can I DO, to help? What can WE do, to help? I don't know... currently older and somewhat dis-abled; however, I have PASSION and can connect via the internet. And so can A LOT of other folks! Grass level organization. How can WE add our voices... I don't know, IS there a group of old farts that is causing a ruckus re saving our beloved planet... and hence, the wee ones we love so much? Asking. LOVE your writing, BTW, dear Bill! Bless you for your voice, your mind and your heart. Grateful. And while we're at it -- how the bloody hell can we get that GINORMOUS sack of GOB from doing FURTHER damage... more grass roots voices of outrage-ness!?! O, my heart! PFF!
The US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is chaired by Joe Manchin, a coal baron from a mountain top removal coal mining state, lavishly supported by political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. John Barasso of Wyoming, the ranking minority committee member, represents a state whose economy rests on open pit coal mining. Just looking at the economic interests of some of the states represented on the committee - Alaska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana for example - begs a question:
How do we expect our government to implement energy policy that benefits the nation as a whole, when we empanel committee chairs and members so deeply in the pocket of the industrial interests that are dooming our planet? Should not the Democrats - at least - make committee assignments based more on members' scientific and engineering understanding of the committee area's underlying issues, and their independence from commercial influence?
I totally understand and share the fury and frustration about how single egocentric individuals can have such a deleterious effect on entire systems. We need to make the systems stronger so they can catch dysfunctions before they get too influential.
(For the next iteration, Bill, you might want to fix the typos that may have occurred in the speed of publishing the article: “Obama Biden adminsitration blocked on cliamt gorunds almsot a decade ago” and another in the WSJ title farther down.)
Important to note that @sludge complained (rightly) that the NYT took a lot of the journalistic work that they (@sludge) did last July/August, and gave no credit or links to that work.
Glad the work appeared in the NYT, of course. but not ethical on their part.
Nice write up Bill of the NYT piece.
How can true "climate saviors" battle evil "climate devils" such as Manchin, Putin, Etc?
Divestment is a tool - Yes
Renewable Energy Sources are tools - Yes
Nuclear Energy is a tool - Yes
Political Action and Good Candidates are tools - yes.
There are many other tools. So what tools are currently in Bill McKibbens Tool Bag and how do we use them.
Bill, I hope you will consider reformulating the leadership and guidance panel for the Third Act as some of us feel we are not being properly utilized and the job getting done. How many Third Act members are there right now? How many chapters? Source and amount of funding?
Thanks
George
We are witnessing the beginnings of a collapse of industrial civilization, not just in the US but in every country largely dependent on fossil fuels. And there is no prospect of getting any binding, enforceable agreement between the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Canada, Japan and the EU to rapidly decrease GHG by 50% in 8 years and get to near zero by 2050.
That means that earth's major nations will be fighting increasingly violent resource wars as they struggle to keep dying industrialized societies functioning. The war in Ukraine is the first of these wars but it will not be the last. While these wars are being fought, we will see new pandemics, massive immigration (and demands for walls and increasing violence to keep "them" out). Food shortages, homelessness, civil violence, even warlordism will become increasingly common as the old order breaks down.
We had a chance to become a global solar world at a high level of civilization but we were too addicted to fossil fuels and too under the control of the very wealthy & powerful. So now we will face the consequences: a series of collapses back to increasingly dark ages with far fewer humans on the planet.
Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Ministry for the Future" lays out what may prove to be a realistic vision of how grindingly difficult, chaotic, and protracted will be the global efforts to recover an even marginally hopeful climate future.
Given how much radical environmentalism was featured and even promoted in that book, I was really surprised that it advertises having the Obama book-list stamp of approval.
I think Obama found the book worthwhile because KSR's imagined future is: a) at least partially optimistic (i.e., no total collapse of civilization or human extinction) and b) because KSR seems to be envisioning some kind of financial approach (something like "green bonds") that would pay for a transition to a solar/wind/water power economy while heading off the very worst climate scenarios.
Again solar/wind/water economy is a silly fantasy. The only viable alternative to a fossil economy is nuclear. In fact the entire climate change debate is just silly. The real debate is about how fast to replace fossil with nuclear.
KSR is quite the optimist (even for a pessimistic future scenario). He assumes that somehow that nations & citizens of earth will somehow come together, create new financial instruments that finance a somewhat chaotic but still manageable transition to a society that could still be modern. I am much more pessimistic/realistic: I see something more like a deadly game of musical chairs where nations and regions fight over remaining resources in an overheated world riven with pandemics & a surging ocean & famines & lethal weaponry (just look at how armed the US is, both militarily and among the citizenry).
I would like to think that KSR is right - that finally a humanity desperate to survive and not plunge into a Mad Mad dystopia or new neolithic age will come to its senses. But so far I don't see any evidence.
