Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/12/better-climate-plans-still-arent-good-enough
This article misses a larger point.
As with the absurdly inadequate Paris Accords, what half-measures like those proposed by the d-party end up doing is convincing large swaths of the country that we’re getting job done. And since the d-party is getting the job done we can pat them on the back and go back to sleep.
This isn’t just a bait and switch, it’s a straight up con. Don’t fall for it – like so many of us did when “hopey, changey” Obama took a victory lap for signing on to the Paris Accords. Not a single nation has met its emissions target under that “voluntary” agreement, carbon ppm has continued to soar upward, and we’re still fucked.
Only in being will we find our way ,not through doing .True change is always made at the level of “being” not “doing”.
Who are we in relationship to our environment ?Change this idea and we will act differently.
It’s a matter of conciousness and we have to raise conciousness to change conciousness.
The thought that the Earth exists for the exploration of the dominant species is a flawed principle but our beliefs have created our behaviours !!
We Are All One is the first guiding principle of highly evolved society’s.
The second guiding principle is : Everything in the One Interrelates.
Under this principle ,no one member of a species could,or would keep something from another simply because " he has it first," or it’s his "possession, " or it’s in “short” supply. "The mutual dependency of all living things in the speciesystem is recognized and honoured. The relative needs of every living organism within the system are always kept in balance-because they are always kept in mind .
Every decision ,every choice all of what
we call “morals” and “ethics” is based upon the first guiding principle of We Are All One .
This is the only hope for humanity, the idea that we are separate is the illusion.
Time to Awaken The Species .
Lets be real clear, the “Joe Biden-Bernie Sanders Task Force” has yielded almost NOTHING.
From the link below:
A single-payer healthcare system such as “Medicare for All”, a “Green new Deal” overhauling environmental policy, and doing away with Immigration and Customs enforcement are NOT AMONG THE POLICY PROPOSALS.
It (the plan) does include a recommendation that Biden eliminate carbon pollution from power plants by 2035, and zeroing out net greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy by 2050.
Here’s the saddest of all, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the healthcare task force, didn’t even bring a Medicare for All recommendation to the table in any of the meetings.
We have been bullshitted by even the so called “progressives”.
Nothing will change, Biden said it months ago, BELIEVE IT!!!
“Bernie/Biden Task Force Ends In Extreme Failure” / Jimmy Dore Platform
Articles like this remind me to take a James Taylor timeout for perspective’s sake: ~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHWHPPHpAj8
I’ve never been a fan of setting year-date goals like 2050, 2030, or even 2025. Sure 2025 is better than 2050, but it seems like without actual material steps that must be taken to achieve whatever milestone is set for a specific date, it will be a case of another missed deadline, regardless of date.
Plus, the milestones are lacking in the robustness needed to put it mildly. Dems won’t acknowledge that growth in the material economy needs to end, and that means big time changes in lifeways and behaviors.
Let’s set national carbon budgets (ala climatologist, Kevin Anderson)
“Beyond timelines, other shortcomings in the House plan lack focus on stopping fossil fuel projects. Climate policies must emphasize getting off fossil fuels as fast as possible. Renewable energy goals mean little if new dirty projects move forward. Supply-side policies should ban fracking, stop import and export of fossil fuels and stop the buildout of dirty energy infrastructure – all central to the “Ban Fracking Act” introduced by Rep. AOC.”
Totally phasing out fossil fuels can’t be done instantly nor is it necessary nor even advisable. To reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, we must learn to use fuel/energy sparingly. Thus, plug-in hybrid PHEVs should be considered an “indispensable” rather than “interim” technology.
“A pledge to make all cars “zero-emission” by 2035, ‘net zero’ electricity generation by 2040, and similar goals for the rest of the economy a decade later.”
Not all vehicles should be zero emission. Commercial freight trucks should be plug-in hybrid to distribute battery resources equitably and effectively Neither should household EVs be all BEV which may become overly dependent upon regional utility grids and centralized power sources called “renewable” but still utilize energy wastefully.
