Democracy looks like? Saw Cornell West speak the other night, a true orator that can captivate a crowd. But his analysis is built on a liberal understanding of "democracy", a foundational principle upon which progress is to be built. But it requires a disavowal of certain contradictions, that is, it is an empty signifier needing qualification. Capitalist democracy doesn't have the same aspirations as direct democracy and the distinction is critical within liberal discourse. This is why the "pro-democracy" protests in Hong Kong are problematic.
On the climate front, we see the electricians union fighting renewable energy in California and the Navajos buying coal mines in Montana. 350.org is trying to support the climate strikers; here is how they pitch it in emails to supporters: "That’s why we need everyone to come together this September and demand big, structural change."
Friday, August 30, 2019
Monday, August 26, 2019
Devil in the Details
As we are discovering with our local climate strike action, coming up with a set of demands is a challenge. Do you go reasonable, maybe a few reforms a local authority could enact? Or do you demand the impossible: ie. we need an end to economic growth. It is difficult to convey the enormity of the crisis when calling for a retro-fit here and an electric bus there. We need people to grasp the fact that not only do we need to drastically curtail emissions ( while building a new infrastructure)but we need to bring current concentrations of CO2 down quickly. Had we started 20 years ago, when ppm were at 380, it would have been a monumental challenge. But starting now? That's why Trump skipped the climate meeting at the G7; Bush 1 stated our position very +clearly ("the American way of life is not negotiable") and there is nothing more to be said. It took two centuries of pillage and plunder, of invasion and expropriation, and we sure as fuck aren't about to start handing it back as "climate debt".
You could just say "do whatever it takes to get to 1.5" or "do whatever it takes to get to net 0 emissions by 2050" or "do whatever it takes to stay within our carbon budget". But then you get to those tricky details: including nuclear? including carbon sequestration? including biofuels? et... This is the real battleground, the site where "green capitalism" tries to step up and offer win-win solutions. By questioning any of these high-tec fixes you are accused of "forming a circular firing squad", causing disunity and unwelcome strife.
If you want to start with generalities the DSA Green New Deal Principles do a good job: Decarbonize fully by 2030, Democratize control over major energy systems and resources, decommodify survival, and redistribute resources from the worst polluters
Then you can start to work in the details: reduce CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 ( also need methane and sulfur dioxide reductions) You can go to the carbon budget from the report: remaining budget of 420 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance to stay under 1.5
The beauty is that the goals articulated by the best available science cannot be reached without undermining capitalism as it really exists ( not theoretical capitalism but the form we currently live under)
You could just say "do whatever it takes to get to 1.5" or "do whatever it takes to get to net 0 emissions by 2050" or "do whatever it takes to stay within our carbon budget". But then you get to those tricky details: including nuclear? including carbon sequestration? including biofuels? et... This is the real battleground, the site where "green capitalism" tries to step up and offer win-win solutions. By questioning any of these high-tec fixes you are accused of "forming a circular firing squad", causing disunity and unwelcome strife.
If you want to start with generalities the DSA Green New Deal Principles do a good job: Decarbonize fully by 2030, Democratize control over major energy systems and resources, decommodify survival, and redistribute resources from the worst polluters
Then you can start to work in the details: reduce CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 ( also need methane and sulfur dioxide reductions) You can go to the carbon budget from the report: remaining budget of 420 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance to stay under 1.5
The beauty is that the goals articulated by the best available science cannot be reached without undermining capitalism as it really exists ( not theoretical capitalism but the form we currently live under)
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Bernie Agrees
I have argued for some time that climate is the issue which can finally challenge the current order (as the blog name implies). It is rewarding to see that Pres. contender Bernie Sanders agrees. As does DSA, judging by the resolution passed at the latest convention making the Green New Deal a priority. This plan put forward by the Sanders campaign represents a direct challenge to the Democratic Party Establishment and Third-Way liberals and is a condemnation of the strategy pursued by Obama and Clinton.
Bernie no doubt saw Biden's polling numbers and decided to go for broke. Jay Inslee should also get some credit for forcing the issue, as should the Sunrise youth and other activists. But most of all we need to thank Trump. He is the ultimate foil, the ultimate capitalist pig (David Koch ran a tight second, may he rot in hell)and as such has put a spotlight on political economy that would not have existed if some moderate was president. The antagonism and division which Obama hoped to paper over is exactly what we need to effect radical change. We see clearly now the absurdity of "post-racial" America as well as the brutality of the capitalist war on nature, both deliberately kept from view by liberalism. Without Trump, Greta's call for panic would have fallen on deaf ears.
