{"id":10350,"date":"2018-11-19T10:50:18","date_gmt":"2018-11-19T18:50:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=10350"},"modified":"2018-11-19T10:50:18","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T18:50:18","slug":"climate-change-2030-the-actual-steps-to-fix-global-warming-in-12-years","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2018\/11\/19\/climate-change-2030-the-actual-steps-to-fix-global-warming-in-12-years\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change 2030: The Actual Steps to Fix Global Warming in 12 Years"},"content":{"rendered":"
JOHN LAURITS<\/a>\u00a0(johnlaurits.com)<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

\"How<\/a>With the urgent findings of last month\u2019s\u00a0IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 an assessment of the scientific, technical, and economic research related to climate change by thousands of scientific experts \u2014 the political economy of ecological crisis has never been more crucial. Yet sadly, the economics of climate change are mostly presented from a viewpoint that cannot imagine solutions outside the capitalist system and the result is a discussion that is less about the transition to a sustainable system than how to make that transition profitable enough to attract investors. If this assumption \u2014 that the strategies available to address climate change are constrained by \u2018the market\u2019 \u2014 must be made, then of course the only real question is whether scientists can find a way to lower the investment risks of human survival in time for Wall Street to finance it before Lower Manhattan joins the Upper Atlantic. And it is therefore high time to reexamine this assumption\u2026.<\/p>\n

The IPCC Report on Global Warming of\u00a01.5\u00b0C:
\nWhat Is to Be Done?<\/em><\/h2>\n

\u201cThis report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people\u2019s needs.\u00a0The next few years are probably the most important in our history<\/strong>\u201c<\/em>
\n\u2013 Debra Roberts, IPCC working-group III co-chair<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The good news is that scientists from across the world have analyzed over 6,000 studies and concluded that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C using today\u2019s technology \u2014 but there is a catch. Though it is possible within the laws of physics and chemistry, it would require unprecedented efforts at a planetary scale to pull off the greatest hustle in world-history (and probably galactic or even universal history) to transform the global energy-system, overhaul supply-chains, and replenish a pilfered ecosystem but \u2014 and here\u2019s the kicker \u2014 it all needs to be halfway done in about 12 years.<\/p>\n

As for how it might be done, the\u00a0IPCC special report<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0offers an array of plausible scenarios \u2014 some of them hold the line at 1.5\u00b0C whereas others rely on more-intensive CO2<\/sub>-removal to overshoot and pull back \u2014 but the bottom line of any good scenario is\u00a0to reach net-zero emissions\u00a0around mid-century<\/em>. As the report states bluntly, this would require greenhouse-gas emissions to fall \u201cby about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030\u201d \u2014 which is about 60% from today\u2019s levels \u2014 and\u00a0the only way to do that is<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0\u201cby broad transformations in the energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture, forestry, and other land-use sectors.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Two<\/a>
The IPCC\u2019s two carbon pathways, with one stabilizing at 1.5\u00b0C and the other overshooting but returning<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Concrete Actions Needed to Address the Climate Crisis<\/u><\/i><\/h2>\n

To stabilize\u00a0global temperature at any level, \u2018net\u2019 CO2<\/sub>\u00a0emissions would need to be reduced to zero. This means the amount of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0entering the atmosphere must equal the amount that is removed. Achieving a balance between CO2<\/sub>\u00a0\u2018sources\u2019 and \u2018sinks\u2019 is often referred to as \u2018net zero\u2019 emissions or \u2018carbon neutrality\u2019<\/em>
\n\u2013 Chapter Two, IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Chapter two digs into how a \u201cwhole-system transformation\u201d could work, comparing the advantages and drawbacks of various policies, including \u201cfiscal and structural reforms, public procurement, carbon pricing, stringent standards, information schemes, technology policies, fossil-fuel subsidy removal, climate risk disclosure, and land-use and transport planning.\u201d Overall, the report identifies \u201cfour central options\u201d to reduce emissions, which are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Decrease Demand for Energy<\/li>\n
  2. Electrify Energy-Services<\/li>\n
  3. Decarbonize Power-Generation<\/li>\n
  4. Decarbonize Non-Electric Fuel Consumption<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Very broadly speaking, energy demand can be reduced (1) by increasing energy-efficiency (like fuel-efficient technology, buildings that use less energy for heat, \u2018smart-meters,\u2019 etc), gas-powered services can be refitted to use electricity (2), the power sector can be decarbonized (3) by solar, wind, and other renewable installations, and non-electric fuel consumption can be decarbonized (4) by using biodiesel, fuel-cells, and other low-carbon alternatives to fossil-fuels like petroleum. But these are just a handful of the many things that can be done about climate change. There is no shortage of concrete solutions.<\/p>\n