Interesting thought, though I find it difficult to separate being and doing. But there is something there.
When I climbed full time, I was definitely doing, but there was also a feeling I have never had in any number of jobs and experiences - and that was that I was ‘on the path’ - with absolute certainty.
Harari talks of our imagined worlds in “Sapiens”. For example, the Declaration is a belief which we choose to subscribe to, although it bears zero resemblance to reality. Economics and the free market same - beliefs, unsupported by reality.
Anyway - this focus on the climate is now past its expiry date.
We have much bigger problems - and it has to do with what you might be getting at with ‘being’.
Pretty much everyone is still fully bought in to the ‘idea’ of more, and this is unrealistic - fatally so it appears on a finite planet.
To survive, we may well have to develop a new imagined way of being.
Your preferred solution?
(Ordinarily I do not demand that identifying the problem entails devising a solution. But in this case F&WW is precisely in line with everything I have heard on this subject in the past decade and beyond.)
Absolutely, as many of us realized many years ago. It is the one crucial element missing from the FWW plan. They can’t help it: For all their good work they approach it from a technical stance.
I neglected to mention that Thom Hartmann’s The Last Days of Ancient Sunlight (1999) has a lot of well-informed commentary on both the nature (sic) of the problem and the only credible basis for response. It is only tangentially about the ancient sunlight.
I’m still waiting for the well-meaning folks who write articles about climate plans to actually point to fully developed plans that reflect a thoroughly informed understanding of the nature of our existential predicament. So far most articles fail this acid test.
So let me point to just two of a number of deep thinkers who get it. Dr. Nate Hagens of the University of Minnesota certainly gets it. In his most recent article, Hagens examines the implications of the pandemic for climate change planning. Hagens is one of the very few who take a Big Picture systemic system overview of our predicament. For a full-blown explanation of our precarious situation, take a look at Hagens’ article, “An Overview of the Systemic Implications of the Coronavirus” published in Resilience on March 25.
Scientist Stan Cox is another expert who gets it. In a recent article, Cox, a lead scientist at the Land Institute, outlines, in considerable detail, “achievable” ideas for a climate solution that addresses the “glaring gaps” in most Green New Deal articles. There’s no denying that we must quickly transition from fossil fuels to renewables. But, he warns, proposing that a GND could be funded by increasing economic growth would be self-defeating. Read Stan’s article “Fair Enough” in Resilience, May 4 issue.
Submit: Our problems are more fundamental.
We don’t fit the emerging, unprecedented environs we continue to generate by way of our numbers, powers and aggregate-reach.
We’re not coded — biologically or culturally — for relationship interface with complex, global relationships that often come with exponential dynamics & myriad emergent consequences, many unknown.
For more explanatory context, see:
Deep Fringe Neuronal Weather … on Medium
This was to @SkepticTank, but I should have my set of bullet points ready to go on this too, but off the top of my head:
A significant carbon tax to start (> $50/ton CO2) and ramp up to hundreds per ton) with most of the money going back as dividends. Benefits: Both business and personal uses of energy will have a different trade of high CO2 sources of energy vs. low sources encouraging the latter. Issues: Trade involves items with energy used to make it and if this isn’t assessed and tariffs applied, this is more penalty for goods made in the US which is the opposite of what I want to do (I’m more of a protectionist on trade).
Move more energy production to utilities. Benefits: perhaps not required to achieve climate goals, but I’m still so annoyed by Enron that in any discussion of this issue, I want this aspect fixed. I am sympathetic to the idea that the Green New Deal went too far on side issues that have nothing to do with energy (not saying they aren’t good things), but this is a reasonable tag along. Issues: opposition by private entities, otherwise none.
