The Long Ecological Revolution

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:25 pm

Texas infrastructure nears complete collapse as capitalist neglect meets climate change-driven winter storms
Liberation Staff - TexasFebruary 16, 2021 1818 9 minutes read

Download PDF flyer https://flyer-generator.herokuapp.com/? ... osts/91539

This article was written by Liberation News staff from across the state of Texas.

A winter storm of historic proportions is causing critical infrastructure failures across the state of Texas, with another winter storm approaching tonight. The full weight of the devastation isn’t yet known, but initial reports from across the state are showing disturbing patterns. Four million or more Texans are without power. Outages that were initially called “rolling outages” are now lasting several days. The private non-profit corporation that oversees the electric grid is now admitting that they are “unable to predict” when conditions will stabilize. Millions of people are stranded in unheated homes, with no power and no way to move safely to shelter, in temperatures that are currently colder than parts of Alaska and Siberia.

The spectacular failure of the power grid and historic low temperatures have exacerbated other infrastructure problems and collided with other forms of local and state neglect. Bursting water pipes have caused the evacuation of entire apartment complexes as ice-cold water forces residents to flee into snow-covered streets. Mutual aid groups across the state scrambled to get bus tickets and supplies to homeless camps that were left to die by municipal governments, with hours counting down before the streets became undriveable or curfews were enforced. Residents who need shelter are being asked to make reservations over the phone and make the trek themselves, even though local governments have not cleared the streets for driving and public transportation is not running. Cities which lost power at their water treatment facilities are asking residents who also don’t have power to boil their water to make it potable.

City, state, and private entities alike are deflecting blame, claiming that there was nothing they could have done. “You can’t predict the weather” and “We all need to conserve energy” are common refrains. But the weather was absolutely predictable, and experts and activists alike have been warning that Texas is in danger of exactly this kind of complete infrastructure collapse. However, major cities such as Austin, Houston, and Dallas have all found ways to keep empty office buildings and corporate HQs in their gentrified downtown areas lit. This week, Texans are facing a man-made, capitalism-crafted catastrophe that has left the whole state feeling quite literally powerless.

Liberation News gathered reporting and analysis of this crisis from writers from across the state.

Austin

About 200,000 residents are without power or heat according to officials. 40% of Austin Energy customers are without power. Media was initially reporting that the city was experiencing “rolling blackouts” lasting no longer than 40 minutes. However, a Facebook post by Austin City Councilmember Greg Casar contradicted the narrative:

I would not call these “rolling blackouts.” These outages are not “rolling” from one part of the city to another, because basically *all* of the circuits that Austin Energy thinks they can turn off at this time are currently turned off. That is, there are not ‘groups’ that are being turned off and on. AE has turned everything off they think they can right now, because of the statewide requirements.

Some places still have power because the circuits are a) shared circuits that contain critical infrastructure like a hospital or 911 call center, or b) the circuit can’t feasibly be all turned off without risk to the system of not turning back on.


AE General Manager Jacqueline Sargent says there’s no clear answer as to when power will be fully restored; they have already reached the “max limit” of available energy to disconnect from the grid to being affected residents back on. She said, “Basically we’re stuck here.”

The City of Austin opened up some shelters after the winter storm had started, but most were located downtown or in central Austin, and the city provided no means of free transportation to the shelters. Public transportation was at first limited, and then suspended, leaving independent mutual aid groups scrambling to hand out hundreds of bus passes to homeless camps that were left without any help by the city. Those attempting to get to cold weather shelters faced police violence from cops dispatched to “exclusion zones” around the transportation staging areas, and at least one person, a homeless Black man, was arrested.

The city of Pflugerville, near Austin, has issued a boil-water notice because a power outage affected the functioning of the water treatment center. It is not clear how residents who also don’t have power can be expected to boil their water.

Houston

1.3 million Houstonites are without power. Citizens were told leading up to the storm that “rolling blackouts” would be put into effect to avoid overwhelming the grid. Despite monthly payments to the power company, Houstonites began losing power in the middle of the night on Feb. 14. The following morning, CenterPoint Energy, Houston’s main power supplier, Tweeted:

Unfortunately, if you are a customer who is currently experiencing an outage, you should be prepared to be without power for at least the rest of the day.

These outages are not “rolling blackouts.” No information on when “rolling blackouts” are to occur has come forth, only sudden, indefinite outages.

Winter storms happen regularly enough for the Gulf coast, but Houston homes are notoriously poorly insulated, and Houston’s power is historically unsound. A Houston resident reports, “Anecdotally, I’ve lost power more times here [before this storm] than anywhere else I’ve lived, including Latin America.”

Houston’s urban sprawl and poor public transportation have made travel to safe locations nearly impossible. Shelters for homeless people during the storm are practically non-existent. Police are reportedly “collecting” homeless people haphazardly, allegedly as a means of “assistance.”

Dallas/Fort Worth

As the storm hit Fort Worth on the morning Feb. 11, a poorly maintained stretch of I-35 was the scene of an extremely deadly pileup crash involving over 130 vehicles. At least six people died and dozens more were injured. Many were trapped inside their cars or pinned in a frightening mountain of auto wreckage. Rescue crews could hardly access the site due to black ice. The Texas Department of Transportation is to blame — they could have prepared the roads for safe transportation, but did not take these precautions.

On Feb. 12, as freezing conditions continued, a warming station for the homeless was announced — with no information about how this announcement would be disseminated to the unhoused or how they would be transported to the center. The American Airlines Center, where both the Dallas Mavericks and Stars play, continues to have power as part of the ERCOT “critical infrastructure” grid, but it has not been opened for the homeless or others without power.

Late on Feb. 14, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages 90% of the state’s electricity, announced that there would be “rolling power outages” in order to “conserve power.” People were told that they would only be down 15-45 minutes. As of the afternoon of Feb 16, many thousands of people have been without power for over 24 hours.

In the morning on Feb. 16, a “water boil advisory” was announced for over 200,000 North Ft. Worth residents and nine surrounding cities after a water treatment plant lost power. As with other cities issuing boil-water advisories, the residents who most need to boil their water are the ones with the least access to this update and the least ability to boil anything.

Apartments have flooded across the city as freezing pipes burst. Due to vacancies, evictions and tenants abandoning apartments for warmth, pipes are bursting in empty cold units, flooding tenants’ homes downstairs. Reports are already out that Black and Latino neighborhoods have been hit the hardest by outages, as well as by faulty pipes and lack of water and heating that has gone unmaintained by slumlords.

San Antonio

According to CPS Energy, the energy company that services San Antonio, 300,000 people are experiencing power outages at a time as they institute “rotating blackouts.” That amounts to over one third of CPS customers.

CPS originally told customers that they would be “rotating outages so customers would only face 15 minutes every hour without power.” This was soon revised to 45 minutes off, with some areas having “conditions even tighter.”

Across the city, however, Liberation News has not spoken to a single person that has experienced only the “rolling blackout” type conditions that CPS described. Outages are much more sustained for those without power, and one source reported 30 straight hours without power. After over a day without power, the temperature inside their home is scarcely different from the temperature outside.

Residents are also outraged after seeing downtown office buildings and unnecessary infrastructure such as the AT&T Center basketball arena with consistent power while the people suffer through dangerous conditions. CPS Energy expects the outages to continue throughout the week, warning that the situation could potentially extend beyond that.

In addition to the widespread power outages, thousands of residents in San Antonio have also lost access to water. Yet the San Antonio Water System is placing the responsibility on individual homeowners, claiming there was no instance of systemic failure.
As of the afternoon of Feb. 15, SAWS hadn’t experienced any water or sewer line breaks, a spokesman said. There’s no way of knowing how many residents are dealing with plumbing problems because of the deep freeze, he said. If residents are without water, it’s because of problems within their own homes.

MySanAntonio.com
They do admit on their website that some areas may experience “low water pressure in some areas.”

However, this contradicts what SAWS customers are experiencing. In the Highland Park neighborhood, at least an entire block of homes were without water despite many of them reporting they had followed the precautionary measures recommended by SAWS.

This crisis is yet again creating shortages and runs on necessary items for survival. Tremendous lines at local grocery stores are queuing up as residents wait to buy water, propane and other supplies. Under capitalism, our ability to survive is directly connected to our ability to pay.

Texas’ independent power grid and “free market” principles are to blame

Many states have overburdened, overpriced, and underserviced infrastructure, but Texas’ obsession with “independence” from regulation has made its infrastructure uniquely vulnerable to collapse. This is crystal clear in the power grid, which is notorious for blackouts even in “normal” times.

Most of the U.S. power grid has been under federal regulation since the Federal Powers Act of 1935, but Texas skirted federal regulation by isolating its power grid. By not crossing state lines, Texas was not engaging in “interstate commerce,” and therefore could not be regulated. The “wild west” level of deregulation was a disaster from the beginning. After a major blackout in November 1965, ERCOT was created to manage grid reliability.

Texas often claims this makes the state more “independent” of other states and entities for power. However, Texas has had no problem importing energy from Mexico when it is convenient, as they did during a massive winter storm and power outage in 2011. Texas’ grid system only grants corporations “independence” from accountability, while fostering dependence on exploitative power companies on its residents.

ERCOT is not a public entity but a private, “non-profit” corporation, though it enjoys the “sovereign immunity” typically granted to public entities (the only grid manager in the country to enjoy this immunity). It ensures the “reliability” of Texas’ power grid not by public construction of necessary energy, but by trying to “maintain confidence in the electricity market,” i.e. constructing data and projections that will entice for-profit companies to build plants and infrastructure.

ERCOT’s Board of Directors is made up of power industry representatives who mostly live outside of Texas. Even with no government funding, ERCOT reported nearly $232 million in revenues in 2018. They have seen five of their employees, all the way up to the chief information officer and director of information technology, sent to prison for a fake billing scheme. But every step of the way, ERCOT has fought outside audits.

ERCOT is expected to regulate a conundrum: power prices need to be high enough to entice generators to construct new power plants, but low enough for electric providers to turn a profit. By 2008, Texans in some parts of the state were paying nearly 30% more than the nationwide average for power, but power prices were still too low to entice new power plant construction. The net effect of this “balancing act” has been a looming shortage of power, strain on the critical infrastructure, rolling blackouts even in “good times” and ever-increasing electric prices for Texans, all courtesy of the clashing of for-profit motives of the power generators, providers, and hype-men of the “free market.”

How can massive infrastructure failure be avoided in the future?

There are other challenges on the horizon involving potential price gouging of critically needed energy supplies. As of the night of Feb. 16, it is not clear what will be decided, whether Gov. Greg Abbott’s call for regulating ERCOT will be successful, or what that would even mean for Texans who already distrust Abbott’s anti-worker, anti-regulation agenda. What we do know is that a return to the status quo, if it is even possible, is unacceptable.

If ERCOT is serving a public regulatory function, then it cannot also be a private entity dominated by energy executives and unaccountable to the public. Likewise, if the power industry at large is providing a public necessity – and clearly it is – then this industry needs to be brought under public control.

We need immediate cessation of fossil fuels and transfer to renewable green energy. On the “demand” side, the climate change caused by fossil fuels is the direct cause of the extreme weather that strained the power grid to its breaking point. On the “supply” side, the power shortages came primarily from failures with fossil fuel and even nuclear power. Initial rumors tried to blame the shortage of power generation on “unreliable” wind turbines, but most of the lost power came from fossil fuels.