    Aside from the technical challenges that can only be discovered and solved through implementation, the only major obstacle to achieving all of this\u00a0and more<\/em>\u00a0is the political obstacle.<\/p>\n

    \"Historical<\/a><\/p>\n

    The Chimera of \u2018Sustainable Capitalism\u2019<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

    \u201cCapitalism is inherently anti-ecological. Competition and accumulation constitute its very law of life [\u2026] In a society of this kind, nature is necessarily treated as a mere resource to be plundered and exploited. The destruction of the natural world, far being the result of mere hubristic blunders, follows inexorably from the very logic of capitalist production\u201d
    \n\u2013 Murray Bookchin<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \"Business<\/a>The central obstacle is the doctrine that the present ecological crisis can \u2014 and, indeed,\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 be resolved under capitalism and that sufficient reforms are possible within its institutional-framework of private property and competitive exchange. This ideology is why so much of the\u00a0Special Report on Global Warming of\u00a01.5\u00b0C<\/em>\u00a0had to be about the \u201cmajor shift in investment patterns\u201d that would be required before humanity can stop killing itself. Rather than taking the definite actions that would halt global warming \u2014 which, it bears repeating, are\u00a0known<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0feasible<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 liberal investors like\u00a0Al Gore claim<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that \u201ccompanies\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0investors<\/em>\u00a0will ultimately mobilize most of the capital needed to overcome the unprecedented challenges we now face.\u201d Meanwhile, one of Gore\u2019s heroic investors,\u00a0hedge-fund manager\u00a0Micheal Nock, was\u00a0telling the Guardian<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that the rich are dropping billions on so-called \u2018boltholes\u2019 or luxury climate-fortresses in remote locations, saying \u201cit\u2019s in the back of everybody\u2019s mind at the moment. If there are,\u00a0shall we say, changes<\/em>, where can we go?\u201d<\/p>\n

    These politicians and the shareholders they serve would have the world believe that it was never\u00a0capitalism\u00a0as such<\/em>\u00a0that destabilized global ecosystems to make money but only the \u201cunsustainable capitalism.\u201d In the fantasy-world of liberals like Gore, the centuries-long process of profit-fueled global warming will simply grind to a stop by asking greedy investors to make greener investments. The \u201cfundamental problem,\u201d\u00a0as billionaire Elon Musk claims<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0, is not the existence of \u201can unpriced externality\u201d to the market but the existence of\u00a0an unpriced\u00a0internality.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Crisis & The Internal Logic of Capitalism<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Capitalism is rooted in an internal logic that organizes labor and resources to increase the production of exchange value \u2014 or, more simply, things are produced for money, not for how useful they are. The only way this tendency toward constant expansion of value can be realized is by a process of capital accumulation based on rising productivity, which in turn must cause the average rate of profit to gradually fall so that further accumulation requires an acceleration of productivity-growth \u2014 then, productivity rises, capital accumulates, profit-rates fall, and round and round it goes. Since it is impossible to accelerate productivity for all eternity, this process eventually leads to the development of crises\u00a0of over-production and under-consumption, where exploitation of labor and natural resources reaches increasingly destructive levels as to avoid breakdown of production.<\/p>\n

    \"yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7<\/a><\/p>\n

    The inevitable bottom-line, in any case, is that continued use of fossil-fuels, as well as extraction of resources from vulnerable ecosystems, manufacture of inefficient vehicles, cost-saving pollution,\u00a0etc.<\/em>, generates loads of profit and will continue to do so until it is stopped because that is internal to how capitalism works. And what about re-configuring global power-production to use renewable, non-private energy-sources, constructing extensive new public-transit systems, ecological restoration \u2014 ? If it was lucrative, investors would have been there long before this discussion began and the notion that any of this is likely to wind up being profitable is exactly the overly-desperate sort of optimism that the planet can no longer afford.<\/p>\n

    Socialism \u2014 or Extinction<\/em>!<\/em><\/h2>\n

    Any plan to restructure such prosperous sectors of the economy is going to conflict with the short-sighted interests of private capital that are advanced by both major parties \u2014 however, the working classes have the world to gain from that endeavor. Even if it may be bonkers to envision replacing the capitalist state with rule by the working majority in less than a decade, the alternative is so spectacularly tragic that we are practically forced to. Make no mistake \u2014 the next pages of history will tell only one of two stories. Either society transforms its economic base to reach net-zero emissions in a few decades or begins its hellish descent into a sweltering dystopian twilight of famine and war and the oceans, emptied by extinctions, will rise and crash on new shores on mountainsides.<\/p>\n