Bring a well organized roll out plan of current technology to the forefront of discussion so we can all as voters talk about what is achievable with conservation and alternative energy right now. I want people like @PSwanee and @Trog on board with a plan that is not breaking physics or practicality in law or resource allocation. Benefits: I’ve long been saying I’d like to get moving and I’m not as worried about a plan, but I see the advantages of a plan too - it gives some inertia to ride through changes in leadership, and it will put on the table just how much energy we can reasonably expect to get and what kind of conservation (some difficult) measures are needed. Issues: none, other than people wanting to attach unrelated items to the plan which I wish they wouldn’t.
3a) (part of the plan): Assess all our hydro resources. How many of them can handle adding more generators and running a much more uneven amount of water flow through the dam to act as buffering for renewable energy).
3b) Include assessment of existing nuclear to figure out which plants should close now and which plants should remain running for decades more.
3c) Include assessment of new nuclear designs (Gen IV but there are a handful of very different designs - MSR being the one that Trog likes). Benefit: getting a new nuclear design approved and built in the US is a very long process. Starting a modest effort now with the potential benefits of reducing our stockpile of waste from weapons and earlier reactor designs makes sense to me. Issues: still not much of a political consensus on this and it may take success in other countries before anything can happen here. Will be on a timeline that is late for making the CO2 changes we need to make.
- Lay out areas of more research funding in renewable energy and storage.
In general I view us as needing worry more about getting our act together before going into agreements with other countries which may or may not work out. Of course we should be sharing what we learn (e.g. publish publicly funded research studies as we always do) with other countries and looking to other countries for what they have learned.
Call out the d-party establishment for what it is: A pack of con-artists in league with murderous grifters.
Then state that, like the Tea Party did with the r-party, we’re going to punish you at the polls unless you do our bidding. We’ll accept short-term r-party majorities (and some steps back) in the fight to take meaningful steps forward over the long-term. And if the d-party implodes, all the better.
The r-party fears its base, the d-party takes theirs for granted.
Whenever we push out into a new technology area, it is usual for us to try multiple approaches, most of which don’t work out. So if you have nine approaches which haven’t worked, or haven’t been fully tested, and one which does work, it is technically correct to say that the “set” of technologies is “largely” unproven. But this is misleading, because we don’t need for the entire “set” to be proven. One success is all we need.
Right now, there is a zero-emissions gas-powered plant operating in Texas. The demonstration plant confirmed the basic operating principle, and validated the efficiency and cost projections. That makes it a more “proven” technology than, for example, grid-scale battery backup, which features prominently in many green plans.
And yes, it is fossil fuel and gas infrastructure companies which got together to develop that technology, and their motivation is that they think it will be good for their future business. So what? That’s no reason not to use a viable technology which could help with reducing carbon emissions–and may eventually help with sequestering already-released CO2.
Oh I didn’t realize @economagic was asking about your solution for getting Democrats to listen to their base (which makes more sense than what I thought was being asked).
Not a complete solution but I’m ready to blackmail Democrats on one issue - RCV. Unless the person running is that rare breed of true progressive D, I won’t be voting for you (or donating to you). However if you support RCV and get it passed in my state, I will rank you after I choose third party people of higher integrity.
There is only one candidate who has a climate plan that is consistent with the science of climate change, i.e. transitioning to a clean sustainable energy economy by 2030. This candidate was the first to advocate for a Green New Deal in the United States and did so ten years ago. That candidate is Howie Hawkins the Green Party nominee. He has his detailed climate budget, and an overall plan for an Ecosocialist Green New Deal. And he calls on the next president to declare a climate emergency on the first day in the office so that he can make important policy changes without being hindered by Congress. This is all detailed at his website HowieHawkins[dot]US.
If you bury your head in the sand long enough
You eventually suffocate
Yes. Thank you.
Greta is one of the ones who know, and when she says our house is ON FIRE, she is absolutely right: we are not awake to it, it’s like we want to save some of the old hangers-on which is NO GOOD! If we are awake to the plain science, and to our humanity/soul’s response to this, we will act like the house is on fire and it is an absolute emergency!!. We cannot be radical enough where this is concerned. The ordinary people need to be informed -some can handle it at least, then the politicians can go much further!