The disaster preparedness and response of cities is also failing spectacularly due to city and state governments’ anti-homeless initiatives, over-reliance on the nonprofit-industrial complex to provide what should be public services, and blasé attitude toward evacuation and shelter. If Texas took an example from Cuba, we could have an entire statewide network of community shelters with locally appointed community leaders directing and accounting for the safety of all our people.

These initiatives could be easily implemented, but would require a drastic, socialist-oriented revolutionary approach that reverses course on Texas’ disgusting profit-above-all-else directive. When the storm clears, Texas workers need to be willing to fight for the changes we want to see. We must demand that our infrastructure be put under public control for the public good, because our lives depend on it!

https://www.liberationnews.org/texas-in ... rationnews

"There's so much shit in Texas you're bound to step in some.", J Winter, 'Dallas'
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:02 pm

Without socialism replacing capitalism as the organizing principle of the economy these admonishments are a wasted effort.
Image

UN Report: Action Needed Now to Solve Triple Emergency
February 18, 2021

Urgent appeal to end the ‘senseless and suicidal’ war on nature by transforming social and economic systems

Making Peace With Nature, a new report published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), synthesizes findings from recent global assessments, including those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and others. It proposes what the authors’ call “a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies.”

Image
Click to download full report: https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature

Introducing the report, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “Humanity is waging war on nature. This is senseless and suicidal. The consequences of our recklessness are already apparent in human suffering, towering economic losses, and the accelerating erosion of life on Earth.”

The report says the Earth faces a Triple Emergency: climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Lead author Robert Watson says the three issues “are all interrelated and have to be dealt with together. They’re no longer just environmental issues — they are economic issues, development issues, security issues, social, moral and ethical issues.”

This summary of the report’s Key Messages was prepared by UNEP.

Summary

*Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution add up to three self-inflicted planetary crises that are closely interconnected and put the well-being of current and future generations at unacceptable risk.
*Ambitious and coordinated action by governments, businesses and people around the world can prevent and reverse the worst impacts of environmental decline by rapidly transforming key systems including energy, water and food so that our use of the land and oceans becomes sustainable.
*Transforming social and economic systems means improving our relationship with nature, understanding its value and putting that value at the heart of our decision-making.

Unsustainable development is rapidly degrading Earth’s capacity to sustain human well-being

*Human prosperity and well-being – now and in the future – depend on the careful use of the planet’s finite space and remaining resources, as well as on the protection and restoration of its life-supporting systems and capacity to absorb waste.
*Current social, economic and financial systems fail to account for the essential benefits we get from nature and to provide incentives to manage ecosystems and natural capital wisely and maintain their value.
*Over the last 50 years, the global economy has grown nearly fivefold, due largely to a tripling in extraction of natural resources and energy that has fuelled growth in production and consumption. The world population has increased by a factor of two, to 7.8 billion people, and though on average prosperity has also doubled, about 1.3 billion people remain poor and some 700 million are hungry.
*Piecemeal and uncoordinated action on climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution is falling far short of what is needed to prevent environmental decline. That failure is threatening humanity’s future and putting the Sustainable Development Goals out of reach.

The world is failing to meet its commitments to limit environmental damage

*The world is on track for warming of at least 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. That means missing the Paris Agreement target to keep warming well below 2°C and try to limit the increase to 1.5°C in order to avoid the worst impacts.
*None of the global goals for the protection of life on Earth and for halting the degradation of land and oceans have been fully met. Deforestation and overfishing continue, and one million species of plants and animals are threatened with extinction.
*While we are on course to restore the Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone layer, there is much to be done to reduce air and water pollution, safely manage chemicals, and reduce and safely manage waste.

Environmental decline is eroding progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals

*The burden of environmental falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable. Wealthy countries export some of the impacts of their consumption and production to poorer nations through trade and waste disposal.
*Environmental change is undermining progress on ending poverty and hunger, providing clean water and sanitation, reducing inequalities and promoting sustainable economic growth, work for all and peaceful and inclusive societies.
*The deteriorating state of the planet threatens the achievement of health and well-being for all. Around a quarter of the global burden of disease stems from environment-related risks including animal-borne diseases (such as COVID-19), climate change, and exposure to pollution and toxic chemicals. Indoor and outdoor air pollution cause up to 7 million premature deaths per year.
*Environmental risks such as heatwaves, flooding, drought and pollution hamper efforts to make cities and other human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Earth’s interrelated environmental emergencies must be addressed together

*The interconnected nature of climate change, loss of biodiversity, land degradation, and air and water pollution means they must be addressed together to maximize the benefits and minimize trade-offs.
*Meeting the Paris Agreement targets requires more ambitious national climate commitments and rapid transformations in areas including energy systems, land use, agriculture, forest protection, urban development, infrastructure and lifestyles.
*By lowering the degree of warming, quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes it easier and cheaper to adapt to climate change and protect progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.
*The loss of biodiversity can be halted and reversed by expanding protected areas and providing space for nature while also addressing the drivers of degradation such as changing land and sea use, over-exploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species.
*The adverse effects of chemicals and waste on the environment and human health can be substantially reduced by fully implementing existing international conventions and further strengthening the scientific basis of global policymaking and regulation.

Human knowledge, ingenuity, technology and cooperation can transform societies and economies and secure a sustainable future

*System-wide transformation can achieve well-being for all within the Earth’s capacity to support life, provide resources and absorb waste. Transformation involves a fundamental change in the technological, economic and social organization of society, including worldviews, norms, values and governance.
*Major shifts in policies, governance, regulation, incentives and investment are key to just and informed transformations. Opposition to change can be defused by redirecting subsidies to support alternative livelihoods and new business models.
*The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout show the grave risks from ecosystem degradation as well as the need for international cooperation and greater social and economic resilience. Ensuring investments triggered by the crisis support transformative change is key to attaining sustainability quickly.

Transformed economic and financial systems can power the shift to sustainability

*Governments should incorporate full natural capital accounting into decision-making and incentivize businesses to do the same. Yardsticks such as inclusive wealth are superior to gross domestic product for measuring sustainable economic progress.
*Governments should include natural capital in measures of economic performance, put a price on carbon, phase out harmful subsidies, and redirect some of the more than US$5 trillion in annual subsidies to fossil fuels, non-sustainable agriculture and fishing, nonrenewable energy, mining, and transportation towards supporting low-carbon and nature friendly solutions. Investments in nature-friendly solutions and technologies in areas including water and food production can help mobilize the investments needed to attain the Sustainable Development Goals.
*Shifting taxation from production and labour to resource use and waste is important to promote a circular economy that uncouples prosperity from pollution and favours job creation.
*Developing countries need more support to address environmental challenges, including access to low-interest finance in order to build their capacity and overhaul accounting systems and policy frameworks.
*Reducing inequalities and the risk of social conflict from environmental degradation requires steps to promote equity and address individual and community rights to property, resources and education.

Everyone has a part to play in the transformation to a sustainable future

*All actors have individual, complementary and nested roles to play in bringing about cross-sectoral and economy-wide transformative change with immediate and long-term impact.
*Through international cooperation, policies and legislation, governments can lead the transformation of our societies and economies.
*The private sector, financial institutions, labour organizations, scientific and educational bodies and media as well as households and civil society groups can initiate and lead transformations in their domains.
*Individuals can facilitate transformation by learning about sustainability, exercising their voting and civic rights, changing their diets and travel habits, not wasting food and resources, and reducing their consumption of water and energy.
*Human cooperation, innovation and knowledge-sharing will create new social and economic possibilities and opportunities that can generate shared prosperity and expanded well-being in the transformation to a sustainable future.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2021/0 ... emergency/

This is absolutely maddening. Obviously acceptable to the capitalist powers for it's broad ambiguity, it reads like something on npr. Not surprisingly because the funding comes from the same sources. Touches damn near all the bases without assigning specific responsibility anywhere, like a natural disaster, it just happened. Very pleasing to the masters of the universe who have become the richest class in history precisely through the practices which have brought the planet to this perilous condition.

All of this sanctimonious bullshit aside only the substitution of the meeting of human need over private profit is going to get us out of this jam as best as can be. Which implies a lot of things and replacing capitalism with socialism is at the top of the list. To expect those who have brought us to this impasse to reverse their behavior, and nothing less would do, is stupid. They will tweak their behavior for 'optics' but will never sacrifice significant profit to the commonweal. Their understanding of how the world is supposed to work precludes any other result. So it's capitalism or nature, socialism or barbarism, however you want to put it, revolution or death.

Edit: "capitalism or barbarism", jfc...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Mon Mar 01, 2021 3:12 pm

Image

Ecosocialism versus degrowth: a false dilemma
Posted Mar 01, 2021 by Eds.

Originally published: Undisciplined Environments by Giacomo D'Alisa (February 9, 2021) |

In a recent article Michael Lowy ponders if the ecological left has to embrace the ecosocialist or the degrowth ‘flag’; a concern that is not totally new. Lowy is a French-Brazilian Marxist scholar and a prominent ecosocialist. Together with Joel Kovel, an American social scientist and psychiatrist, in 2001 he wrote An ecosocialist manifesto, a foundational document for several political organizations worldwide. Thus, entering into a discussion with Lowy is not a simple academic whim, but a demand that many politically-engaged people of the ecological left are wondering about.

Recently, members of an ecosocialist group within Catalonia en Comù, part of Unida Podemos (itself part of the centre-left coalition governing Spain), invited me to debate about the end of the economic growth paradigm. This hints that ecosocialists are interested in degrowth vision and proposals. On the other hand, during talks, speeches and discussions I have participated in, I also have noted that ecosocialist projects intrigue and inspire many degrowthers. Indeed, people on both sides feel they are sister movements. The following reflection is a first and humble contribution to making the two come closer.

In the above-quoted article, Lowy supports an alliance between ecosocialists and degrowthers, and I cannot but agree with this conclusion. However, before justifying this strategic endeavour, he feels the necessity to argue why degrowth falls short as a political vision. He narrows down his critical assessment to three issues. First, Lowy maintains, degrowth as a concept is inadequate to express clearly an alternative programme. Second, degrowthers and their discourses are not explicitly anti-capitalist. Finally, for him, degrowthers are not able to distinguish between those activities that need to be reduced and those that can keep flourishing.

Concerning the first critique, Lowy maintains that the word: “degrowth” is not convincing; it does not convey the progressive and emancipatory project of societal transformation that it is needed; this remark echoes with an old and unsolved debate for many. A discussion that Lowy should know, as well as those that have followed the last decade of degrowth debate. Sophisticated criticism has mobilized the American cognitive linguist and philosopher George Lakoff’s study about framing. Kate Rowarth, for example, suggested to degrowthers to learn from Lakoff that no one can win a political struggle or election if they keep using their opponent’s frame; and degrowth has in itself its antagonic vision: growth. Ecological economists supported the same argument in a more articulated way, suggesting that for this reason, degrowth backfires.