I basically share your pessimisim about homo sapiens' future, based on our demonstrated failure to cope as a global society with our self-created and exponentially deepening crises, but I just don't want to accept that we really will sit by and watch the light die out.
I apologized to my granddaughter at her high school graduation for the mess of a planet we were handing over. She said "don't worry, Poppy, I got it!" I have to hope.
The only problem with our future is political corruption. Uber-rich vested interests do not want these problems solved, scarcity = big profits.
In some respects it depends on who "we" are. Clearly there will be smaller groups of people who struggle mightily to live a sane, sustainable life at some level of modernity. But whether they succeed, whether they are "overrun" by desperate humans willing to kill them and take their land/supplies, we just don't know.
Solar & Wind power are and have been a stupid and wasted effort. The big problem of solar and wind is all it really does is replace a bit of natural gas fuel worth 2 cents/kwh. And adds a lot of added infrastructure costs to that, like grid stabilization, storage, long distance 3-8X oversized transmission lines and inefficiencies in the shadowing fossil fuel power plants. What would solar PV cost if their manufacturers could only run on steady day shift? What do you think happens to NG/nuclear/coal/hydro power plants and the vast NG infrastructure when it has to fluctuate, operate reduced hours when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing? So end result even if you can sell solar and wind to the grid at 2 cents/kwh due to political edict (the utilities don't want the fluctuating unreliable solar & wind), it still is worthless. 2 cents/kwh fuel saving reduced by the problems I mentioned above, makes it worthless. You'd be much better off just running high efficient CCGT, far cheaper and same emissions. That explains why we already have rock solid proof that wind and solar is a complete waste of money. After spending well over $4 trillion worldwide on it with zero overall effect. A survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization.
Maybe it wasn't a good idea to rest our hopes on a political system designed to further and protect the personal business interests of a few white southerners? Asking for a friend.
Compare the GHG consequences of liquifying the comparable amount of American natural gas on the Gulf coast, shipping it across the Atlantic, and revaporizing and compressing it into European pipelines. How on earth can we possibly be considering this path?
It is a foolish pipe dream to believe US natural gas can even come remotely close to supplying European needs. The US will struggling to supply its own needs never mind Europe.
I think it is good to point out the corruption of the Manchin and his dirty energy money, but I think it also distracts from a deeper problem in the Democratic party itself. Big D's talk a big talk in the primaries to get all the progressives on board, then when it comes to pushing through the real legislation, putting serious pressure on holdouts like Manchin and Sinema, they roll over like wet noodles. Who does the democratic party represent, their corporate donors or their constituents? And at what point do we need to say to hell with it all and vote third party?
Yes I know, gotta vote against the big scary republicans, but if this is what we end up with then what have we really gained? I have voted Green Party since ever Obama led the troop surge into Afghanistan, bailed out the big banks, and tried to ram through the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership in his final days in office.
Progressives, if you ever thought Democrats would bring you fundamental climate legislation or green energy policy, I have bad news for you, you've been conned.
Manchin is worse than I thought. Why can't Biden and the Democrats lobby Collins, Murkowski, and Romney to join them, and maybe even Portman and Sasse. These people must have some decent cross-party friendships within the Senate, people who might be able to convince them that civilization depends on it, and that their names will be known to posterity for centuries if they support these efforts. (Or maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I prefer to think that these five GOPers are susceptible to logic and decency.)
How does Manchin have so much power?
1. The Constitution specifies two senators from each state, regardless of population. Thus, popular opinion is underrepresented in the Senate on every issue.
2. Mitch McConnell has established a stranglehold on the GOP senators. Thus, he can block anything he opposes.
3. The 2020 election resulted in a 50/50 Senate. Thus, Manchin has total power on any issue McConnell opposes.
The Democrats are not the main problem. It is McConnell's refusal to cooperate on climate policy that gives Manchin his power.
It is clear that Manchin is dedicated to petro-interests. Is there anything that would overrule this commitment? How about the fate of his children and grandchildren?
O Bill! May I call you Bill? Not only is this HEARTbreaking, I feel as if I'm going to exPLODE. !! Phenomenally ferocious fury. !! PFF! What can I DO, to help? What can WE do, to help? I don't know... currently older and somewhat dis-abled; however, I have PASSION and can connect via the internet. And so can A LOT of other folks! Grass level organization. How can WE add our voices... I don't know, IS there a group of old farts that is causing a ruckus re saving our beloved planet... and hence, the wee ones we love so much? Asking. LOVE your writing, BTW, dear Bill! Bless you for your voice, your mind and your heart. Grateful. And while we're at it -- how the bloody hell can we get that GINORMOUS sack of GOB from doing FURTHER damage... more grass roots voices of outrage-ness!?! O, my heart! PFF!