    In light of all that, it seems prudent to at least consider what could be achieved if the ordinary people of the working majority were to \u2014 hypothetically,\u2020 of course \u2014 seize the apparatus of the state from these wealthy psychopaths and re-calibrate it to fix this absurd mess. To elaborate on this line of thought, the following section presents a policy-framework that could directly address ecological crisis from a point of view that assumes the state-power has already been brought under control by the classes who make up the working majority for the purpose of advancing their common interests.<\/p>\n

    [Note:\u00a0the author chose to limit his consideration to the US as he feels it is not his business to tell people of other nationalities what to do; that being said, much of it may also be broadly applicable in other national contexts<\/em>]<\/p>\n

    What a Resolution to the Climate Crisis Might Look Like<\/em><\/h2>\n

    \u201cWorld history would indeed be very easy to make if the struggle were only taken up on condition of perfectly favourable chances\u201d<\/em>
    \n\u2013 Karl Marx<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The first thing would be to open the throttle on spending, mobilizing the idle workforce by funding a\u00a0workers\u2019 self-managed federal job-guarantee<\/strong><\/a>, as well as programs to help workers establish construction co-ops capable of building new infrastructure for transportation and energy and to assemble movable labor-armies led by workers for large-scale reforestation and similar efforts. Recent\u00a0unemployment numbers<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics show about 12.6 million under- and unemployed workers and, if the 524,000 \u2018discouraged workers\u2019 whom the BLS left out are added, the total US idle workforce may be just over 13 million workers. Using the\u00a0earnings paid<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0by federal, state, and local governments to employ all US public-sector workers to create a rough estimate, employing the 13 million in the idle workforce at a similar rate might run about $52.7 billion and, to put this in perspective, that is just 8.2% of the current US military budget.<\/p>\n

    US Armies of Labor & Mass Reforestation<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    \""Limited<\/a>With up to 13 million new workers, a wide array of initiatives are possible and those presented here should only be taken as an incomplete list of potentially helpful actions. On top of the obvious tasks of building solar, wind, and other renewable installations,\u00a0research suggests<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that 27 million acres \u2014 or about the size of\u00a0Kentucky<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 could be reforested by an investment as small as $17 billion. Such a program could remove\u00a01.1 \u2013 1.6 giga-tonnes of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0yearly<\/em>, offsetting the global carbon-budget up to -2% over the next century. From a perspective of environmental and economic justice, reforestation has an added advantage of not being confined to any particular area, opening the possibility for US armies of labor to assist other nations (by invitation, of course) in restoring ecosystems historically damaged by US military and economic imperialism.<\/p>\n

    Large-Scale Public Improvement of Energy-Efficiency<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n

    Starting with their own homes and communities, worker-led armies of labor should initiate ambitious energy-efficient improvements to buildings in all sectors alike from home-weatherization to reduce energy-use in heating and air-conditioning to the electrification of services and installation of smart-meters. The principle of \u201ctaxing bads, not goods\u201d could be applied in matters of energy efficiency \u2014 while lifting taxes on earned income, taxes can be levied on cubic-feet of living space to discourage the absurdly high ceilings the rich seem so fond of, as well as on fuel consumption. And an industrial carbon-tax goes without saying, of course.<\/p>\n

    Channeling Capital Flows into Clean Energy<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    To fulfill any of the scenarios projected to limit warming to 1.5\u00b0C, present investment patterns need to change dramatically to the tune of anywhere from $800 billion to $2.9 trillion with capital flowing from high-emitting sectors into sustainable power and technology. Although the margin of error is wide due to the chaos that inheres in financial markets, annual investments from now to 2050 specifically need to average somewhere in these ranges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Solar Power<\/td>\n$90 billion \u2013 $1 trillion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Wind Power<\/td>\n$100 billion \u2013 $350 billion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Nuclear Power<\/td>\n$100 billion \u2013 $250 billion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Electricity Transmission, Distribution, & Storage Technology<\/td>\n$300 billion \u2013 $1.3 trillion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Additionally, around $1 trillion would have to be pulled from current investments in fossil-fuel extraction and power-generation. To irrigate existing flows of capital into the relevant industries, every tax that might conceivably impact firms that are implementing or developing these renewable technologies ought to be lifted and aggressive incentives put in place. To make up as much of the difference as possible (and bear in mind these projections are\u00a0global<\/em>\u00a0averages), clean-energy subsidies should be created and continually adjusted to target the levels of solar, wind, and nuclear-power investment that are consistent with 1.5\u00b0C scenarios.<\/p>\n