On the contrary, my intellectual companion Giorgos Kallis, back in 2015, gave nine clear reasons why degrowth is a compelling word. I want to complement them with one more. Looking at the search trends in Google (figure below), after ten years, degrowth keeps drawing higher levels of attention worldwide than ecosocialism. Perhaps ecosocialism can result clearer at a glance. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the populace will be immediately convinced. Indeed, the ecosocialist concept also has similar and possibly worse problems of framing, given the post-Soviet aversion to “socialism”, but this cannot mean we should abandon the term. The recent upsurge of popularity in the U.S. of “democratic socialism” suggests that the negative association of a term can be overcome.

Image
Google trends of degrowth and ecosocialism. Source: Author’s elaboration.

Ecosocialists, as degrowthers, must keep explaining the actual content of their political dream, the label is not sufficient to explain it all. Our mission is un-accomplished; granted, in some contexts, ecosocialism will result in a more straightforward message, but in other degrowth could result more convincing. For the ecological left, more frames could be more effective than just one; and, using the most appropriate in different contexts and geographies is very probably the best strategy.

Noteworthy is that these different frames share core arguments and strategies. So let me move to Lowy’s second criticism, the supposed discrepancy between ecosocialists and degrowthers about capitalism. According to Lowy, degrowthers are not sufficiently or explicitly anti-capitalist. I cannot deny that not all degrowthers self-define as anti-capitalists and that for some of them stating it is not a priority. However, as Kallis already clarified, degrowth scholars are increasingly grounding their research and policies in a critique of capital forces and relations. Furthermore, Dennis and Schmelzer have shown that degrowthers widely share the belief that a degrowth society is incompatible with capitalism. And Stefania Barca has delineated how articulating ‘degrowth and labour politics toward an ecological class consciousness’ is the way forward for an ecosocialist degrowth society.

To these arguments, I want to add an observation. In their 2001 ecosocialist manifesto, Lowy and Kovel affirmed that in order to solve the ecological problem, it is necessary to set limits upon accumulation. They go on clarifying that this is not possible while capitalism keeps ruling the world. Indeed, as they and other prominent ecosocialists affirm, capitalism needs to grow or die. This effective slogan is probably the most explicit anti-capitalist sentence written in the ecosocialist manifesto, and I can maintain that most of the degrowthers would undersign this statement without hesitation –even more in pandemic times, when the existing capitalist system seems to be predicated upon the slogan: we (the capitalists) growth and you die! Indeed, it is ever-more evident that inequality is increasing dramatically during this period. If these observations are accurate, then degrowthers and ecosocialists agree more than disagree, and together with many others in the ecological left camp, share the same common sense: a healthy ecological and social system beyond the pandemic is not compatible with capitalism.

Lowy’s last criticism is that degrowthers cannot differentiate between the quantitative and the qualitative characteristics of growth. At first sight, it seems a step back to the lively discussion in the 1980s about the difference between growth and development. However, I am sure that Lowy and other ecosocialists are well aware of the critical assessment many Latin America thinkers have done of development and its colonial legacy (see here and here, for example). So, I will interpret this criticism in a more general term: it is essential to be selective about growth, and clarify what sectors need to grow and which need to degrow or even disappear. Nothing new under the sun, I could say. Peter Victor in 2012, when he was developing no-growth scenarios for facing the threat of climate change, discussed the selective growth scenario showing its modest and short-term effects for mitigating climate change. Serge Latouche, in his 2009 book Farewell to growth, argued that the decision about selective degrowth cannot be left to market forces. And Kallis explained that growth is a complex and integrated process, and thus it is mistaken to think in terms of what has to increase and what has to decrease.

It is an error to use degrowth as synonymous of decrease (as Timothée Parrique discussed extensively), and to think that what is considered ‘good’ things (hospitals, renewable energy, bicycles, etc.) need to increase without limits as the growth imaginary commands. Those that perpetuate this logic, as Lowy seems to do, stay in the growth camp. Doing so, Lowy did not follow his suggestion of paying more attention to a qualitative transformation.

In an ecosocialist society, orienting production towards more hospitals and public transport, as Lowy suggests, does not imply overcoming the growth logic and its predicaments. A degrowth society, with a healthier lifestyle and more ecological care, probably would not need so many more hospitals. Indeed, as Luzzati and colleagues found, the increase in per-capita income correlates significantly with the increase in cancer morbidity and mortality. In a degrowth society, people would fly very much less, and this could help to diminish the speed of pandemic contagions. Agro-ecological systems will encroach fewer habitats; both these qualitative changes in societal arrangement could imply less necessity to increase the number of intensive care units.

On the other hand, increasing more and more of a ‘good thing’ such as bikes in a city is not entirely positive: as in the case of Amsterdam, where walkers felt lack of space because of the enormous number of bikes in public spaces; or China (see image below), where tens of thousands of bike have been dumped because the growth-led prospect of the shared bike in cities resulted socially and ecologically problematic, the city counsellor decided to cap bike growth and regulate the share sectors. In sum, the idea of selective (de)growth does not help to unlearn the growth logic that still persists amongst many in the ecological left camp. What is needed is, indeed, a qualitative change in our mind, in our logic and our performative acts.

Image
A bicycle graveyard in Wuhan in 2018. Photo: Wu Guoyong. Source: South China Morning Post

Ecosocialists and degrowthers are less far apart than Lowy’s article hints. Both visions are moving forward along the same path, learning from each other in the process. Discussing some thesis or policies that one or the other is proposing will help to improve and clarify their visions, and make them less questionable at the eyes of the sceptics and indifferent people. A meaningful dialogue will help us to make our arguments and practices widely commonsensical. Ecological leftists have not to decide which is the best and the most comprehensive discourse between ecosocialism and degrowth. These visions, I tried to argue above, indeed share core arguments, and both contribute to building persuasive discourse and performative actions.

On the contrary, creating a false dilemma is not very useful for our everyday struggles. In 2015, with some colleagues, we suggested exploring the redundancy of six different frameworks (Degrowth, Sustainable Community Movement Organizations, Territorialism, Commons, Social Resilience and Direct Social Actions) for relaunching more robust and comprehensive initiatives against the continuous expansion of capitalism and environmental injustices. We concluded that fostering redundancy more than nuance should motivate the promoters of these approaches if the general aim is to effectively relaunch robust and less aleatory alternatives to capitalism. In other words, we call for focusing on the consolidation of what all these approaches have in common, not just what they diverge on. This suggestion is also valid for ecosocialists and degrowthers.

It is undoubtedly crucial that both ecosocialists and degrowthers continue refining their discourses, practices and policies for advancing toward an ecologically-sound and socially-fair world free from patriarchal, racial and colonial legacy. Nevertheless, it is equally important that they map the redundancies of their views to improve the effectiveness of their shared struggle at various scales.

Giacomo D’Alisa is a FCT postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra, Portugal, where is part of the Ecology and Society Working Group. D’Alisa is founding member of the Research & Degrowth collective in Barcelona, Spain.

https://mronline.org/2021/03/01/ecosoci ... e-dilemma/

'Ecosocialism' is implicit in scientific socialism. I suppose a poor understanding of history and relentless anti-communist propaganda for generations has made the term necessary for respectability, but that condition is over-rated, imho.

'Degrowth' is not something you hear much outside of fat and sassy 'First World' countries. Wonder why that is? Nations who have experienced the enforced 'degrowth' of colonization may beg to differ and demand the ability to improve their people's standard of living. 'Degrowth' implies denial of just that ability and will never fly for the majority of humans who are poor and dream of not living hand to mouth.

But when we attach 'degrowth' to capitalism then we are getting somewhere. The waste and abuse required by functioning capitalism and it's attendant imperialism is the issue. The litany of capitalist's practices to be 'de-grown' is extensive: the war machine, especially that of the US which spends(and pollutes) at the scale of a medium-sized country and produces nothing of human value; the accumulated wealth of the ruling class; advertising(labor, material, energy) which impels excessive consumption; suburban/automobile culture; planned obsolescence, if you gotta have a car why shouldn't it last for 20-30 years in stead of six? ; for that matter the whole idea of disposability for convenience(yes, bring back returnable bottles)) And so forth, I'm sure you can add others. Many of these issues are direct or indirect results of capitalism responding to overproduction. Produce with the goal of meeting human need, desist the rest of those bad practices and then see where we stand instead of telling folks that mud hut is for their own good.

Serious transfer of wealth and technology to the formerly colonized is absolutely necessary. The screaming example is 'carbon' which that First World built it's wealth and dominance with. If you want to ask nations possessing those resources to keep them in the ground you better be able to substitute means of meeting human need to the level enjoyed by the former colonizers, anything less will reek of hypocrisy.

'Degrowth' should always have 'capitalism' in the same sentence.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:41 pm

DECLASSIFIED UK REPORT
UK TRIED TO GET ITS CLAWS ON LITHIUM AFTER THE BOLIVIAN COUP
10 Mar 2021 , 2:43 pm .

Image
The Uyuni salt flat is key in Bolivia's lithium reserves (Photo: AFP)

There are many occasions when the Foreign Office of Great Britain (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) has been involved in an interventionist and lucrative plot against sovereign countries targeting their own interests and, above all, those of their corporate bosses, who they tend to share or subordinate themselves to American interests.

Only the colonial experiences in Africa, America and Asia were enough for the whole world to know the behavior of what was in the 19th century the greatest imperial power on the planet, subject to the arrogance and calculations of the British capitalists, today led by the City (London's Wall Street) and sectors of the class that promote inequality in much of the globe.

A recent report by British journalist Matt Kennard for Declassified UK provided evidence on the corporate work carried out by the British embassy in Bolivia together with the dictatorship of Jeanine Áñez after the coup against Evo Morales in 2019, being a key actor even in the achievement of the overthrow and subsequent persecution of the members of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS).

Foreign Office documents obtained by Declassified UK show that Britain saw, in the new Bolivian regime backed by the most reactionary army groups, killing dozens of pro-MAS and anti-fascist protesters, as an opportunity to open up lithium deposits. from Bolivia to UK companies.

The report mentions that "a list of projects for a program of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bolivia called 'Frontline Diplomatic Enabling Activity' was seen, which the UK government describes as a 'small amount of money that [embassies ] they receive and have the authority to spend on projects that support [the embassy's] activities, "including of course facilitation to their raw material companies.

BULK LITHIUM
That is why everything must begin by saying that Bolivia is the second country with the largest reserves of lithium , also known as "white gold", being a key metal used in batteries and increasingly important for the global automotive industry.

Why is the UK interested in lithium from Bolivia? His government announced that lithium-based battery technology was a priority of its "industrial strategy", investing tens of millions of pounds in the "development of batteries for electric cars".

In addition, he already estimated that South America contains 54% of the world's lithium reserves, a resource so necessary for the "green energy" industry generally developed in countries of central capitalism. For the UK, it could mean a "£ 2.7 billion opportunity" if its diplomatic service did the job of securing tenders.

In the case of the last dictatorship in Bolivia, the agreements came after the previous government of Evo Morales signed a contract with a Chinese consortium to carry out a project of almost 3 billion dollars in the productive sector of lithium. British interests, with Áñez, prevailed over Asians, dishonoring the previously established compromise.