But as radical as Bernie's climate plan is, we should be critical of a few aspects while supporting it in general. For instance the claim we can "build enough renewable energy generation capacity for the nation's growing needs" will help sell it to "progressives", but needs to be challenged on it's face. Obviously no politician is ready to say growth is the problem, but sooner or later we will have to face this key, foundational contradiction. We see the same approach when it comes to air travel; progressives need language which reassures but "fund a $150 billion dollar effort to fully de-carbonize aviation and maritime shipping and travel" is just pandering. That technology is like direct-air capture of CO2, nowhere near realization at scale. By reinforcing a religious belief that technology can save us, they set themselves up for failure. Best to not make promises you can't keep.
Bernie no doubt saw Biden's polling numbers and decided to go for broke. Jay Inslee should also get some credit for forcing the issue, as should the Sunrise youth and other activists. But most of all we need to thank Trump. He is the ultimate foil, the ultimate capitalist pig (David Koch ran a tight second, may he rot in hell)and as such has put a spotlight on political economy that would not have existed if some moderate was president. The antagonism and division which Obama hoped to paper over is exactly what we need to effect radical change. We see clearly now the absurdity of "post-racial" America as well as the brutality of the capitalist war on nature, both deliberately kept from view by liberalism. Without Trump, Greta's call for panic would have fallen on deaf ears.
But as radical as Bernie's climate plan is, we should be critical of a few aspects while supporting it in general. For instance the claim we can "build enough renewable energy generation capacity for the nation's growing needs" will help sell it to "progressives", but needs to be challenged on it's face. Obviously no politician is ready to say growth is the problem, but sooner or later we will have to face this key, foundational contradiction. We see the same approach when it comes to air travel; progressives need language which reassures but "fund a $150 billion dollar effort to fully de-carbonize aviation and maritime shipping and travel" is just pandering. That technology is like direct-air capture of CO2, nowhere near realization at scale. By reinforcing a religious belief that technology can save us, they set themselves up for failure. Best to not make promises you can't keep.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Back in Business
Cloud Peak energy jut sold its holdings, including Montana and Wyoming coal mines, to the Navajos. According to their CEO: "NTEC will continue its efforts to lead conscientious energy development while striving to balance job growth and protecting the environment for future generations.”
You can "strive" all you want, that ain't happening. The Navajos bought this at a bankruptcy auction so maybe it's a good deal? And maybe if we are going to continue to have coal jobs and coal profits they should be going to indigenous folks.... but we can't burn coal. So they will have to be bought out pretty quickly and given some other way to make a living.
It's the optics that are most troubling, especially at a time when we are told by climate movement theorists that we have to put indigenous folks in the leadership position. That their spiritual connection guarantees they will be good stewards of the earth ( and strategic leaders). Which is problematic on a number of levels and a form of essentialism we wouldn't impose on other subjectivities without a twinge of embarrassment.
You can "strive" all you want, that ain't happening. The Navajos bought this at a bankruptcy auction so maybe it's a good deal? And maybe if we are going to continue to have coal jobs and coal profits they should be going to indigenous folks.... but we can't burn coal. So they will have to be bought out pretty quickly and given some other way to make a living.
It's the optics that are most troubling, especially at a time when we are told by climate movement theorists that we have to put indigenous folks in the leadership position. That their spiritual connection guarantees they will be good stewards of the earth ( and strategic leaders). Which is problematic on a number of levels and a form of essentialism we wouldn't impose on other subjectivities without a twinge of embarrassment.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Missing Identity
How come, when reporting on "white nationalists", the media consistently fails to mention any religious affiliation? Because most of these guys (they are mostly guys) identify as Christians and use lots of Christian symbols and biblical references. Yet we never hear about this part of their ideology. Strange.
Interestingly, it is just the opposite when they do a story about Israel, for instance, the latest dust-up over Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Because in those cases, they ONLY use the religious identity- Jew and Jewish- never the political identity, Zionist. So yeah, racism is a convoluted discourse and how it is described and reported on seems to depend on the reporters sympathies or sensitivities.
It is funny that it wasn't so long ago liberals were celebrating the ascendancy of secular humanism as part of the "end of history". Guess they didn't foresee a backlash of the Believers but it is coming at us with a vengeance, in the Biblical sense.
Interestingly, it is just the opposite when they do a story about Israel, for instance, the latest dust-up over Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Because in those cases, they ONLY use the religious identity- Jew and Jewish- never the political identity, Zionist. So yeah, racism is a convoluted discourse and how it is described and reported on seems to depend on the reporters sympathies or sensitivities.
It is funny that it wasn't so long ago liberals were celebrating the ascendancy of secular humanism as part of the "end of history". Guess they didn't foresee a backlash of the Believers but it is coming at us with a vengeance, in the Biblical sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)