    De-Subsidization & Gradual Expropriation of Fossil-Fuels<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n

    Since it would be counter-productive to antagonize private business without good reason \u2014 and especially smaller owner-proprietors who have more in common with workers than big capitalists \u2014 the owners of energy, transportation, and other relevant firms should be given every reasonable incentive to cooperate voluntarily with the low-carbon conversion of industries. To the greatest extent possible, the administrative and organizational experience of cooperating business-owners should be leveraged to assist with the transformation of capitalist society.\u00a0That being said, the US is home to\u00a05 of the top 20 corporate emitters<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, Consol Energy Inc<\/em>) that are altogether responsible for over 9% of global emissions since 1751 and \u2014 especially considering that all these firms\u00a0knowingly orchestrated disinformation-campaigns<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to systematically delay climate-action for decades \u2014 not everyone should be left off the hook.<\/p>\n

    With robust unemployment-benefits in place for workers transitioning from affected industries,\u00a0all fossil-fuel subsidies<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0will need to be phased out rapidly with harsh penalties imposed on private firms that attempt to foist the costs on employees or consumers by price-hikes, wage-cuts, layoffs, and the like. While taking care not to suppress power production beyond what renewables can replace, a heavy progressive tax on emissions from industrial and energy-sector activity would act as a lever to gradually wrest capital from high-carbon energy firms as renewable outputs increase and to oblige private firms to make improvements, minimizing emissions from production.<\/p>\n

    Conversion of the Military to an Ecological Rescue Force<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

    The US, in particular, is uniquely poised to eliminate a relatively massive amount of emissions by closing the absurd number of military-bases it maintains worldwide. Tens of thousands of troops with all their tanks and hummers and jets could be pulled from the Korean Peninsula alone, which would not just free up significant heaps of resources by reigning in the single largest institutional carbon-emitter but also resolve the world\u2019s last extant nuclear flash-point.\u00a0US forces in Korea<\/strong><\/a>, however, are dwarfed by another 40,000 or so stationed at 112 bases in nearby Japan \u2014 and even all that accounts for just a fraction of US bases in the south Pacific.<\/p>\n

    The strategic positioning of US bases worldwide may also be an opportunity to re-purpose the military\u2019s considerable resources by converting some of this network to provide relief during natural disasters, particularly for the small island-nations most likely to be impacted by warming-driven extreme weather events. Aside from bases deemed fit to re-purpose, however, a rapid shut-down of the war-machine deserves priority for the simple reason that the military is likely responsible for\u00a0around 80% of US government fuel-consumption<\/strong><\/a>, although no exact figure exists as it is exempt from any requirement to track emissions.<\/p>\n

    Toward a Planetary Struggle Against Capital for Ecological & Human Liberation<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n

    The most important thing is to understand that\u00a0a better world is possible<\/em>. Not just possible in theory or possible to imagine but\u00a0physically, chemically, technically<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 it is\u00a0actually<\/em>\u00a0possible. The specter of impossibility has already been banished from every sphere of human endeavor except the political sphere. An overwhelming world-majority recognizes anthropogenic climate change as the existential threat that it is \u2014 even the United States, where the science-deniers are now\u00a0outnumbered 5-to-1<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0\u2014 and the consensus of the international science-community is that humans already possess the power and the technology needed to fix things.<\/p>\n

    And yet\u00a0only 6%<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0think that nations can and will succeed in combating climate change. That is where we are \u2014 6%. For every 20 random passersby on the street, there is just a slight chance that more than one would admit to being crazy enough to think the situation is going to improve. There exist sparks of hope \u2014 the spread of indigenous resistance and direct action is a major cause for hope and, hell, we even have\u00a0a few socialists in congress<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0now (and one just helped occupy Nancy Pelosi\u2019s office to demand a Green New Deal). But those sparks must be kindled if they are to become the great conflagration that is necessary. To steal the\u00a0the words<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0of one of the old revolutionaries \u2014\u00a0there are moments in history when a desperate struggle by the masses,\u00a0even for a hopeless cause, becomes necessary<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    And friends \u2014\u00a0this<\/em>\u00a0is one of those moments.<\/p>\n

    In solidarity,
    \nJohn Laurits<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    NOVEMBER 18, 2018\u00a0JOHN LAURITS\u00a0(johnlaurits.com) With the urgent findings of last month\u2019s\u00a0IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C\u00a0\u2014 an assessment of the scientific, technical, and economic research related to climate change by thousands of scientific experts \u2014 the political economy of ecological crisis has never been more crucial. Yet sadly,… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10350"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10350"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10350\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10351,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10350\/revisions\/10351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}