Specifically, the British embassy in Bolivia had created a technological project prior to the 2019 coup with the ability to efficiently produce extractable lithium from the reserves that rest in the Coipasa and Pastos Grandes salt flats, a plan that was launched with hundreds of thousands of dollars a week as soon as the MAS was overthrown and persecuted by the military dictatorship.

BRITISH MOVES
According to Declassified UK's findings, the British Foreign Office appears to have paid an Oxford-based company, called Satellite Applications Catapult, to optimize the exploitation of Bolivia's lithium deposits via satellite, one month after installed the dictatorship.

There also appears to be some kind of "synergy" between the British government and the Oxford company, as well as a good institutional relationship with the risk management company Watchman that had served Africa with "creative solutions" to bring mining companies will work "without conflict" with the native populations and that was proposed to the Bolivian State, with Áñez as the highest authority, in March 2020, to begin activities in Bolivia.

Watchman, reports journalist Kennard, is a company started in 2016 by Christopher Goodwin-Hudson, a British Army war veteran and former CEO at Goldman Sachs, which has clients in the extractive and agribusiness sectors who have trouble operating because of the resistance. local.

As in the United States, certain companies are intimately intertwined as contractors with the state, contributing to the political careers of officials who promote them in overseas business and operating co-operation on behalf of the diplomatic services of the United Kingdom.

At the same time that the British embassy in Bolivia put its corporate pieces in the lithium sector, Declassified UK shows a series of documents in which 16 more projects financed by the diplomatic mission are described.

Prior to the coup, says Kennard, the Foreign Office had already compiled information and experience on the lithium industry under development in Bolivia during the government of Evo Morales, which was a test of the practices that were enthroned during the de facto government of Áñez unscrupulous.

In addition, it had also done intelligence work in Argentina and Chile, which together with Bolivia make up the "lithium triangle", since they have most of the American reserves of the raw material in question. It was necessary for Bolivia to have a regime "friendly" to the United Kingdom so that British businesses would not have obstacles of any kind, since the Morales government did not take into account the standards of the London Metal Exchange, which designates, among other things, prices international metals such as gold, silver ... and lithium.

ACTIVITY BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE BLOW
The British embassy was promoting, months before the coup against Morales, the cyber defense services to the Bolivian bankers of a company called Darktrace, set up by MI5 , the domestic security service, and an intelligence agency, GCHQ.

What Declassified UK emphasizes here is that the UK embassy brought a cybersecurity company with close and open ties to the CIA and NSA to Bolivia in March 2019, eight months before the military coup, as well as a tank of thought, Chatham House, whose main funders are the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, the British Army and the oil companies BP and Chevron.

All this taking into account that other usual operators in destabilization actions were expelled years ago by Evo Morales of Bolivia, US agencies such as the DEA ( in 2008 ) and USAID ( in 2013 ), for conspiratorial activities against the Plurinational State.

Likewise, the Kennard report says that the British embassy provided data to the already discredited report of the Organization of American States (OAS), which it presented in order to undermine the results of the presidential elections that had given Evo Morales re-election in 2019 and that served as a pretext for the military coup. As it did?

The media affirms that the Foreign Office documents reveal that the British embassy financed an electoral observation mission with 8 thousand pounds sterling in the framework of the Bolivian elections of 2019 and that it was vital in the issuance of data and information to the false report of the OEA.

Also, said embassy notes that the Thomson Reuters Foundation (the same that financed in the middle of the 20th century by the British government ) gave more than 9 thousand pounds sterling to the recruitment and training of around thirty journalists in order to make an "independent coverage. "of the elections. We already know why the UK government finances media and NGOs: self-interested destabilization for destitutional purposes (see the Venezuela case).

These elements were combined to create the ideal scenario for the coup, which gave the United Kingdom a leading role in the international intervention for Bolivian lithium.

After the coup, Bolivia reversed all the anti-imperialist policies of the MAS and considered the British government as a "strategic ally." By March 2020, the Áñez dictatorship had invited 12 UK companies to the country; British officials highlighted the role of businessmen from Santa Cruz (the most anti-MAS region of Bolivia, key in the overthrow of Evo) in bringing English capital to Bolivian soil.

Although the Foreign Office considers that it currently has good relations with the current administration of Bolivia, it is worth considering the role that the British government maintained in order to claim lithium as its own over a country that has been building its sovereignty and development with the support of the MORE.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/re ... en-bolivia

Google Translator

Too political for this thread?

It's all political, it's all class war. The Green New Deal is class warfare, anything which supports the survival, the expansion of capitalism(it must!) is class warfare. The existence, much less the expansion of capitalism is the ultimate enemy of human civilization's survival, which is dependent upon maintaining, or sadly in our current circumstances, re-establishing, our species' metabolic relationship with our environment. The longer it takes, the longer capital exploits and despoils, the longer and harder our return to survivability.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Mar 13, 2021 12:35 pm

The financialization of environment protection
March 11, 2021
Pollution markets and green finance are forms of profit accumulation, not practical tools for sustainable development.

by Riccardo De Cristano

Image

“Business as usual is killing us” [1]

Recent years have seen the rise and expansion of new financial instruments aimed to create a positive impact on society. One peculiar instrument, green bonds, is facing enormous growth, and we can notice how it is becoming a popular type of investment.[2] Through its mechanisms, even if a universal definition of what a green bond does not exist, investors can raise profits and provide positive outcomes for the environment.

Market-based solutions to address environmental problems are not new. Robert Coase, in 1960, was the first one to propose a “third way” between regulation and taxation to address the “negative externalities.” A few years later, J. H. Dales suggested to control Great Lakes pollution through market solutions instead of central planning: “each polluter decides for himself by how much, if at all, he should reduce his wastes.”[3] Once proposed the pollutants’ amount per year, economic actors would decide by themselves how to reach the goal, trading their allowances in this newly constructed market.

Commodification of pollutants is the neoliberal answer[4] to environmental problems: the State (and the elected representatives) has only to set a cap, a limit in this new arena, letting market agents decide how to solve the problem.

Even if Ronald Reagan — the father of neoliberal policies — strongly opposed any environmental program, his successor George Bush Senior developed and implemented the Clean Air Act, the first nation-wide trading emissions market, aimed to reduce acid rains through a market-driven cut in SO2 emissions. This should not be a surprise. Starting from the 80s, we saw the rise of environmental market liberals[5] such as Julian Simon, who participated in the right-libertarian Cato Institute. Moreover, Bush Senior’s ecological agenda was crafted by Project 88, a think-thank, composed among others by representatives of Chevron, Monsanto and other big corporations, also helped with his Clean Air Act overhaul.[6]

Before moving forward, we must question the ethical implications of this policy. By selling and trading their emissions, companies were buying the right to misbehave, creating a dangerous precedent, as many journalists saw then.[7] Besides, since this “right” is actually based on the financial capacities of the actors, “commoditization of pollution puts richer countries and communities at an advantage and creates an abuse in a global common that the state has a responsibility to protect.”[8] Despite these moral concerns, and despite the greater success achieved by European countries through legislative curbs on SO2 emissions,[9] market-based solutions are at the core of contemporary environmental policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Finance plays a pivotal role in addressing climate change.

However, as IMF’s authors note, investors currently have little interest in green financial products even with recent growing numbers. Market-based solutions are not working: there is still a “large gap between the private and social returns on low-carbon investments is likely to persist into the future, as future paths for carbon taxation and carbon pricing are highly uncertain, not least for political economy reasons. This means that there is not only a missing market for current climate mitigation as carbon emissions are currently not priced, but also missing markets for future mitigation, which is relevant for the returns to private investment in future climate mitigation technology, infrastructure and capital.” Moreover, green investments “are additionally exposed to important political risks, illiquidity and uncertain returns, depending on policy approaches to mitigation as well as unpredictable technological advances.”[10]

Even if scientific evidence proves the danger of global warming, investing in decarbonization is unprofitable because it is too risky. This paradox is explained by the IMF’s authors: “Adding climate change mitigation as a goal in macroeconomic policy gives rise to questions about policy assignment and interactions with other policy goals such as financial stability, business cycle stabilization, and price stability. Political economy considerations complicate these questions. The literature does not provide answers yet.”

In fact, current European monetary policies rely on price stability, open markets and free competition, as listed on ECB’s statute: there is no room for public intervention, political dependency and deficit spending, even to address climate change.

A gap then exists between the current economic policies and mainstream economic thought and what should be done for the environment. For example, in 2018, Paul Romer and William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize in Economics “for addressing some of our time’s most basic and pressing questions about how we create long-term sustained and sustainable economic growth.”

While Paul Romer describes himself as a “climate optimist,”[11] Nordhaus does not seem concerned about the need for immediate action, permitting much more CO2 to be released in the atmosphere than a policy that mandates temperatures staying below a 2.5ºC rise forever.[12] In fact, the mathematical model he used to forecast the impact of global warming on the economy shows “that damages are 2.1% of global income at 3 °C warming and 8.5% of income at 6 °C warming.”[13]

As Steve Keen sarcastically pointed out:

“Everyone … should just relax. An 8.5 per cent fall in GDP is twice as bad as the “Great Recession”, as Americans call the 2008 crisis, which reduced real GDP by 4.2% peak to trough. But that happened in just under two years, so the annual decline in GDP was a very noticeable 2%. The 8.5% decline that Nordhaus predicts from a 6 degree increase in average global temperature … would take 130 years if nothing were done to attenuate Climate Change, according to Nordhaus’s model …. Spread over more than a century, that 8.5% fall would mean a decline in GDP growth of less than 0.1% per year. At the accuracy with which change in GDP is measured, that’s little better than rounding error. We should all just sit back and enjoy the extra warmth.”[14]

The link between capitalist mode of production and carbon emissions appears unbreakable, even in contemporary mature economies. We should therefore view pollution markets and green finance as new forms of capitalist profit accumulation, rather than practical tools to achieve sustainable development.

The UN includes inequality reduction among its Sustainable Development Goals, but neoliberal policies rely on inequality by design, so it should surprise no one that a UN’s report[15] denounces rising disparities between the “one per cent” and the rest of the world. Moreover, a financial investment requires a profit target for the investors: so any green investment that provides a more significant monetary payoff to investors rather than local populations cannot be seen but as unsustainable, at least in a short period. The richest 1%, as OXFAM shows, is “responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget — twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population.” To reduce this “climate injustice” caused by neoliberal political choices, the non-profit organization suggests “special taxes or bans for high carbon luxury goods and services … [and a] broader income and wealth redistribution … while prioritizing efforts to ensure everyone can realize their human rights.”[16]

Another SDG concerns justice. In 2012, the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples strongly opposed REDD+, a forest management program to mitigate climate change, denouncing its intrinsic injustices and the peril of reducing “the beauty of a waterfall or a honey bee’s pollen” to a price tag.[17] Apart from this polanyan “double movement” against the commodification of lands, they raised crucial questions about the lack of democracy and local empowerment of this kind of top-down initiatives, admitted even by UN, and about the nature itself of carbon trading: this mechanism allows pollutants to emit greenhouse gases while using the green economy to enforce North-South dependency, as in Myanmar.[18]

As the IMF working paper says, an inconsistency exists between capitalistic policies and environmental needs. We should then analyze these type of investments through shareholders’ value theory rather than through stakeholders’ value theory, treating green finance products like regular investments made in a highly financialized economy to seek and redistribute profits among the investors. It cannot be otherwise, since t “the financial system is a set of ordered economic relations, comprising markets and institutions with characteristic profit-making motives which are necessary to support capitalist accumulation.”[19] Green finance can ultimately be seen as another characteristic of monopoly capital’s financialization, where financial institutions replace public provision even for the environmental protection.