See the basic facts:
https://email.mg1.substack.com/c/eJxVkttuozAQhp8m3AX5wPHCF0nbaIkKVaoo3fQG-TABEzAsmGTZp1-32ZuVxmPp13h-eb6R3ELVjwsb-sl6X6m0ywDMwH1qwVoYvXmCsdSKERSHJEo8xVBMZCw8PZWXEaDjumXeMItWS251b76KMQqIVzOgFKUiwhKFSXQRSUIE4CANYkV5GhL5cOSz0mAksN60SzlwrbyW1dYO04puVmTnwnIthPanWUyWy6sv-86pgzsdgF3bGtYSzNSPoNayHvW0rkFV4BrsbH8Fs6LPsOyxJKflJ2mvWdMv-bPEeXMOXp_2d0EL9E_H-fGFFseKFstd848dctrvojkExXET5s3L4uoHSXP9pvd39ZHZ_LhBuc6mzBT4rLMoM9ubpAcru1N9pu-DIIG-HPzzYX8NP2_jukt_DbftqenHpA5_vP6RA366JJ_t22n7Tu6Z3Z497YZNCKIkIRRTgn3iJwKlaSCUiELOY0n9xJBbquNuFaCuwv9NxhtZw69Qz-7_Aaq-AH3LjlHp7m422i4lGC5aUMyOM3j2sQDfMMsKDIxuMVTJLcNRkIQoJZikKXrwcnxDjOMwiWPP-arevTLsgegv7cTGeg
Underlying it all:
https://email.mg1.substack.com/c/eJxVkttuozAQhp8m3AX5wPHCF0nbaIkKVaoo3fQG-TABEzAsmGTZp1-32ZuVxmPp13h-eb6R3ELVjwsb-sl6X6m0ywDMwH1qwVoYvXmCsdSKERSHJEo8xVBMZCw8PZWXEaDjumXeMItWS251b76KMQqIVzOgFKUiwhKFSXQRSUIE4CANYkV5GhL5cOSz0mAksN60SzlwrbyW1dYO04puVmTnwnIthPanWUyWy6sv-86pgzsdgF3bGtYSzNSPoNayHvW0rkFV4BrsbH8Fs6LPsOyxJKflJ2mvWdMv-bPEeXMOXp_2d0EL9E_H-fGFFseKFstd848dctrvojkExXET5s3L4uoHSXP9pvd39ZHZ_LhBuc6mzBT4rLMoM9ubpAcru1N9pu-DIIG-HPzzYX8NP2_jukt_DbftqenHpA5_vP6RA366JJ_t22n7Tu6Z3Z497YZNCKIkIRRTgn3iJwKlaSCUiELOY0n9xJBbquNuFaCuwv9NxhtZw69Qz-7_Aaq-AH3LjlHp7m422i4lGC5aUMyOM3j2sQDfMMsKDIxuMVTJLcNRkIQoJZikKXrwcnxDjOMwiWPP-arevTLsgegv7cTGeg
Remember that Chris Hedges was fired by the NYT;
And for deeper background, have a listen: https://popularresistance.org/michael-hudson-us-dollar-hegemony-ended-abruptly-last-wednesday/
Nuclear isn’t going to happen in any timeframe or scale to make any difference
Not to take anything away from the seriousness of this article, I just find it hard to resist correcting the typos. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G0NWd0wNehTfyCBoAtUAyOOkpKW5sfSMy_WNmJwSDxQ/edit?usp=sharing for a corrected version. Bill, you just need to drop your final text into Google Docs because it found all these typos (in red).
The US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is chaired by Joe Manchin, a coal baron from a mountain top removal coal mining state, lavishly supported by political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. John Barasso of Wyoming, the ranking minority committee member, represents a state whose economy rests on open pit coal mining. Just looking at the economic interests of some of the states represented on the committee - Alaska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana for example - begs a question:
How do we expect our government to implement energy policy that benefits the nation as a whole, when we empanel committee chairs and members so deeply in the pocket of the industrial interests that are dooming our planet? Should not the Democrats - at least - make committee assignments based more on members' scientific and engineering understanding of the committee area's underlying issues, and their independence from commercial influence?
I totally understand and share the fury and frustration about how single egocentric individuals can have such a deleterious effect on entire systems. We need to make the systems stronger so they can catch dysfunctions before they get too influential.
(For the next iteration, Bill, you might want to fix the typos that may have occurred in the speed of publishing the article: “Obama Biden adminsitration blocked on cliamt gorunds almsot a decade ago” and another in the WSJ title farther down.)
Important to note that @sludge complained (rightly) that the NYT took a lot of the journalistic work that they (@sludge) did last July/August, and gave no credit or links to that work.
Glad the work appeared in the NYT, of course. but not ethical on their part.