Economical?

Not too long ago the United Nations had a mock exercise in which it was discovered an asteroid was bearing down on the planet and an emergency response had to be formulated and executed in time. To deal with this extreme scenario they called in various experts. Most of these were, of course, scientists trained in various disciplines and physicists able to perform complex calculations. They did not, however, seek help from economists. They did not need to know how much it would cost to save the earth, whether it was economical; that calculation was both obvious and irrelevant.

Coincidentally, Jacobin magazine published a piece last January in which the author asks us to imagine that an asteroid is approaching earth. In this case the asteroid was a metaphor for climate catastrophe. The article makes the point that both political parties in the U.S. share an attitude of climate denial; one is simply overt and the other tries to obscure the fact with sympathetic sounding rhetoric. What the piece failed to articulate is that both parties and virtually all mainstream media rely on the analysis put forth by economists. These non-scientists make various claims about how much it will cost to stop climate catastrophe; how much it will effect the economy, how to maintain economic growth while slowing emissions, etc.etc. But again: why would we care one whit what it "costs" to save the earth? Without a planet there is no "economy". We need scientists to tell us what must be done and how to do it. Period. The cost is irrelevant and yet the attention it is given is indicative of the irrational system which rules our lives.

The best example of this absurd prioritization of "cost-effectiveness" is the Climate Leadership Council.This organization, clearly dedicated to protecting the sanctity of Markets ,boasts the backing of "3554 US economists,4 former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors", etc. etc. We are supposed to be impressed somehow that the same non-scientist ideologues who got us into the crisis in the first place have stepped up to help solve it- cheaply of course, using "sound economic principles". This is code for no regulations- let the Market determine our fate.

At the heart of the fight between supporters of the Green New Deal and the Climate Leadership Council is the cultural power of "economists and experienced policymakers" versus science and the scientists whose research it is based on. If you just started with the scientific consensus and worked back you would ban fossil fuel extraction and deal with the economic fallout using the State as stimulus and safety net. If you want to preserve the system of profit, accumulation and unlimited growth, you turn to economists and their weak, too-little-too-late tax proposals.

The definition of economical is being careful not to waste, the very antithesis of capitalism, a system built on waste and excess. CLC economists fail at this most basic level. The real question is; if you are seeking data and analysis on which to base decisions about ecology, do you look to scientific journals or the Wall Street Journal?

Adaptation

The city of Missoula is making a good faith effort to identify and mitigate the impacts of climate change but those "futurist" planners can only imagine scenarios that fall within their collective experience. Local drought affects local farmers and local politicians can devise policy "fixes" to help. But what happens if you try to imagine global drought and its geopoliticl effects? What if we envision a 2050 where governance has broken down, where local warlords control all economic activity? Where all the pollinators have been destroyed, where methane is boiling out of a melted perma-frost and there is no grain market or copper market or beef market? How does a local taskforce plan for that level of collapse?

Should they be planning to stockpile guns? Naomi Klein tried to warn us that "this changes everything" but local policy wonks operate in a well-worn framework using a standardized playbook. We are told "our house is on fire" so we gather "stakeholders" who meet regularly and come up with documents. These get explained to the public which then submits comments and a taskforce comes up with policy proposals. It is time to panic and yet that is not a mode civic leaders are keen to embrace.

And this is where the ambiguity, so disorienting for the general public, begins. On the one hand we are told it is an emergency and yet the activity to address it looks like any " agency planning process", a forest plan, a recreation plan, a subdivision proposal etc..The local techno-managerial types seem to see a path through and it hardly feels like a "crisis". Just enact some forward thinking policies and mitigate the identified problems! You're welcome!

Handing Out Prizes

You know things are heating up when Pulitzer Prize winning NYTimes columnists start pontificating on climate change. Today we see a piece by big-time insider David Leonhardt bemoaning the fact that the carbon pricing scheme put forth by his Nobel Prize-winning hero economist, Richard Nordhaus, hasn't taken hold. Both of these famous "intellectuals" exist to promote "democratic" capitalism, making the apologetics on display a bit embarrassing, but of course blame can be directed at those silly conservative Republicans who don't know how to use "government" to correct market failure. It may be "politically impossible" he tells us.

The title of the article is Putting a Price on the End of the World but what he really can't imagine (you guessed it) is the end of capitalism. Or economic growth measured as GDP. The indefatigable Thomas L Friedman also has a column about climate change, claiming the issue is Trump's Achilles heel. I can't bother reading the article but I imagine it contains all the "new research" about green capitalism and 100% clean energy and all the millions of new high paying jobs and clean growth the Democrats should be promoting. Thomas loves all that optimistic stuff about progress and all.

Leonhardt notes "the middle class and poor have been struggling with slow income growth" and a tax on energy is not popular to voters. And stops his analysis there- a conundrum. Because as we all know, voters are not allowed to tax only the wealthy in "democratic" capitalism, after all, they are the investors and job creators and will go on strike. The answer of course (as always) is simply more growth.

Notice the euphoria over recent US economic performance: the stock market at record levels, unemployment as low as its been since the sixties, even ( sorry, Leonhardt) slight wage growth in certain sectors! Happy Days Are Here Again! Have you noticed any mention of emissions in this reporting? No. More income trickles down, more consumption, higher emissions and Trump's re-election all but guaranteed. If I can suddenly buy a new IPhone you know who I'm voting for! And if it sounds like the Green New Deal threatens that you know who I'm not voting for. Voila, Capitalist Democracy in a nutshell. Patiently awaiting my Pulitzer and Nobel prizes.