So, as long as carbon markets and green finance in general produce a profit, they “work” even while failing to reduce emissions.[20] What’s more, they let investors appear to value environmental protection. It is not surprising, then, that the Financial Times suggests that carbon markets are like the papal indulgencies that Luther fought.[21]

The solution to global warming depends on democratic control and economic planning. There is no alternative.

Riccardo De Cristano is a PhD Student in Economic Anthropology at the University of Bologna. He really likes cats.
Notes

[1] Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, “A Threat to Holocene Resurgence Is a Threat to Livability,” in The Anthropology of Sustainability (Springer, 2017), 51–65.

[2] https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2178 ... es-in-2020

[3] John H. Dales, Pollution, Property and Prices. Edward Elgar Publishing, 1968, p. 92

[4] Donald MacKenzie, Material Markets: How Economic Agents Are Constructed (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2009), 141.

[5] Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne, Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment (MIT press, 2011).

[6] https://climateandcapitalism.com/2014/0 ... apitalism/

[7] Brian Tokar, Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash (South End Press, 1997), 37.

[8] Charlotte Streck, “Who Owns REDD+? Carbon Markets, Carbon Rights and Entitlements to REDD+ Finance,” Forests 11, no. 9 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090959.

[9] An historical account of global SO2 emissions can be found in Steven J Smith et al., “Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: 1850–2005,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11, no. 3 (2011): 1101–16.

[10] Signe Krogstrup and William Oman, “Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of the Literature,” 2019.

[11] https://paulromer.net/conditional-optim ... d-climate/

[12] https://voxeu.org/article/how-we-create ... -laureates

[13] William Nordhaus, “Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 10, no. 3 (2018): 333–60.

[14] https://evonomics.com/steve-keen-nordha ... economics/

[15]https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/01/10 ... %20Tuesday.

[16] Tim Gore, “Confronting Carbon Inequality: Putting Climate Justice at the Heart of the COVID-19 Recovery.” 2020.

[17] https://redd-monitor.org/2012/06/19/no- ... d-the-sky/

[18] UN-REDD, “UN-REDD Programme Framework Document,” 2008, 4, https://www.unredd.net/documents/founda ... 008-4.html. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2020/0 ... n-myanmar/

[19] Costas Lapavitsas, Profiting without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All (Verso Books, 2013), 37.

[20] https://www.transportenvironment.org/ne ... s-eu-study

[21] https://www.ft.com/content/fe1c35db-6fb ... 069b8e182e

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2021/0 ... rotection/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:20 pm

Can ‘ethical investing’ save the world?
March 15, 2021
Superbanker Mark Carney quotes Oscar Wilde on value and price, but ignores his socialist conclusions

Image

Mark Carney
VALUE(S): Building a Better World for All
Penguin Random House, 2021

reviewed by Michael Roberts

Image

Canadian born Mark Carney was formerly the governor of the Bank of England – the best paid governor ever at £680,000 a year plus £250,000 housing expenses. Carney recently commented that “You don’t get rich in public service”!

Before that Carney was governor of the Bank of Canada, becoming the youngest central bank governor in the G20 nations. And before that he was 13 years at, guess where, Goldman Sachs, where he played a prominent role in advising the black majority government of South Africa on issuing international bonds and he was active for the company during the Russian debt crisis of 1998. Goldman Sachs made billions from these activities as the South African and Russian economies dived. And Carney made a fortune at Goldman Sachs.

When asked recently whether he considered working for this investment bank “built a better world for all,” given its reputation as the “vampire squid of finance,” he responded “It’s an interesting question. When I worked for Goldman Sachs it wasn’t the most toxic brand in global finance, it was the best brand in world finance.” So he left just in time, it seems.

Recently he was asked what he thought was his greatest achievement at the Bank of England. His answer: “A more inclusive decision-making process with a more diverse staff.” So more diverse bankers – a great achievement. No wonder Carney has had many accolades bestowed on him by the great and good: he was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2010, the world’s most trusted Canadian by Readers’ Digest in 2011, and hailed as Britain’s most influential Catholic by The Tablet in 2015. And he has hinted that he might want to become the leader of the governing Canadian Liberal Party if and when Trudeau steps down.

After finishing at the BoE, he took a job with Brookfield Asset Management to advise them on environmental investment strategy and he is now to advise the UN and Conservative Johnson government on ‘financial strategy’ at the upcoming international UN Climate Change conference, COP26, taking place in Glasgow, Scotland this November. Now, while he carries out his duties on the “environment,” he has written a book that outlines his philosophy on the nature of markets. As he tells us, modestly, that

“I led global reforms to fix the faultlines that caused the financial crisis, worked to heal the malignant culture at the heart of financial capitalism and began to address both the fundamental challenges of the fourth industrial revolution and the existential risks from climate change.”

But in doing these ground-breaking tasks to his usual brilliance he has become somewhat disillusioned with “markets.”

“I felt the collapse in public trust in elites, globalization and technology. And I became convinced that these challenges reflect a common crisis in values and that radical changes are required to build an economy that works for all.”

It’s not the first time that Carney has criticized ‘market’ economies and mainstream economics. He did so back in 2016 in a lecture in Liverpool. And again, in his book, he notes that, in this world of market economies, global poverty and inequality remains and most important for him, the environment is being destroyed. In his book, Carney asks why many of nature’s resources are not valued unless they can be priced. He gives the example of the Amazon rainforest only appearing as valuable when it has become a cattle farm. So price was not always a good measure of value. During the COVID crisis, Carney notes that it is the relatively low paid jobs that are high value, but they are not priced as such.

The problem, for Carney is that with markets “We are living Oscar Wilde’s aphorism – knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing – at incalculable costs to our society.” You see once we get beyond buying and selling goods and get into delivering services that people need, “the market” falls short. As we move from a market economy to a market society, both value and values change.

“Increasingly, the value of something, of some act or of someone is equated with their monetary value, a monetary value that is determined by the market. The logic of buying and selling no longer applies only to material goods, but increasingly governs the whole of life from the allocation of healthcare to education, public safety and environmental protection.”

Markets commodify people’s needs and that’s the problem because “Commodification, putting a good up for sale, can corrode the value of what is being priced.” As the political philosopher Michael Sandel argues, “When we decide that certain goods and services can be bought and sold, we decide, at least implicitly, that it is appropriate to treat them as commodities, as instruments of profit and use.”

Turning away from the free-market libertarian philosophy of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, Carney appeals to moral philosophy of his hero, Adam Smith.

“Putting a price on every human activity erodes certain moral and civic goods. It is a moral question how far we should take mutually advantageous exchanges for efficiency gains. Should sex be up for sale? Should there be a market in the right to have children? Why not auction the right to opt out of military service?”

You see, the apparently great proponent of ‘the invisible hand’ of free markets, Adam Smith was no such thing in all circumstances. Smith opposed monopolies and corruption in favour of free trade, but he also tempered that with a moral counterweight in support of the weak and exploited. Carney quotes Smith from his less famous book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Smith said:

“However selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Thus Carney reaches a dilemma: price or value?; or to use Marxist terms: exchange value or use value? — profit or social need? Economics should be about increasing social well-being, but it is obsessed with market pricing instead. “This underscores the moral error of many mainstream economists, which is to treat civic and social virtues as scarce commodities, despite there being extensive evidence that public-spiritedness increases with its practice.” Carney’s answer is to restore “a balance” between markets and morals, between price and value.

Carney is not the first of the great and good of the financial elite to moralize about the failures of capitalism, once they have retired from carrying out its duties in a high priced but low value series of jobs. Another Christian and fellow central banker, Mario Draghi, now recently appointed (not elected) prime minister of Italy, and before that head of the European Central bank and, guess what, yet another senior employee of Goldman Sachs, has also professed a moral philosophy that is supposed to direct his good intentions in carrying out the strategies of finance capital.

Back in the middle of Greek debt crisis that saw the Greek people lose jobs and livelihoods in order to pay back debts to French and German banks, Draghi commented:

“The crisis has dented people’s confidence in the capacity of markets to generate prosperity for all. It has strained Europe’s social model. Alongside the accumulation of staggering wealth by some, there is widespread economic hardship. Entire countries have been suffering from the consequences of misguided past actions – but also from market forces that are sometimes beyond their control.”

Like Carney now, Draghi then asked the question of himself: “what is the right framework for reconciling free enterprise and individual profit motives with concerns for the common good and solidarity with the weak?” And he answered just as Carney does now: “Ultimately, we must be guided by a higher moral standard and a profound belief in creating an economic order that serves every person.”

Draghi went on to explain that: “I find myself in the company of Marx. Not Karl, but Reinhard. Cardinal Reinhard Marx has rightly insisted that “the economy is not an end in itself, but is in the service of all mankind.” Cardinal Reinhart Marx is the Archbishop of Munich who wrote a book at the depth of the Great Recession entitled Das Kapital: A Plea for Man,” named after Karl’s work, but designed to reject Karl’s ideas. Reinhart Marx wants a market economy that is “kinder to the weak and downtrodden” instead of “heaping even more rewards on those who behave immorally.” That should appeal to Carney as well.

It seems that the appeal to “moral values” over “market forces” was also emitted by the former head of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, when Carney was there. Just after the end of the global financial crash, in 2010, Blankfein was interviewed and asked what moral responsibility did Goldman Sachs and other investment banks have for the financial collapse that triggered the worst global economic slump (until COVID) since WW2. He replied that he thought his job as a prominent banker was to do “God’s work.”

Indeed, Blankfein continued his moral crusade in heading the bank during the multi-billion-dollar 1MDB state fund scandal, where former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak and his family corruptly siphoned off billions – it seems with the connivance of Goldman Sachs. God’s work in this case appears to be having Goldmans arranging bond issues worth $6.5 billion for 1MDB, with large amounts of state funds ($2.7bn) misappropriated in the process.

What is Carney’s practical solution to the contradiction between price and value created by the market? It is the classic mainstream one of trying to account for social needs in pricing by pressing and persuading capitalist enterprises to do things ethically and for “a better world for all.” In working for his latest asset management company he aims to get investors to make ethical and “green” investments.

But just as he delivered his Reith lecture on his book on “values,” he had to retract an earlier claim that the $600bn Brookfield Asset Management portfolio he was working on was carbon neutral. He based his claim on the fact that Brookfield has a large renewable energy portfolio and “all the avoided emissions that come with that.” The claim was criticized as accounting tricks as avoided emissions do not counteract the emissions from investments in coal and other fossil fuels responsible for Brookfield’s carbon footprint of about 5,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

And only this week, the Financial Times of all media, has pointed out that such ethical investments usually fail because companies have no intention of reducing carbon emission production.

“Capitalism’s restless innovation when it comes to electric cars or plant-based food has helped consumers to enjoy the same standard of goods, or something close, while cutting their carbon footprint. But canny marketers have also used environmentalism to relabel many, at best, neutral products as world-saving. Environmentally friendly finance is shaping up in a similar vein: investors will find that new product badging cannot replace the hard work of scrutinizing exactly what is being offered. Despite the promises, it is never easy being green.”

Just as Draghi did not quote Karl Marx but Reinhart Marx in his argument for the “moral” control of market forces, so Carney avoids Karl and instead relies on Adam Smith and Oscar Wilde. But he does not mention that Wilde, the great playwright, poet and literary genius, was a committed socialist. The Wilde aphorism is clearly a socialist not a moral message.

Wilde’s essay, The Soul of Man under Socialism, expressed exactly the opposite of Carney’s conclusions. Yes, capitalism commodifies social needs (use values) into value and profit for capital. That leads to poverty, inequality, crises, financial crashes, climate change, pandemics and environmental destruction. But the answer for Wilde was not to get capitalism to temper its destructive nature with moral values. As Wilde says:

“It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.”

Wilde goes on:

“Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a hundred thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbors for alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try and secure a hunch of bread and a night’s unclean lodging. Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse.”

Wilde concludes:

“Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material wellbeing of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment.”

It’s not really value versus price, but social need versus private profit.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2021/03/15/31810/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:24 pm

Forest Voices Brazil: ‘A New Relationship with Forests Will Cool Down the Planet.’
Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360° on MARCH 19, 2021
Molly Millar

Image
An MST member holds up a seedling – one of 100 million trees it aims to plant in 10 years. Photo: Dowglas Silva / MST.

‘We need the trees.’
‘We need clean water and clean air.’
‘We need biodiversity.’
‘We need a good place to live.’

Image

Silvio Netto is helping to coordinate the restoration of 2,000 hectares of forest following the devastating impact of two mining disasters in Brazil. But reforestation alone is not enough. He says the way the environment is managed must radically change – socially, economically and politically – to ensure a sustainable future.

Internationally, the MST is one of 182 organizations around the world fighting for agrarian reform and the rights of 200 million rural people as part of La Via Campesina.

‘It’s in the very nature of rural people to protect the environment because we live on the land,’ says Silvio.

Within Brazil, MST’s mass social movement seeks to win the right for families to live and farm on unproductive land held by big landowners, banks or the state. It estimates that it has helped 350,000 families to establish legally recognized settlements. Forest conservation and restoration is central to the organization’s aims, and last year, it launched an initiative to plant 100 million trees across Brazil over the coming decade.

Dams and devastation

Silvio lives in Minas Gerais, a state in the southeast of Brazil. In November 2015, a mining disaster near the city of Mariana led to the collapse of the Fundão dam. The collapse released a wave of toxic mud, killing 19 people, and destroying more than 1,400 hectares of forest. 50 million cubic metres of iron-ore residue also surged into the Rio Doce river, contaminating local drinking supplies.

Image
Forests, farmland and homes are destroyed around Bento Rodrigues – the village closest to the collapsed Fundão dam. Photo: Rogério Alves / TV Senado via Fotos Públicas.

The dam was run by Samarco Mineração – a joint venture owned by two mining giants, Brazilian multinational, Vale, and the Anglo-Australian conglomerate, BHP.

Image
Before and after satellite pictures show the extent of the area flooded the day after the Fundão dam collapse in 2015. Photos: NASA Earth Observatory.

Four years later, a second dam breach, attributed to Brazil’s biggest mining company Vale, occurred near the city of Brumadinho, killing 270 people.

‘People in mining territories – especially where the crimes happened in Brumadinho and Mariana – are in a state of despair,’ explains Silvio.

A commitment to restore

By way of reparations, the Brazilian government established a legal commitment in 2016 with Samarco Mineração under which the company is supporting efforts to restore the land and rebuild the livelihoods of those in the affected communities.

The Renova Foundation, the non-profit organization set up to implement these reparations, is working to restore a total of 40,000 hectares by 2027. In the Rio Doce river basin – the area most affected by the collapse of the dams – Renova has been funding the MST which aims to reforest over 2,000 hectares in the area over the next 10 years.

Restoring the degraded land can both improve communities’ livelihoods and have substantial environmental benefits, explains Miguel Calmon, senior consultant at the World Resources Institute in Brazil. It helps to improve water quality, soil health and biodiversity, generate jobs and income and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

‘If you restore the land you can really increase the resilience of those landscapes and be more prepared to face the consequences of climate change that’s already happening in many places in Brazil,’ he says.

On the land, for the land

MST has aligned its response to the disasters with its Popular Agrarian Reform programme – a nationwide project with the goal of putting rural communities in control of their land and allowing them to reap the benefits of forest restoration and food production where they live.

‘Our solution is to restore the destroyed areas, maintain the forest areas that still exist and, at the same time, produce food in harmony with nature,’ Silvio says.

Both environmental issues and social transformation go hand in hand for these rural communities. ‘The true guardians of biodiversity and nature are the people that live on the land, from the land, and for the land,’ says Silvio.

‘That’s why access to the land for rural communities is so necessary for environmental preservation.’

Involving local people in restoration and reforestation efforts is one of the ‘golden rules’ for successful tree planting according to a recent review led by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Botanic Gardens Conservation International.

‘Restoration, tree planting and reforestation are long-term initiatives. Time is the best fertilizer you have for getting environmental benefits. It takes persistence so you must have local people as a partner,’ explains Professor Pedro Brancalion of the University of São Paulo, one of the article’s authors.

‘Lack of appropriate engagement with local people can lead to a reforestation project being completely lost or abandoned and never deliver the benefits that are initially targeted for that area.’

Image
Young participants learn agroforestry techniques in a seedling nursery at the Ho Chi Minh settlement, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. Photo: Comunicação Semeando Agroflorestas.

Training in agroforestry systems – a practice which combines best agricultural and forestry techniques – is also being provided to people in the area.

The MST’s local Ho Chi Minh seedling nursery, for example, provides seeds for planting across the state, and also serves a dual purpose as a centre for environmental education.

‘There’s a lot of technical aspects behind restoration especially when you’re talking about agroforestry systems. There’s certainly a need for technical assistance,’ says Calmon.

But government programmes and support are often limited so knowledge sharing among farmers can be crucial in filling in the gaps.
Whats-going-to-cool-down-the-planet.gif
As well as restoring the land, the MST is showing an alternate path for people’s relationship to the natural world and, in the face of climate change, Silvio argues that this is crucial.

‘What’s going to cool down the planet is a new relationship with forests and nature and a new standard of food production,’ he says.

One aspect of this is ensuring that food production doesn’t damage the environment which they aim to achieve by introducing a new system of agroecology. Indeed, the organization is seeking to support communities in growing, distributing and consuming food using sustainable methods, in line with the UN-recognized concept of food sovereignty that calls for the right of people to freely define their own food and agricultural policies.

Helping communities to organize cooperatively is another priority for MST since working together as a community can bring economic benefits to farmers. ‘Family farmers already spend their limited time producing food, so by organizing themselves through cooperatives, they can market their products together and make more money,’ Calmon says.

‘In a situation such as Brazil’s, having easy access to food is a very big deal and helps families to live with dignity,’ adds Silvio. ‘And when the food that we grow on our land gets to the city, it will feed our friends, our family, people like us. Poor people and working people. So it’s important for us that it is healthy.’

Image

Learning lessons

While restoring the land impacted by mining disasters can benefit both the environment and the welfare of rural communities, much has been permanently lost in the initial destruction, explains Professor Brancalion.

‘When we talk about deforestation, we’re talking about losing huge trees that have grown over decades. And when we plant trees, we are planting baby trees and they may take decades to centuries to sequester large amounts of carbon.’

Preventing deforestation will always be more impactful than reforestation, he adds, and restoration needs to be done in the right way. ‘In many cases here in Brazil, seedlings can die because of hot weather, drought, competition, because of many different factors. It doesn’t matter how many trees you plant – what really matters is if you succeed in establishing a diverse forest ecosystem.’

For example, initial restoration efforts by Renova used exotic tree species, rather than native species, breaking one of the scientists’ ‘golden rules’ for successful tree planting – and only 50 per cent of the seedlings planted survived.

This links to another of the ‘golden rules’, the importance of learning by doing, which requires regular monitoring and the ability to adapt when necessary. Indeed, when done right, it can unlock wider impacts to help mitigate the challenges of climate change.

‘Degraded lands and forests can be converted back to productive and functional lands, not only for producing food through agroforestry systems, but also for generating important ecosystem services and reducing risks of flooding and drought that result from climate change,’ says Calmon.

Changing our relationship with the land

Silvio argues that by putting marginalized rural communities and the natural world at the centre of its reform, agroforestry can act as an alternative model for food production that, if expanded, could alter the course of the world’s journey away from potential climate collapse.

Image
Youth collectives within the MST are taking part in the reforestation efforts of the Rio Doce basin. Photo: Juventude Coletivo CCJLGBT / MST-MG

‘Many people and organizations throughout history have fought for another society, for social transformation, another way of life. And we are convinced that this other way of living has to change our relationship with the land, with nature and the environment,’ he says.

‘Brazil can be a superpower on sustainable food production and conservation. We just need to bring them together. And I think we are seeing more and more examples of how we can do that,’ adds Calmon.

‘But we definitely need to mobilize enough resources to make this happen, at scale and fast, because the climate crisis needs ambitious action. That’s why it’s important to work with every side of the political spectrum – whether that’s private corporations or local communities.’

Tragedies such as the mining disasters in Minas Gerais highlight the damage corporations can impose on the country’s land and the lives of its people. But the MST’s commitment to restoration shows another path where forestry and food production initiatives are led by rural people working to ensure both they, and the natural world, thrive.

‘The logic of big business – mining or agriculture – that owns the biggest part of the lands of Brazil is industrial logic that wants profit above all else,’ says Silvio.

‘On the other hand, under our logic, the logic of rural people, and the logic of agrarian reform, it is the pursuit of life.’

Image
MST families in the Rio Doce area receive a hands-on training course in agroforestry as part of the reforestation programme. Photo: MST.

Key points for COP26

1Restoration of large areas of degraded land around the world is critically important for addressing climate change through both increasing tree cover and establishing resilient land-use systems.

2The environmental and social outcomes of reforestation and restoration are intertwined. Thus, a wide range of benefits must be sought, for ecosystem services and rural livelihoods.

3The most effective approach to restoring land is by putting local people at the centre of such efforts – they not only have knowledge and expertise about their lands but can provide the long-term management required. This can present opportunities to explore more equitable models of land-use.

4Restoration initiatives need to build in effective monitoring so that they can be adapted accordingly. Adequate resources are also needed for training and capacity-building.

5Reforestation and restoration take time and commitment. The prevention of deforestation and environmental damage will always be better than restoration for which the effective regulation, licensing and monitoring of land-use is fundamental.
About the series

This new set of stories aims to draw attention to the critical importance of good forest governance for achieving global commitments on biodiversity, climate change and poverty eradication. Through personal perspectives on a variety of approaches from around the world, the series seeks to highlight some of the lessons learned so far and what further action will be needed at the UN’s COP26 climate conference in November 2021 and beyond.

*Graphics by Alex Sommers. Direction by Simon Davis.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2021/03/ ... he-planet/

'Good governance', indeed. Well, Lula would be a start, a compress for the current free bleeding wound of the current regime. But only socialism can provide the long term solution.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:14 pm

NASDAQ Market Goes Wild Over Greenidge’s Plan to Go Public, Expand Bitcoin Mining 25-Fold
Peter MantiusMarch 22, 2021Uncategorized

DRESDEN, Mar. 22, 2021 — The NASDAQ stock market responded with wild enthusiasm today to Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc.’s announcement of plans to become a publicly traded company later this year.
Greenidge employees stand in front of Bitcoin “mining” machines.
Fueling that excitement was the company’s stated intention to boost is current 19-megawatt Bitcoin mining operation at its Dresden power plant to “at least 500 megawatts” — mostly at other locations — by 2025.
Atlas Holdings, the Greenwich, Conn., private equity firm that owns Greenidge, has positioned itself to cash in on the red-hot market for Bitcoin-related shares.
Greenidge intends to go public in late summer by merging with Support.com, a NASDAQ-traded services company that saw its share price leap by more than 250 percent this morning on the news.
Support.com’s stock had closed at $2.14 Friday afternoon. It opened Monday morning at $7.97 and rose as high as $9.45 before closing at $7.10.
Atlas Holdings’ Andrew Bursky
The stock’s trading volume today was more than 1,000 times its daily average, while the company’s total market value shot by roughly $100 million.
As part of the deal, Support.com will provide $33 million in cash to Greenidge and become its subsidiary. After the deal is closed, Support.com shareholders and optionholders will control about 8 percent of Greenidge, while Atlas Holdings will take 92 percent.
The biggest winner appears to be Andrew Bursky, co-managing partner and the reported majority owner of Atlas.
As part of the announcement, Greenidge told potential investors that it expects its Bitcoin operation in Dresden to more than double to 41 megawatts by this summer, and then to more than double again to 85 megawatts by the end of next year.
The company’s stated plan to exceed 500 megawatts of Bitcoin processing by 2025 would depend on opening Bitcoin operations at other power plants, at sites that were not disclosed.
In touting the deal, Greenidge said it enjoys significant advantages over its competitors because it owns its own generating plant. The Dresden facility produces mining power at a low $22 per megawatt hour without any risk from third-party power purchase agreements, it said.
Atlas Holdings acquired the Greenidge plant in Dresden in 2014 and began testing Bitcoin processing in late 2018.
“Greenidge is expected to be the only U.S. public company operating a vertically integrated power generation asset and bitcoin mining operation,” the company’s press release said.
However, Greenidge’s plan to expand bitcoin processing in Dresden depends on the company’s success in winning a local permit. That hurdle is complicated by heavy resistance from Finger Lakes environmental groups.
The Sierra Club, Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes and Seneca Lake Guardian have sued Greenidge and the Town of Torrey Planning Board for its initial approval of a site plan that calls for four new buildings to house new Bitcoin computer equipment, or “miners.”
The Yates County Planning Board has since voted to recommend against approving the site plan, and the Torrey Planning Board is expected to reconsider its action next month.
The environmental groups have urged the state Department of Environmental Conservation to weigh in on the potential negative impacts on Seneca Lake, but the agency has declined to do so.
Greenidge was built between 1937 and 1953 to burn coal. Atlas acquired the plant in 2014 and converted it to burn primarily natural gas in 2017.
After its initial plan to sell intermittent power to the grid went bust, Greenidge began testing Bitcoin processing in late 2018.
The proposed Bitcoin expansion into new buildings would drive up Greenidge energy production, triggering inevitable increases in toxic air emissions, noise levels and Seneca Lake water intakes and discharges. The DEC has insisted that all of those negative impacts would fall within existing permit limits.
Because the power Greenidge generates for Bitcoin processing never reaches the electric grid, it is not subject to regulation by the state Public Service Commission.
While voting to declare the plant’s “behind-the-meter” power use to be outside the PSC’s jurisdiction, the commission’s interim chair, John Howard, expressed concerns and urged state environmental regulators to pay close attention.
Howard said the Greenidge case “portends something we should be very careful of …. finding high-load data servers running on fossil generation I don’t think is a very good long-term play.”
China’s economic planners have expressed concerns about cryptocurrency’s environmental footprint.
The extreme energy demands of Bitcoin processing have drawn increased alarm worldwide in recent months — expressed by sources ranging from China to Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
In 2019, China’s economic planning commission listed crypto-currency mining as an industry it plans to eliminate because it “seriously wastes resources” and/or pollutes the environment.
In an interview this month, Gates said: “Bitcoin uses more electricity per transaction than any other method know to mankind….It’s not a great climate thing.”
So far, New York regulators have downplayed the threat.
The DEC has deferred to the Torrey Planning Board to serve as “lead agency” in analyzing environmental consequences Greenidge’s aggressive Bitcoin expansion.
Environmental advocates have argued that the agency has long regulated Greenidge with a light touch by:
— Ignoring the plant’s toxic coal ash landfill when ruling that the restart of the plant would have no serious environmental consequences.
— Waiving a full environmental impact statement.
— Deciding not to require the plant to install modern closed-cycle cooling to drastically reduce the plant’s tremendous Seneca Lake water withdrawals and discharges.
— Allowing the plant to discharge coolant water at temperatures up to 108 degrees into Keuka Outlet, a DEC-designated trout stream. (Trout are stressed when temperatures exceed 70 degrees.)
The plant’s intake pipe lacks screens to protect fish, as required by the federal Clean Water Act. The DEC gave Greenidge five years to correct the deficiency.
Experts said the plant’s warm water discharges were likely contributors to blooms of toxic algae that plagued Dresden Bay from 2016 through 2019 (though not last year, when the entire lake was spared many blooms).
Greenidge officials have mounted a PR campaign to counter the environmental groups that are trying to stop the Bitcoin expansion. In newspaper OP-EDs and full-page advertisements, it has labeled the opponents “ideological” and accused them of spreading lies.
Meanwhile, Greenidge and Atlas have been quietly raking in profits from the move to Bitcoin mining, riding a surge in the cryptocurrency’s price.
The price of a Bitcoin has shot up from $4,000 in late 2018 when the plant first tested the processing equipment to $56,293 today.
Greenidge told investors today that it had mined 1,186 bitcoins at a net variable cost of about $2,869 per bitcoin for the twelve months ended February 28.
As part of its plans to ramp up Bitcoin operations in Dresden and beyond, Greenidge has introduced a new team of leaders.
Tim Fazio, co-managing partner of Atlas Holdings, will serve as chairman of Greenidge Generations Holdings (GGH). Jeff Kirt will be chief executive officer, and Ted Rogers will serve as vice chairman.
Dale Irwin, CEO of Greenidge Generation, will continue to run GGH’s power plant and Bitcoin mining operations in Dresden.

https://waterfrontonline.blog/2021/03/2 ... g-25-fold/

Every time you think that capitalists cannot further derange the difference between exchange and use value they prove you wrong. Truly this must be the end game, cut out all the middlemen, 'externalize' the environmental costs, reduce labor to the barest minimum and rake in the filthy lucre.
This utilization of a theoretically obsolete coal-burning power generating plant shows Say's Law functioning and will defy even the greenwashing of the so-called 'Green New Deal'. Such insane profit will only be addressed after the fact and the bodies are stacked to a height impossible to ignore, as with Oxycontin. And as with that substance the perps who profited so greatly will not see an hour behind bars. This ain't China, ya know.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:00 pm

Image
.
Dialectical ecology
Posted Apr 06, 2021 by Eds.

Originally published: Daniel Saunders Blog (October 25, 2020)

“If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.” Thus reads one of the Hopi prophecies which echo throughout Philip Glass’s haunting soundtrack for Koyaanisqatsi (1982). As those familiar with Godfrey Reggio’s cult film know, the title itself refers to “a state of life that calls for another way of living,” a sharply polemical framing of what otherwise appears, at first, to be a detached, objective representation of humanity’s technological encroachment upon nature. What Koyaanisqatsi pioneered still makes for exciting (and unsettling) cinema. Its cinematography, editing, tempo shifts, and music are all marshalled to the end of replicating in art how technology, as a totality of forms and methods, has drawn everything into its domination. (Here is Reggio speaking of this totalizing “environment of technology” as something more or less akin to ideology—the invisible background of existence which “is unseen and goes unquestioned.”)

But as the global climate crisis worsens, with more and more evidence linking ecological collapse to the limitless expansion of growth that characterizes the irrational logic of capitalism (in what has been aptly named the capitalist “treadmill of accumulation”), Koyaanisqatsi increasingly looks like a dire plea for planetary survival—we must urgently turn from the path of capitalist “business as usual,” specifically in the burning of fossil fuels, or face irreversible consequences for the biosphere, perhaps even for human life itself.

Critiquing Ecological Modernization

Koyaanisqatsi’s concerns, read in this way, overlap to a degree with the critical sociological project of John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York—especially in their substantive compilation, The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth(2010). Foster, Clark, and York (henceforth FCY) have been at the forefront of a compelling project of Marxist ecosocialism, which seeks to revitalize the dialectical-ecological ideas of Marx and Engels in order to develop a robust socialist theory encompassing history, nature, the biosphere, climate change, and the social relations of production.

Many of FCY’s arguments critiquing capitalism as the instigator and sustainer of ecological destruction are becoming an integral feature of socialist discourse. These include their definition of capitalism as a “system of self-sustaining value,” a “treadmill of accumulation,” and (one of the most notable of Marx’s metaphors) a “metabolic rift” in the natural-social fabric of production. Capitalism is, as Marx wrote in the Grundrisse, an “endless and limitless drive to go beyond its limiting barriers,” including especially planetary boundaries. Following climate scientists, FCY identify seven such planetary boundaries which serve to maintain an overarching, regulating metabolism conducive to life, only one of which is climate change. To cross any one of these boundaries—and we have already crossed three—”signifies the onset of irreversible environmental degradation.”

Another important component of FCY’s argument is a thoroughgoing critique of an ecological modernization approach, the proposition that the only “way out of the ecological crisis is by going further into the process[es] of modernization” which have led to the crisis in the first place. This is embodied in the weak attempts (or lack thereof) by mainstream economists and social scientists to address accelerating problems of climate change. These ostensible experts advocate a variety of dubious solutions, such as sacrificing the future liveability of the planet to maintain current levels of economic growth, waiting for a miracle technological fix that will “dematerialize” the economy from the physical earth, or even working toward explicitly non-socialist, modest reforms (along the lines of Greta Thunberg or the Democratic Party).

Image

All of these “solutions” sought by ecological modernization, however, leave intact the basic structure of capitalist social relations and, by extension, feed into capital’s limitless accumulating drive. In addition, they espouse a view of nature which reduces the environment to mechanism and mere units of input and output to be optimized so that the economy can keep on running as it should. “Sustainability,” write FCY, like the market buzzword green, “is thus defined entirely in terms of economic growth, monetary wealth, and consumption, without any direct reference to the environment” (113).

Theorizing a Dialectical Ecology

But one of the more unexpected and fruitful arguments that emerges in The Ecological Rift out of FCY’s theoretical nexus has to do with the philosophy of science itself, as well as the potential contours of an all-encompassing scientific theory able to bring together the environmental, the economic, and the social—in other words, a dialectical ecology, or what amounts to a Marxist-infused natural science. There is a lot to say about many features of FCY’s project, but this last point is especially worth thinking about, given too how it builds on but complicates Koyaanisqatsi’s central themes.

One way to conceive this kind of dialectical ecology is to situate it against an alternative scientific paradigm, one tied to the processes of modernization. The natural sciences we know today were born concurrently with the philosophies initiating the modern world. As these sciences developed a positivistic form, they came to be associated with general, unchanging laws about fundamentally discrete objects or processes in nature. Ironically, although positivism rejected the arguments of metaphysics, the outline of its form remained vaguely metaphysical in this tendency toward universal explanation and categorization. This was the case whether the universe was conceived in terms of a causal, mechanistic contraption or, alternatively, a living vessel propelled by invisible sparks of vitality.

The evolutionary ideas of Darwin grew out of this paradigm but presented a major route out of it. In part, Darwin’s materialism was a return to an older materialism—that of of Epicurus, in which contingency, rather than determinism or teleology, was the grounding principle of nature’s forces. This contingency at the heart of nature led Darwin in new directions; but, according to FCY, Darwin still veered toward an environmental determinism with his theories of adaptation and niche. For Darwin, evolution proceeds by chance, but the environment provides the more or less static ground for the direction of evolution.

And so, to refocus dialectical ecology: in between Darwin and the “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins, who reductionistically posit the gene, rather than the environment, as a determinative element, FCY bring in evolutionary scientists like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould to highlight the dual, interactive evolutionary interplay between the environment and the genetic. As Lewontin argued: “Evolution is not an unfolding but an historically contingent wandering pathway through the space of possibilities.”

For these scientists, the “organism is both subject and an object in the physical world,” a scientific principle which draws from and extends Marx’s dialectical materialism to evolution itself:

“The dialectical view emerging from ecology is anything but lifeless or mechanical; it has generated a view of nature no longer shorn of life, interconnection, and sensuous realty—no longer deterministic—but a world of coevolution, contradiction, and crisis… Neither mechanism nor vitalism, neither determinism nor teleology, were adequate in the ecological realm—a realm that demanded an understanding that was at once genetic and relational.” (245)

Balance or Dialectics?

FCY’s argument here, following Marx, is that nature has a specific history. This is a history in which organic life, inclusive of humanity, acts on and changes the world, at the same time as the world acts on and changes organic life. The two are enmeshed in an ongoing, dialectical interplay, a “metabolic” relation that is never the same but that has a discernible historical contour. Thus, the best way to understand the world, in both social and scientific terms, is to look at not only social history but natural history, and to look at them together.

This highlights an important feature of the metabolic rift theory, one that differentiates it from the powerful but ultimately less substantive ideas about the environment and human action put forth by Koyaanisqatsi. In centering modern technological development itself as the underlying cause of humanity’s rupture with the natural world, Koyaanisqatsi swings toward an unchanging, idealistic view of nature, one that sees the environment in terms of an “ideal, natural state”—a lost Eden which could be regained with the removal of industrial civilization. Koyaanisqatsi shares this outlook with other trends in environmentalism like deep ecology and the Gaia hypothesis. The ultimate goal, for these proponents, is to achieve a grand balance between humanity and nature.

Image

Such a view overlaps in part, of course, with FCY’s critique of ecological modernization and its mechanizing view of nature. But FCY astutely point out the limitations of this “balance of nature” theory:

“Why would there be a grand balance in nature? Natural history is a record of drastic changes and discontinuities in the biophysical world. The assumption of a natural harmony is not consistent with a critical historical understanding of nature.” (260)

(This, of course, raises some interesting questions for theology, which I can’t get into here, but even the most diehard proponent of Intelligent Design would have a hard time reckoning with the great imbalances nature presents. I think that Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is useful here as perhaps a covert meditation on theodicy in light of the chaos of nature.)

Moreover, rather than investigating the social and material forces that have driven history and environmental crisis—the advent and growth of capitalism, in particular—the balance of nature theory focuses almost exclusively on a moral imperative for change. “Change becomes a matter of adjusting values and developing the proper eco-ethics, and from there, it is assumed changes in the social structure will follow” (emphasis mine). “Life out of balance” must become “life in balance,” and our climate dilemma is solved.

As I mentioned, this overlaps to a degree with FCY and is certainly compelling in its own way. But FCY show how a dialectical, materialist ecological approach—one informed both by Marx and evolutionary biology—is better equipped to understand and address the challenges posed by ecological rupture, precisely because it is not about nature as balance but about nature as change itself:

“A dialectical materialist approach to nature provides the means for understanding the complex interactions throughout the natural world, the ability to explain the world in terms of itself. It involves both the capacity to recognize that contingency and emergence are inherent aspects of a living world, and the capability to study the structural constraints and the inherent potential for change.

In this, a materialist dialectic avoids the mechanistic reductionism of economistic approaches, where nature exists in the background… It also avoids the idealized notion that nature exists in a state of balance and that a return to such a state is simply a matter of developing the appropriate moral-ethical system.” (270, my emphasis)

Dialectical Theory for an Ecosocialist Practice

What does all this mean for ecology and socialism? First, that we confront the world as it is, full of its limitations and as a history of contingencies which have led only to this one, present set of circumstances, with all of its problems and potential. Part of the way human life has acted upon the world includes the development of the capitalist mode of production, which has threatened the planet’s functional boundaries.

But within this contingent reality lies also the possibility to do things differently; the world as it is now contains the seed and impetus of the world to come, not by teleological decree but by the social-ecological relations we politically choose to foster in our relationships of production. Ecology and the biosphere constitute a two-way interaction between humanity/life and nature. And so we are always in a position to shape our trajectory, not just through moral and scientific shifts but through political action.

Image

Notably, this trajectory of change is not linear or progressive, but proceeds in an irregular series of fits and starts. FCY remind us that, for Marx and Engels, “change is not typically smooth and continuous but rather often occurs very rapidly following periods of stasis.” Long periods of inaction, in both the social and natural worlds, can give way to abrupt, decisive moments of revolutionary change, when the cries of the people and the planet meld together to push for an alternative way of life free of capitalist alienation. Although the outlines of this alternative path are necessarily blurry from the standpoint of the present, it must take the form of a “society of associated producers” in tune with nature’s boundaries—a vision famously sketched, in the negative, in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program.

In short, FCY’s theories equip us not just with a more accurate understanding of the interconnected physical and social world on its own terms, but in true Marxist fashion, they also enable us to more effectively change it, directing it toward an unalienated future.

https://mronline.org/2021/04/06/dialectical-ecology/

Images from the film Koyaanisqatsi

Again and again and again, 'ecosocialism' is implicit in communism and these academics, through their timidity and grasping for tenure serve us ill. By not "going big"(heh) they retard the solutions they know necessary but will never be seriously addressed by the current mode of production except as an exercise in public relations.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10750
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:42 pm

Tipping points confirmed for massive Antarctic glacier
April 2, 2021
A small rise in ocean temperature may trigger catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Image
In 2013, a 270 square mile iceberg broke off the Pine Island Glacier.

(Adapted from material provided by Northumbria University.)

Researchers have confirmed for the first time that Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica could cross tipping points, leading to a rapid and irreversible retreat which would have significant consequences for global sea level.

Image
Antarctica, showing the location of the Pine Island Glacier. (NASA)

Pine Island Glacier is a region of fast-flowing ice draining an area of West Antarctica approximately two thirds the size of the UK. The glacier is a particular cause for concern as it is losing more ice than any other glacier in Antarctica. Currently, Pine Island Glacier together with its neighboring Thwaites glacier are responsible for about 10% of the ongoing increase in global sea level.

Scientists have argued for some time that this region of Antarctica could reach a tipping point and undergo an irreversible retreat from which it could not recover. Such a retreat, once started, could lead to the collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by over three metres.

While the general possibility of such a tipping point within ice sheets has been raised before, showing that Pine Island Glacier has the potential to enter unstable retreat is a very different question.

Now, researchers from Northumbria University have shown, for the first time, that this is indeed the case. Their findings are published in The Cryosphere, as journal of the European Geosciences Union.

Using an ice flow model developed by Northumbria’s glaciology research group, the team have developed methods that allow tipping points within ice sheets to be identified. For Pine Island Glacier, their study shows that the glacier has at least three distinct tipping points. The third and final event, triggered by ocean temperatures increasing by 1.2C, leads to an irreversible retreat of the entire glacier.

The researchers say that long-term warming and shoaling trends in Circumpolar Deep Water, in combination with changing wind patterns in the Amundsen Sea, could expose Pine Island Glacier’s ice shelf to warmer waters for longer periods of time, making temperature changes of this magnitude increasingly likely.

The lead author of the study, Sebastian Rosier, is a member of the University’s glaciology research group, which is investigating whether climate change will drive the Antarctic Ice Sheet towards a tipping point. He explains:

“The potential for this region to cross a tipping point has been raised in the past, but our study is the first to confirm that Pine Island Glacier does indeed cross these critical thresholds. Many different computer simulations around the world are attempting to quantify how a changing climate could affect the West Antarctic Ice Sheet but identifying whether a period of retreat in these models is a tipping point is challenging. However, it is a crucial question and the methodology we use in this new study makes it much easier to identify potential future tipping points.”

Glaciology specialist Hilmar Gudmundsson, who works with Dr. Rosier, added:

“The possibility of Pine Island Glacier entering an unstable retreat has been raised before but this is the first time that this possibility is rigorously established and quantified. This is a major forward step in our understanding of the dynamics of this area and I’m thrilled that we have now been able to finally provide firm answers to this important question. But the findings of this study also concern me. Should the glacier enter unstable irreversible retreat, the impact on sea level could be measured in metres, and as this study shows, once the retreat starts it might be impossible to halt it.”
Abstract of The tipping points and early warning indicators for Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, by Sebastian Rosier, Ronja Reese, Jonathan Donges, Jan De Rydt, Hilmar Gudmundsson, and Ricarda Winkelmann. (The Cryosphere, March 25, 2021)
Mass loss from the Antarctic Ice Sheet is the main source of uncertainty in projections of future sea-level rise, with important implications for coastal regions worldwide. Central to ongoing and future changes is the marine ice sheet instability: once a critical threshold, or tipping point, is crossed, ice internal dynamics can drive a self-sustaining retreat committing a glacier to irreversible, rapid and substantial ice loss.

This process might have already been triggered in the Amundsen Sea region, where Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers dominate the current mass loss from Antarctica, but modelling and observational techniques have not been able to establish this rigorously, leading to divergent views on the future mass loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Here, we aim at closing this knowledge gap by conducting a systematic investigation of the stability regime of Pine Island Glacier. To this end we show that early warning indicators in model simulations robustly detect the onset of the marine ice sheet instability. We are thereby able to identify three distinct tipping points in response to increases in ocean-induced melt.

The third and final event, triggered by an ocean warming of approximately 1.2 ∘C from the steady-state model configuration, leads to a retreat of the entire glacier that could initiate a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2021/0 ... c-glacier/

Are we ready for a planned economy yet? Working class authoritarianism?
Or
Shall we have the mutual ruin of the contending classes?

Times a wastin'...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply