Climate Criminals — A preliminary to-do list

This almost counts as a "notes to self" list, but if anyone wants help with the information, please do.

This is the first set of data needed to start a Climate Criminals project — an operation that names and publicizes who's really bringing the planet so close to climate catastrophe.

To publicize the first group of perps — carbon CEOs — I think the following is needed:

• The top ten carbon extraction companies by income
• The CEOs of those companies
• The total compensation of each CEO
• The total wealth (if available) of each CEO
• Public domain pictures of each

This would allow us to put them in some kind of order.

Click here for more on this group and what I suggest we do. These are the real bad guys.

To deal with the second set of perps — political enablers and fence-sitters — I think the following would be useful.

• A list of the five most egregious anti-climate politicians (names like Inhofe come to mind, but the list should be longer)
  
  
• A sharpened "elevator speech" that makes the urgency case for the fence-sitters
  
  
• Confirmation that the following fence-sitters are the place to start — Barack Obama (or whoever secedes him), Hillary Clinton (or whoever is Secretary of State), Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Joe Biden.

More on the plans for this group here. The proposed way to take the fence-sitters off the fence is Keystone Pipeline approval.

For the third group of perps — media enablers and fence-sitters — it would be nice to have the following:

• A list of the five most egregious anti-climate media pimps, people like George Will. We want the worst ones for this list.
  
  
• The sharpened "elevator speech" for the fence-sitters (same as above)
  
  
• A list of the key media people to be taken off of the fence and/or educated. My first suggestions included David Gregory, followed by Chris Matthews and Chris Hayes, maybe a CNN anchor, and some entertainment people like Leno, Letterman, Colbert and John Stewart.
  
  I think we need some people who are a likely Yes (like Matthews and Hayes), and some in key positions we can put on the spot (like Gregory). The goal is to get advocates and also to apply pressure. Suggestions appreciated.

Click here to see what the plan for this group is.

For the fourth group of perp — Koch-funded denier scientists — it would be good to have the following:

• A list from the scientific community of Heartland-paid or Koch-paid (etc.) scientists who are doing the most damage with the least apparently integrity
  
  
• A list of the primary denier-funding institutions (places like Heartland)
  
  
• A list of the primary funders of those institutions, with amounts if possible

As we noted here, we would push for the scientist to reject the suspect funding in order to "clear up any confusion about their motives."

The attack is only peripherally on the "tobacco scientists" in the climate field. The real push is to publicize the financing sources and help to deactivate them.

Note the similarity to the ALEC defunding campaign that has had such great success. If taking suspect money appears to be a black mark on integrity, it will make it more difficult for these funding operations to continue.

Will some "scientists" quit the field if they can't get Koch Bros financing? If they do, that's not a problem.

The effort to unconfuse the people offers different challenges. Here we will need information culled from a number of sources and assembled in an apples-to-apples way.

The list is long, but key elements are:

• How long before 1½°C arrives?
• At the current rate of carbon-dumping, how long before 3°C arrives?
• What does a 3°C world look like?

And so on. There are a great number of good studies, but it's difficult for the layman to evaluate them relative to each other, since each uses individual scopes, methodologies, and metrics.

For more on this, click here.

That's the last for now. With this information, a Climate Criminals project could boldly take the next steps. I'm going to be working on this myself.

If you'd like to help out, feel free to send information as you wish. Put "Climate Criminals to-do" in the subject line, and wse the lists above as a guide unless you think I've missed something important. I may not be able to reply, but I appreciate all the assistance that's offered.

Thanks,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

The Climate Criminals project: A five-pronged approach to climate solution

This falls under the heading "wouldn't it be nice." I think the proposal below, if executed, would add considerable muscle to the existing (and frustrated) climate crisis movement.

I'm calling this proposal the "Climate Criminals" project — a label for the five-pronged approach to a climate solution that I've been writing about — for example here:

Solving the climate crisis — Goals, targets and tactics (a summary)

I won't detail the project's tactics yet — this piece is already long enough — but I do want to identify the targets of those tactics, show how those targets would be approached, and set up the next few posts in this series.

First, though, two reminders — what problem are we solving, and what strategies don't seem to be working?

(To skip immediately to the project itself, click here.)

The problem, the solution, and the "ask"

Before going further, let's make sure we're on the same page — all of us solving the same problem. For example, I'm not solving this problem:

How to keep the Koch Bros rich while transitioning to alternate energy sources.

Instead, I'm solving this:

The problem — Humans continue to put carbon into the air. What's already there is too much.

Even if we stopped tomorrow, we've still created a terrible mess that we'll need to adapt to. That adaptation will not be easy. What you've seen through the past few summers is exactly half the warming we're already predestined to get. The other half is in the pipeline, just waiting to show up.

Defining the problem the way I have makes the solution-statement obvious:

The solution — Put the carbon industry out of business. Completely.

As long as the carbon industry is open for business, carbon will be added to the air. Zero new man-made carbon is the right number; any greater number is the wrong one.

Which means there's only one thing the climate crisis movement should ask for:

The right "ask" — "Stop now." Stop putting man-made carbon into the air at the most-strictly-defined earliest-possible moment.

The consequences of not stopping are far more important than the profits of a handful of super-wealthy egomaniacs.

In addition, the disruptions to us all of an abrupt stop and energy conversion, however great, will be minor compared to life in a chaotic 3°C, 4°C, or 6°C warmer world. Life in those worlds will be hell.

As noted above, we're at "only" .8°C warmer now. Any less discomfort we seek for ourselves now will come at a huge price in the years to come.

Put another way, the decision to "stop later" is the decision to make our own lives marginally less bad by pushing the disaster (including a possible "mass extinction" event) onto our children.

Some would call that victimizing the next generation. It's at least a very unfriendly act. I assume we won't be thanked for it.

What doesn't work; what isn't sufficient

Before we look at what I'm recommending, let's look at what doesn't work and why:

1. Personal behavior change — individual action — is not enough. That discussion is here. The bottom line, even if you went totally green, you'd have to get power from somewhere. And that "somewhere" is under political control, not personal control. Behavior change is critical, but not enough.
   
   
2. Technology alone is not going to save us. That discussion is here. New technology is critical, but again, not enough. Even if the needed technology were available now, deploying it quickly is a choice between relative discomforts, not benefits — some discomfort now forestalling huge problems later. "More discomfort now" is a very hard sell, even if the political forces weren't arrayed against us.
   
   
3. A carbon tax is not the answer. That discussion is here. First, markets don't work in an orderly way, so a market-based solution can't be counted on (for example, see here). Besides, giving people permission to emit carbon is not our goal; our goal is the opposite — forcing the end of all new atmospheric carbon. (And yes, it will take force.)
   
   
4. Mass protest and awareness movements are not going to solve the problem by themselves. They're a vital part of the effort to "unconfuse the people" (one of our goals). But raising awareness isn't enough by itself to change the behavior of politicians.
   
   Three examples should suffice: (1) Recent mass protests against the Keystone Pipeline, which only delayed approval. (2) Worldwide mass protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (3) Comparison of "will of the people" polling on economic matters — e.g., Bush-Obama Tax Cuts, banker bailouts, cuts to the safety net — versus the desires and actions of our rulers.

What is the five-pronged approach?

The Climate Criminals five-pronged approach is a plan for a cadre-led movement to:

• Target the perps, the "carbon criminals"
• Catalyze leadership among on-the-fence politicians and media
• Unconfuse the people about global warming consequences

The Climate Criminals project is conceived as a supplement to current action, not a replacement. It attempts to "up the ante" on consequences to produce a more effective result and more effective messaging.

This is a U.S.–based project, under the assumption that if the U.S. can't be changed, no leveraged worldwide change is possible.

The first four prongs target four groups of perps who are blocking all attempts at climate solution and mitigation — carbon CEOs; their political enablers and retainers; their big-media enablers and retainers; their bought climate scientists (the paid "tobacco scientists" of our day).

The approach targets individuals in each group — perps in the crisis, the reason world climate is getting worse, plus key fence-sitters — for public identification as "climate criminals" and for non-violent but effective action.

The approach also attempts to recruit "climate converts" and leaders among the perps, especially within the political and media classes.

The fifth prong is aimed at the people themselves. At the moment the mass of people are terribly confused — partly because writers and communicators have not told the real story well, and partly because the four groups of perps have deliberately reinforced the confusion.

This approach attempts to change that — to unconfuse the people with clear messaging.

Now the details, target by target:

Perp 1 — Carbon CEOs. These are the main "climate criminals"— the core reason we haven't solved this problem already. The greed and megalomania of less than 100 humans is what stands between 7 billion humans and a climate solution.

Even though global warming and the greenhouse effect were identified as early as 1861, today's carbon CEOs make obscene personal profit by continuing to monetize the greenhouse chemicals under their control. They've shown by their behavior where their loyalty lies.

Carbon CEOs are the primary reason carbon is still going into the air. They control the political and media classes to make sure their wishes, and no one else's, become the public policy and message. They also control a number of paid-off scientists (the tobacco scientists of our day) who make sure the science messaging appears confused.

When the generation alive in 2100 wants to know who gave them their hot chaotic world, these criminals will head the list.

A Climate Criminals project would identify each of these people by name, starting with the top 10 or so; identify how much money each is making from global climate destruction; identify how much wealth each has extracted from the misery of future generations; and ask — probably in vain — for a conversion of conscience to help aggressively solve the problem each has caused.

Carbon CEOs need to be made the permanent face of the catastrophe. Every time bad climate news appears, the people need to see these faces as the perps.

Perp 2 — Political enablers. This group includes two types — known climate criminals like James Inhofe, whose record is clear, and supposed fence-sitters like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (who will soon get to approve — or disapprove — the Keystone Pipeline from her perch in the State Dept).

A Climate Criminals project would name important enablers like Inhofe — treating them just like the criminal CEOs — then take the important fence-sitters off the fence by putting people like Barack Obama, the Clintons, Harry Reid and others, one by one, firmly on the record.

The key to putting people like Obama on the record is the Keystone Pipeline. I would start with Obama — first by stating the climate case vis-à-vis Keystone, then by asking:

"Mr. Obama, will you swear to veto any legislation that contains any approval for the Keystone Pipeline in the United States, regardless of whatever else the legislation contains?"

A Yes makes him a Climate Protector and the project would publicize him as such (thus keeping him on the record).

A No or a waffle — either — makes him a Climate Criminal. This is entirely fair. Keystone Pipeline approval is a guarantee of 3°C or greater global warming and the mass extinction that will follow.

After Obama, similar questions should be put to the Clintons, Biden, Reid. The process could be continued as necessary. Fence-sitting senators up for election in blue states are especially interesting, as are congresstypes on environmental committees.

Perp 3 — Media enablers. The model for action is the same as for the political enablers. Again, there are two groups — the known bads like George Will and those who can be put on the record, one by one.

For the second group, I'd start with one of the primary network anchors — David Gregory comes to mind — then pick someone from MSNBC like Chris Matthews. Entertainers like Jay Leno and David Letterman should also be included. At Comedy Central I'd start with Colbert, who probably gets it, then move to Stewart, who may or may not.

The ask:

"Do you agree with the climate assessments and the timetable? If so, do you agree that every time the subject comes up, it needs to be framed in a way that correctly represents the situation — in a way that unconfuses people, not further confuses them?"

To be clear: Handling the news or the comedy is up to them. We're only asking that they not confuse people with contra-factual framing.

The goal is to seek new protectors, people who will agree and follow through with clear recognition that this is indeed a crisis. Only those like George Will who are died-in-the-wool deniers should go into the criminals group. Perhaps a third group — "climate fence-sitters" — might be useful here, especially as evidence from places like the Arctic mounts.

Perp 4 — Paid science deniers. Similar to groups 2 and 3, people should be put on the spot, then classified. Here, the question isn't about the intention behind a climate denial position — that's hard to determine — but the funding, which is easy to discover.

Starting with an empty deniers' Climate Criminals list, I'd approach any prominent researcher who takes money from Koch Industries, the Heartland Institute or a similar organization and simply ask them to reject the funding in order to clear up any confusion about their motives.

A researcher's motives are only suspect if known-denial-funding changes hands. Otherwise, they're presumed to be simply a contrarian, a perfectly fair position in science. The ask is therefore:

"Will you reject and return all funding from [denier funding org] so that your motives will not appear to be compromised?"

A researcher who agrees to reject denial funding should be presumed sincere. Paid contrarians, however, are a different beast, and should be moved from "unknown" to the Climate Criminals list.

The people. There has to be a strong program to "unconfuse the people." The goal is not to terrify, but to make people appropriately concerned — concerned enough to hug the monster and act with urgency.

This brings in the writers, filmmakers and other professional communicators. The message:

"We're facing a serious problem. These are the timelines.

"We better get our house in order because anyone who lives through most of the current century will experience the start of the climate chaos era. That means our children.

"Help us paint that picture before it's too late to act."

All five prongs work together in this part of the effort. Finding climate protectors among politicians and media would give mainstream cred to the "unconfuse" messaging. As interest mounts, people could even make money at it.

Bottom line

I've been writing for a while about the problem — we're less than a generation, perhaps less than a decade, from watching the climate start to spin out of control.

Once 3°C — 5½°F — is inevitable, the only option left will be to mitigate and survive. And a decade or two after that, when 3°C does arrive, it will bring degrees and levels of chaos that will make global coordination impossible. At least in my view.

So the time to act is now, before 3°C is inevitable. Is current effort going to be enough? In my opinion, no. Ultimately, nothing but force will budge the CEOs and their paid politicians. Time to add (completely non-violent) force into the equation.

A Climate Criminals project, or something similar, would be one way to up the pressure. A project like this would highlight the true perps, make them the face of the crisis, and allow all kinds of other actions to take place around that understanding.

It would also put politicians and media on the record — and on the spot — in a way that isn't happening now.

Again, my proposed Climate Criminals project is a plan for a cadre-led movement to:

• Target the perps, the "carbon criminals"
• Catalyze leadership among on-the-fence politicians and media
• Unconfuse the people about global warming consequences

I hope, if it gains momentum, you give it your support. The next posts will include a to-do list and some examples of using force that, under the right circumstances, could very well work.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Obama may cut Social Security benefits during Lame Duck session following election

Not good. After November, Obama will never again face the electorate. He's free to do as he wants.

The Lesser Evil is still evil, folks. If you vote for it, it's your job to save us from it.

Huffington Post:

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Concern is mounting among some Senate Democrats that President Barack Obama will make a deal with Senate Republicans during the lame-duck session that would result in changes to the benefit structure of Social Security.

[A snipped paragraph about how Obama said nice things before the AARP about what he's "open" to doing — without making a single promise.]

But the Vermont Independent worried that all of this could be posturing for the lame-duck session immediately after the election, when lawmakers are expected to rush to find another "grand bargain" on tax and entitlement reform to stave off the so-called fiscal cliff.

"That's exactly what's going to happen," Sanders said of Social Security being on the proverbial table, "Unless someone of us stops it -- and a number of us are working very hard on this -- that's exactly what will happen. Everything being equal, unless we stop it, what will happen is there will be a quote-unquote grand bargain after the election in which the White House, some Democrats will sit down with Republicans, they will move to a chained CPI."

Read more about the "chained CPI" proposal here. All you need to know — it changes the cost of living adjustment so retirees get a lot less money.

When the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) attempted to craft a deal on the debt ceiling last summer, Obama offered the chained CPI as a concession.

So there. As we wrote months and months ago, Obama's original Grand Bargain is still on the table.

And Daddy Koch (sorry, David Koch) — soon-to-be operational head of the Republican Party (sorry, "one of the most influential donors in the Republican Party") — has given his blessing to the fig leaf (sorry, "tax increases") Obama needs to sell his surrender to us as some kind of benefit.

Barring an open Democratic office-holders rebellion, this is starting to look like a done-deal. Even Nancy Pelosi, judging by her words, is on board as well.

Hmm, "open rebellion" by office-holders against DLC and NeoLib party leaders. Maybe that's what we need from our good progressive electeds ....

UPDATE: There's quite a good discussion going on in the comments, with a number of positions debated. I've weighed in several times myself. Do click through if this subject interests you.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Host of now-famous Romney fundraiser under investigation in NY

Romney's host for the "47%" fundraiser, Marc Leder, is under investigation by the New York Attorney General for questionable tax practices with his private equity firm, Sun Capital Partners.

The investigation is still open, so he may very well be cleared. The tax practice that his firm allegedly uses is nothing new, and it's been widely used by many in that industry. Of course, many other firms are also under investigation in New York for the same practice.

Romney's friend, like Romney himself, may very well be within the law, but that's not really the point. After watching the elites become ridiculously rich in recent years, we've also watched the middle class struggle and the number of poor increase. For the Romney class, the tax code is there for the picking. They have the cash to throw smart bodies (lawyers, accountants) at the issue and find a way to pay less and less as they earn more and more.

There's a big difference between being within the law and doing the right thing.

Is paying 15% (or 14% in Romney's case - that's assuming he's paid anything at all these past ten years, we don't know since he won't release his taxes) really fair when working families are paying more?

The problem with people like Romney, Leder and the rest of the financial elite on the right is that they view themselves as victims. Yes, the people who have profited the most from the radical tax cuts are still not satisfied, and have convinced themselves that nothing is ever enough.

Being an egotistical, selfish jerk is one thing, but putting people like this in power to turn back the clock to the days of the Industrial Revolution is another. Who wants a president that stands to personally gain millions in tax breaks even after he's already gamed the system to pay less than most working people?

Enough is never enough for this crowd.

Guilty or innocent, we need to stop having a system that primarily works for the richest of the rich. In a Romney administration, it's going to be just that, on steroids.

According to court documents filed as part of his 2009 divorce, Leder created a system for turning hundreds of millions of dollars in ordinary income into investments that would be taxed at a much lower rate.

The strategy, known as “a management fee waiver,” may have lowered his tax bill by millions of dollars over time, according to the documents.

Leder’s private equity firm, Sun Capital Partners, is one of more than a dozen private-equity firms being investigated by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to see whether they used management fee waivers to avoid taxes, according to people familiar with the matter.

Read the rest of this post...

UK reviewing plans for 1% line at airport security

As if the UK didn't already have a class divide issue that refuses to go away. It should't be a complete surprise though since too many still think they need to financially support the obscenely wealthy royal family. (And how curious how they have the extra money to spend on frivolous lawsuits.)

The goal is presumably to make airport security quick and speedy the way it used to be before 9/11. The working slobs will still have to suffer through painfully long lines but if you are rich, life is good and lines and short. We all know that rich people would never be a problem because you know, people like Osama bin Laden was a humble peasant who never could have afforded to fly first class. Oh wait.

The Guardian:

Keith Vaz, the committee chair, pressed Moore as to whether it meant the super-rich would have a fast-track into Britain. Moore said it would cover people who were "valuable to the economy and were valued by the airlines". He said the move was intended to demonstrate that Britain was "open for business".

The plan is likely to be seen as highly divisive, especially if there is any repeat of the two-hour queues at passport control earlier this year and in the runup to the Olympics. Even at normal times, passengers from outside the EU are expected to queue for up to 45 minutes to get through passport control at Heathrow. The airport has a target to keep passport queues below 25 minutes for passengers with EU passports.

UKBA declined to give any further detail on who would qualify as a "high-value business person" to get such preferential treatment. But it could be safely assumed that frequent business-class flyers might well be nominated by airlines to qualify. Other wealthy individuals and their families that British embassies, consulates and large companies nominate as valuable to the UK economy might also be offered such a fast-track into Britain.

As a frequent traveler myself, I still find this proposed system to be annoying. Rather than improve the system for everyone, it's just another example of money buying everything.

They think this means "Britain is open for business" but what it really says is "Britain is open to the highest bidder." It's easier to sell an elitist system to a Conservative government than to bother to pay for enough people to work so that the security system moves quickly all around. Heaven forbid they bother to spend money on hiring government workers, right? Read the rest of this post...

UK pro-austerity government to cap unfair dismissal payout

Isn't it curious how wage earners somehow need to be controlled and limited yet the most abusive people - the 1% - are not being asked to sign up for similar controls? It wasn't the middle class that caused the economic crisis so why are they always on the front line of cuts?

There's nothing fair about this, at all.

The maximum £72,000 [$117,000] compensation cap for unfair dismissal is to be slashed as part of a package of measures designed to remove disincentives from employers to take on new staff. The new cap may be set at the employee's annual salary, or another lower figure.

Vince Cable, the business secretary, thinks the current maximum – though awarded in only 1% or 2% of cases a year – deters employers from hiring staff. The current median award is only £5,000 to £6,000, with just 6% of cases leading to awards over £30,000.

Cable has resisted pressure to adopt compulsory no-fault dismissal – a proposal advanced by Adrian Beecroft in a report commissioned by David Cameron and given near totemic status by the Tory right.

Read the rest of this post...

Programming notes: Ring of Fire and Virtually Speaking this weekend

Two short programming notes:

■ I'll be guesting this weekend on Ring of Fire Radio with Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder. Tune in if you can. The subject will the "billionaire hostile takeover" of the Republican Party.

The program is carried on many radio stations and available via Internet. Broadcast times are usually Saturday afternoon with a Sunday evening repeat.

Click here to find a station. Click here to listen live.

Mike Papantonio recently spoke strongly on that subject, and Chris posted a video. Mike is very passionate and minces no words.

My posts on the subject are listed here.

■ Virtually Speaking Sundays is a BlogTalkRadio-hosted program of long standing and much value. Every Sunday they invite members of their media panel to discuss the week's news.

I'm fortunate enough to have been invited to join the panel, which includes such notables as Avedon Carol, Cliff Schecter, Dave Johnson, Digby, Marcy Wheeler, Joan McCarter, Dave Dayen, Dave Waldman and Stuart Zechman.

You can access the show here. I'll be on with Jay Ackroyd, Virtually Speaking creator, and Avedon Carol. In the break, Culture of Truth entertainingly offers the most ridiculous moment from that Sunday's talk offerings.

The show is broadcast live at 9:00 EST (6:00 PST) and then available as a podcast.

Virtually Speaking makes an excellent iTunes podcast download. I've been subscribed for years.

Thanks,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Video: The modern Republicans are a "Frankenstein political party"

I want to post this, not just because it calls AmericaBlog and the many other "citizen journalists" the modern "thought leaders" for analysis of political issues, but because the speaker, Mike Papantonio, is right about what's happened to the Republican Party.

Here he is on the Ed Schultz Show talking about what these Frankenstein Republicans have become. It's the intro to the interview that Gaius previewed here.



Gaius's posts on this subject are here:

GOP is a party of WASPs led by 70-year-old impotent white guys — This link takes you midway through, to the Koch part of the post.

Norquist on Romney: "Pick a Republican with enough working digits" to sign the Ryan budget — Norquist was a featured speaker at AFP's "Defending the American Dream Summit" in 2011, and unlike David Frum or Steve Schmidt, is fully on the AFP bandwagon.

But Papantonio says all that needs to be said. Do pay attention to what he says about Reagan. He was recruited by billionaires as a front man to resist the student rebellion in California. It worked.

Gaius was interviewed after that segment. We'll bring you that clip if it is posted. Read the rest of this post...

Today at 12:30 EST Gaius discusses the Koch Coup of the Republican Party on Ed Schultz radio show

Today at 12:30pm EST I'll be on the Ed Schultz radio show discussing the Koch Bros–AFP coup of the Republican Party. Host will be Mike Papantonio of Ring of Fire radio.

Please tune in (or listen via Internet) if you can. This a lively, fascinating and important topic.

The Republican Party is undergoing a cadre coup (or "hostile takeover" in corp-speak) by Americans for Prosperity–financed candidates, similar to the coup that was run by the Kochs against the Cato Institute.

I've written about the Koch coup here:

GOP is a party of WASPs led by 70-year-old impotent white guys — This link takes you midway through, to the Koch part of the post.

and here:

Norquist on Romney: "Pick a Republican with enough working digits" to sign the Ryan budget — Norquist was a featured speaker at AFP's "Defending the American Dream Summit" in 2011, and unlike David Frum or Steve Schmidt, is fully on the AFP bandwagon.

Our discussion will expand on those thoughts. Papantonio has an excellent understanding of what we're seeing; I'm really looking forward to the conversation.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Obama FTC appointee Joshua Wright has ties to Google; Google has had business before FTC

There are lots of stories lurking behind Google, many not good. They are a behemoth, a billionaire predator, but most of "us" think of them as "our" billionaire predator because (a) they're Silicon Valley–based, and (b) they opposed SOPA & PIPA.

But don't be fooled. At some point I'll have time to peel that onion, and there's rot inside it.

For now though, just a taste. This story reveals the nexus intersect of NeoLiberal Barack Obama; the faux–consumer-centric Federal Trade Commission (their supposed job is to police the anti-trust borders); the billionaires behind growing dinosaur Google, and ... the fabulous Koch Bros.

■ Let's start with the news, from Chris O'Brien, a tech columnist for the San Jose Mercury News (my emphases everywhere and some paragraph violence):

Obama FTC Nominee Joshua Wright Has Ties To Google

President Obama announced Monday that he had nominated George Mason University professor Joshua Wright for the U.S. Federal and Trade Commission. Wright has been selected to replace a Republican on the committee, and as such, it will come as no surprise that Wright has a long track record of advocating against anti-trust enforcement and the heavy hand of government.

But what seems to be overlooked in much of the coverage of his selection is that Wright has a history of receiving funding for his work from groups supported by Google. And of course, as we know, Google has had some ongoing tussles with the FTC, and will likely have more down the road.

I first came across Wright’s name earlier this year as part of research for a column I wrote examining the various ways Google and Microsoft sought to engage third parties such as lawyers, pundits, academics, and communications firms, to influence public opinion and policy. There is little requirement to disclose the money that goes toward wielding this soft influence.

I get it. Wright hates the "heavy hand of government" unless he can wield it to benefit his paymasters.

So first take-away — Wright is Google's man on the FTC. Great place to have a "man" (paid retainer) if you have once and future business with this supposed anti-trust minder.

Remember, Obama put him there. Unless this is just heavy senatorial horsetrading — and remember, Obama's pretty much on board with this big-donor stuff already — can you guess the payout? (Think campaign; then think Legacy Library donor. Then ask — is Obama a retainer as well? Sorry, just being a literalist. Look up retainer; it does have a meaning.)

■ Now for the George Mason "University" side — it's a Koch Bros Joint. Desmogblog (a nice site to keep in rotation, by the way) has the goods:

Koch and George Mason University

Funding and Connections

Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU), and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354. The George Mason University Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studies has been directly given $3,111,457, the Mercatus Center $1,442,000, and George Mason University itself has received $4,753,754.

In addition to financial ties, Koch also has personnel involved with the university. Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the George Mason University Foundation and the Mercatus Center.

Fink's connection to George Mason University is strong. Besides teaching at the university from 1980-1986, Fink has also served on a number of boards at the university including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Board of Visitors, and the Student Affairs Committee.

There's much more where that came from; do click. And the Mercatus Center is particularly infamous (and useful).

(If you're DC-based, did you notice that the Koch Bros are touted on the Mall as funding Smithsonian stuff? Add in Nova and it's a great sludge PR campaign: "Chas & David Koch: you know, the science guys.")

So GMU and Joshua Wright are Koch-connected. If approved (foregone, he's a Republican), Wright is Obama's Google's man on the FTC.

But is Obama also Koch-connected? He is if he approves the Keystone Pipeline. And as I read Obama, he wants Keystone bad, but will delay until after the election.

Interesting club they have (that you're not a part of).

Barack Obama – Federal Trade Commission – Joshua Wright – Google Inc. – George Mason "University" – Koch Brothers – Keystone Pipeline – (Barack Obama Legacy Library).

Our Betters; they run the world for them and pretend it's for us. How thoughtful of them (us, to keep them in power).

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

World's richest woman (through inheritance) says the poor should stop having so much fun

Bio for sale via Amazon

Isn't she just a peach?

If ever there were a case of someone born on third base and thinking they hit a home run, here you have it. This delightful person knows even less about the middle class or poor than Mitt Romney, yet she has all of the answers.

Plenty of people - rich and poor - work hard, but not everyone was born with wealth the way she was. This is on a par with Mitt Romney telling kids that everyone is already able to go to college and start their own business, just borrow money from your parents - as if everyone's parents, especially in this economy, have a secret stash of $100,000 to pay for the kid's college and a start-up business.

Sorry Mitt, just your family.  And hers.

LA Times:

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."

Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

Read the rest of this post...

Norquist on Romney: "Pick a Republican with enough working digits" to sign the Ryan budget

This is perfect, and perfectly phrased. David Frum in The Daily Beast quotes Norquist at this year's CPAC convention (my emphases and paragraphing):

All we have to do is replace Obama. ...

We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ...

We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. ...

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen ... This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

Memorize this, kids. It's well written (Norquist is a stylist) and he's dead right.

Four points from me:

■ Frum paints this as an example of Romney's weakness:

They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

In this he's dead wrong.

This is not evidence of Romney's weakness, but the strength of the billionaires who now fund (and increasingly own) the Republican Party. See below for explanation.

■ The Movement Conservative Project (current home, the modern Republican Party) has itself been couped in a hostile takeover run by its funding billionaires (see here for that discussion).

The takeover is nearly complete; coup leaders (the funding billionaires) have cleared the city. They're busily rounding up the fleeing soldiers (non–Tea Party–loyal "party regulars") still hiding in surrounding villages (party committees).

The regulars have two choices — join the coup or find new work. Norquist has joined the coup (read the caption). Frum, Steve Schmidt and a good many others have not. Some who have not surrendered have found new work. Others are facing a decision.

If you're looking for proof, look at the conflict between the AFP-funded (Koch–funded) Tea Party–branded candidates in 2010 and the desire of real party regulars to actually win the Senate that year.

Then look at the selection of billionaire-supported Paul Ryan as VP, versus all the safe Pawlentys of the world. Ryan is an election-killing choice according to party regulars, Dems as well as Republican. Dems are ecstatic; Republican regulars know the election is over.

But don't worry, fans-of-Koch — the AFP-loyal coup continues in the states, the Scott Walkers of the world are still reporting for duty, and at some point, vote manipulation (all types) will give national power back to Republicans. Then watch if they ever give it up.

Read Norquist's quote again. They'll try it till they get it. It's catfood for Tea Party grannies as well, but by then it will be too late.

I'll have more on this later; the dynamics among the four R-party groups — the voters (TP-believing rubes); the two types of candidates (AFP-funded and TP-branded; all others); the top party elders (the Norquists and Roves, the Schmidts and Frums); and their owners, "ten billionaires" who now control the purse — this interplay is fascinating to watch and easy to suss.

We're seeing an historical takeover, in my view, and I'll detail it separately later. But for now, just observe the battle. Frum is on one side with the resisting old-party regulars, and Norquist on the other, bowing to the coup.

Choices. For Norquist and Rove, an easy one to make. For guys like Frum and Schmidt — well, maybe they have their own lines of conscience. Maybe.

For the rest of you elders and regulars, pick your career carefully. MSNBC can't hire all of you.

■ The battle has moved firmly to the states — governorships, state house races, state House and Senate battles. You're seeing it already. Reread the quote — Norquist just told you the plan.

■ Romney knows his role, in the same way that Scott Walker knows his role.

Romney's role is to bow to the coup, play the role outlined above, and execute the plan. That's not weakness; that's being a good soldier.

The difference between Romney and the lesser good soldiers — Romney will cash in like an owner when the Koch-couped Republicans finally do take power. His reward will be great; he has no incentive not to go along.

My bottom line — If you're not watching Koch-and-friends play their Republican cards, you're not watching the game. They're at the center of it.

And if you don't think the phrase "Tea Party" has two meanings, you're misusing the term.

Tea Party voters really do believe; it's an ideology they eagerly buy. Tea Party politicians are branded salesmen, hawking a product and running under a banner; employees. Some believe, some just do the job.

As I said before, fascinating stuff, if it weren't all so dangerous. Still, something to amuse us before the climate takes center stage.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

GOP is a party of WASPs led by 70-year-old impotent white guys

More on the Ryan-Akin plan for women, plus a bonus point about the hostile takeover of the Republican Party.

Mike Papantonio, co-host of Ring of Fire Radio, gets what Rachel Maddow gets, that the Ryan-Akin understanding of the female body is either cynical and dishonest or dreadfully "dumb."

But he gets something more — there's a lot that's purely personal in the war on woman, especially when it's coming from power-crazed, wealthy, hyper-entitled males who now need Viagra and Cialis to "look good" for the ladies.

Think about that in human terms — power-crazed and impotent, the white-shoes Cialis crowd. Among people for whom power is a fetish, this is deeply shameful. That must be driving them nuts.

This explains the leaders, as Papantonio points out below (starting 2:00 in the clip). Now add "stupid" (Papantonio says "dumbed-down") and you see why their high-level water-boys, the Todd Akins of the party, act and sound like they do. It's stupid doing the bidding of the impotent.

The Paul Ryan part starts at 5:00. Be sure not to miss (at 7:20 and following) Papantonio's claim that it was the "ten billionaires" who decided that "Paul Ryan should be the VP," not the rest of the party.

I've heard Papantonio make this claim before — that the Koch crowd forced Paul Ryan on Romney when all the party regulars wanted someone who could actually help them win. I'll have more on that point below.

Watch the clip; it's both an excellent analysis and a righteous rant.



Back to that point about the billionaire takeover of the Republican Party. You're watching history, folks. Papantonio said it one way on his Ring of Fire radio show (sorry, no public link, but the show was this one if you're a subscriber).

Mike goes less far than I do. This is entirely my own:

• The Koch-like billionaires are running a coup on the Republican Party, taking control away from party regulars. "Tea Party"–branded politicians are their heavily financed foot soldiers.
  
  Yes, there are Tea Party citizens in the world, with actual tea-bag beliefs.
  
  But "Tea Party" politicians are a Koch Bros Joint, running a hostile takeover against the Boehners and McConnells, the Romneys and McCains.
  
  No party regular who just "wants to win the next election" will have a place in the new Republican Party. They have to serve daddy first, the party second.

In other words, "Daddy" has plans. Those "ten billionaires" are playing the long game, not the short one.

Why did the Koch crowd not care that they lost the Senate in 2010 by running Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell? Why do they not care what Paul Ryan does to Mitt Romney's chances this year?

Because for now, the government isn't the prize. The Republican Party is. It sure looks like they're taking it step by step, consolidating each territory first before invading the next.

They'll take the government (Bob Rubin, watch out; your Midwest billionaire brothers are acing you out of the game). But not quite yet; they're getting their pieces in place, their ducks in a row.

This is exactly like their recent takeover of the already-slavish Cato Institute. The illusion of independence is meaningless to them — they now want direct control.

Which means they're preparing for a bigger move down the road. Trust me.

As to their "Tea Party" soldiers — these men are not just operatives; they're cruel human beings. Hate-the-ladies cruel. Alan Simpson cruel.

As operatives, they feel strong and effective, so long as they do daddy's bidding. As humans though, they're an angry, powerless lot. An irony on both fronts if you think about it.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Solving the climate crisis — Goals, targets and tactics (a summary)

UPDATE: A complete list of climate series pieces is available here:
The Climate series: a reference post.
________

This post is the summary that's missing from the end of our most recent "solutions" piece:

• Solving the climate crisis — Picking goals, targets and tactics

That post listed five pieces of the "climate solution" puzzle:

As I see it, the climate-solution puzzle has these pieces:

• Defining the problem correctly.
  
  
• Identifying the umbrella solution — what high-level goal will solve the problem?
  
  
• Choosing the right "ask" — making sure we don't ramp up our forces, for example, and then ask for something that won't be a solution (a surprisingly common mistake).
  
  
• Identifying the targets of action.
  
  
• Choosing effective tactics and acting aggressively.

Each section above ("piece of the puzzle") was discussed at some length and then bottom-lined. Here briefly are those discussions.

1. Defining the problem correctly

The problem has been characterized throughout this series, and recapped at the top of this post. From a solutions standpoint though, only these numbers matter:

• If we stop now, global warming will reach 1½°C (3°F).
• We're currently on track for 6–7°C (11–12½°F).

Stopping at "only" 3°C is as difficult as stopping at 2°C, 4°C or even 5°C. No one in power wants to stop at all. Yet all added carbon is a problem.

Bottom line — What's the real problem?

Slowing isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. No more man-made carbon should go into the air. We also need to characterize and prepare for the 1½°C scenario because it's inevitable.

The full discussion of this point is here.

2. What's the umbrella solution?

We mentioned that near the top of the longer post, and we discussed it at length here. To repeat:

Put the carbon industry out of business.

The goal of the carbon CEO class is to make as much money as possible by putting carbon into the air. Our goal is to stop them. The only way to stop them is to put them out of business.

Bottom line — How do we solve the problem?

If the problem is putting no more carbon into the air, the solution is to put the carbon industry out of business. If we don't do that, we're toast. All "solutions" that include adding carbon to the air add to the problem.

The full discussion of this point is here.

3. What should we ask for?

History is filled with good movements that asked for the wrong thing and got it. We should ask for what we really want.

All of the climate crisis scenarios — from the inevitable 1½°C (3°F) scenario to any higher number — involve increasing levels of crisis. We want the absolute-least level of crisis. Therefore, the "ask" of the climate solutions movement should be:

Stop Now.
Stop at the earliest possible second.

Our "Now" will either come sometime or never. Asking to "Stop later" (which Obama has recently done) always benefits the resistance.

"Stop later" is the same as "Stop never." Stop Now has the added advantage of being the only moral request.

Bottom line — What should we ask for?

The only way to stay under 6–7°C is by asking to Stop Now. "Stop later" is the same as "Stop never."

The full discussion of this point is here.

4. Who are the movement's targets?

The goal is to apply leverage to people whose actions matter. This includes the four groups of perps and the people. The perps are responsible for the problem. The people are needed for the solution.

• Target the perps to change their behavior.
• Unconfuse the people.

This means:

  1. The carbon CEO class should be painted as responsible, shamed wherever they go. These are the main beneficiaries of crisis and its chief causes. Make them the face of climate catastrophe. They are.

  2. Carbon enablers in the political class are also responsible. They do the will of the CEOs. Incentivize a change in behavior by taking away what they want. Some should be painted as responsible. Others, like Barack Obama, should be put on the record. Just Say No to Keystone, Mr. Obama. In or out.

  3. Carbon-enabling in Big Media is why people are confused. Some Media Bigs should be put on the record, forced to side either with or against the deniers. Others, like George Will, should be treated like the CEOs. The goal is to change their messaging.

  4. Important denier "scientists" (the paid obstructionists) should be targeted professionally — discredited as "whores" the way tobacco "scientists" are discredited. This means a serious campaign to take away the professional reputation of any climate denier who will not honestly confront the data.

  5. The people should be unconfused, not punished. Right-wing rubes will never be "unconfused" but thanks to the politicians and the media, most people are genuinely perplexed. They should be helped to understand.

An education campaign — "the data is in" and "here's what's coming" — should be combined with the four targeting efforts above. If some in Big Media, for example, start saying "the crisis is real," our efforts are multiplied.

Bottom line — Who are our targets?

The perps and the people. Make the perps responsible as individuals; aggressively incentivize change of behavior. Perps include:

• Carbon CEOs
• Carbon-enabling politicians
• Big Media
• Denier "scientists"

Unconfuse the people with easy-to-grasp explanations. Don't apologize, don't speak to deniers, and don't stop. Combine this campaign with the anti-perps effort.

The full discussion of this point is here.

5. Tactics and action

Some tactics are implied above; other suggestions will follow. Regular readers know my thinking:

• Use leverage and timing.
• Consume few resources.
• Be aggressive and courageous.
• Reject violence.
• Use incentives to force change in behavior. Threaten to take away what the target wants most.
• Follow the rules for effective coalitions.

Using incentives to change behavior is especially important. If Obama thought his legacy were at risk, his behavior would change. If a "liberal" politician's brand as a populist were threatened, his or her funding would dry up; this would also force a change of behavior.

There are examples of leveraged tactics in this post. Read about Color of Change and ALEC, then read about Joe Sudbay and Barack Obama. I don't think a movement based solely on mass demonstrations will get the job done.

The full discussion of this point is here.

Summary

What the above adds to:

• Problem: Stop putting carbon in the air.
  
  
• Umbrella solution: Put the carbon industry out of business.
  
  
• The "ask": "Stop Now" not later.
  
  
• Targets of action: The perps and the people. Paint the perps as responsible. Unconfuse the people with clear messages.
  
  
• Tactics: Asymmetrical, leveraged, well-timed actions that need few resources. Incentivize the perps to change behavior. Tell the people the "data is in." Tell them what's coming.

The post that discusses these topics in detail is here.

Thanks for caring about this critical issue.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Two guys talking about Social Security and Medicare

These guys are in "the big club" — both of them. See how friendly?



They're in the club ... but you're not (don't click at work):



Watch these again, in order; both are short.

Protecting Social Security (and the rest of the safety net) from the Big Boys Club will be Job One during the Lame Duck session.

Obama's a charter member of that club, and he'll be off the electoral leash:



Our homework assignment — plan and organize now. Strengthen Social Security, don't weaken it. Put Obama on the record, now:

Mr. Obama. Paul Ryan wants to slash the social safety net. Will promise no cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

Including cuts by raising the retirement age and changing the cost-of-living calculation?

No waffling please — zero cuts period, right? 'Cause if we wanted a waffle, we'd go to Belgium. From you we want an unequivocal answer.

Your friends,
People who will rewrite your legacy if you fail us

Electing the lesser evil is still electing evil. Those of you who believe in "lesser evil voting" have work to do.

Only half of your task is finished in November. The other half is protecting the rest of us from the "lesser evil" guy you voted for.

No waffling please. Obama's been a member of the kill-it-to-save-it club since 2006.

And like Mr. Carlin said, he's coming for it, just like the two nice guys up top.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Krugman explains what's in the Ryan plan

In the interest of keeping you informed, I bring you the Professor, briefly back from vacation, to offer the low-down on Paul Ryan's budget plan.

You've probably heard it vilified. You've probably not heard it explained.

According to Krugman, the Ryan budget has two phases, the first ten years, prior to the conversion of Medicare to VoucherCare, and the years after that conversion.

Krugman on the first ten years (all emphasis mine):

In the first decade, the big things are (i) conversion of Medicaid into a block grant program, with much lower funding than projected under current law and (ii) sharp cuts in top tax rates and corporate taxes.

Is this a deficit-reduction program? Not on the face of it: it’s basically a tradeoff of reduced aid to the poor for reduced taxes on the rich, with the net effect of the specific proposals being to increase, not reduce, the deficit.

How does Ryan get to claim that the deficit will be reduced in this phase? "Magic asterisks" — assertions that can't possibly be true, but which everyone accepts anyway:

First, he insists that the tax cuts won’t reduce revenue, because they’ll be offset with unspecified “base-broadening”.

"Base-broadening" means broadening the tax base (taxing more things and/or closing loopholes). Right; lift your glass and say "Never gonna happen."

Second, there are large assumed cuts in discretionary spending relative to current policy[.]

Both of these assertions (magic asterisks) were made without the hint of a shred of a list showing what would be done to achieve them. That's what makes the asterisks magic; like Tinker Bell, you just gotta believe.

After the first ten years, VoucherCare starts to kick in, which transfers a whole lot of medical costs back to Granny (and all of the suckers who voted for him). But the plan is still not a deficit-reduction plan unless there are major cuts to ... ready? ... the military:

[M]uch of the supposed deficit reduction comes not from Medicare but from further cuts in discretionary spending [which eventually falls] to 3.5 percent of GDP ... this number includes defense, which is currently around 4 percent of GDP.

Of course these are just lies to fool the eagerly-fooled press and the right-wing rubes. The plan's proponents know these are just assertions.

All you need to know? Ryan proposes:

[S]lashing Medicaid, cutting taxes on corporations and high-income people, and replacing Medicare with a drastically less well funded voucher system.

It's the asterisks that make this look like "deficit reduction."

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Solving the climate crisis — Picking goals, targets and tactics

UPDATE: A complete list of climate series pieces is available here:
The Climate series: a reference post.

UPDATE 2: A summary version of this post is available here.
________

To recap, in previous episodes of this series:

  ■ We've taken a walk through the numbers and we know that they aren't good.

We're going to get 1½°C (3°F) warming by 2100 regardless — even if we stop right now. We've gotten only half that already. The rest is in the pipeline, inevitable.

The political elites — for example, the G8 and Copenhagen conference — want to stop at 2°C (3½°F) warming, but no one can agree to start the process, and Obama has recently backed away from that target number.

We know that we're inches away from James Hansen's "game over" at 3°C (5½°F) by 2100 — a mass extinction scenario for life on earth. Up to half the species alive today will disappear.

Even so, we're currently on track for a life-killing 6–7°C (11–12½°F). No change we've made so far has altered that trajectory. Amazing.

  ■ We've looked at what doesn't work. Individual action, while absolutely necessary, is not and will not be enough. Technology alone will not solve the problem (click to see why).

Further, market solutions — for example, a carbon tax — are unlikely answers since (a) modern markets are chaotic and manipulated, not "efficient" and self-correcting; and (b) we simply have no time to wait.

  ■ We know we must act. Yet there's a monster at the gate, standing in the way, and he aims to stop every effort to stop him.

That monster is the carbon industry and the men and women who who use it to aggrandize their own egos and already considerable wealth.

  ■ The answer is inescapable. There's only one way to solve this crisis before it gets much much worse. If we don't put the carbon industry out of business, we're done for; time to pack it in.

But how? The rest of this series will consider that question.

A note about solutions

I don't want to offer just solutions. Though I'll have suggestions, others will have more.

I also want to offer kinds of solutions. I'd like to focus the discussion to avoid dead-end answers and shape it toward effectiveness. Dead-ends and ineffectiveness have been our downfall on the recent left — time to do better. The enemy is strong; we need to be stronger than we've been.

Just one example: Training all of our guns [metaphorically of course] on right-wing deniers is a waste of time. Don't do it personally; don't do it professionally (unless the science is your profession).

Educating (unconfusing) the public matters; it's an important and critical element (see below). But if we don't as a group move past the deniers and deal with the carbon lords and their enablers, directly and forcefully, we're toast. Denialism is not what's keeping us from educating the public — it's the carbon lords and those who do their bidding.

Keeping us engaged with deniers is what they want. If I were a carbon CEO, that's what I would want. It keeps the denier-discussion alive. We need to act like we've won that discussion and move on. Because we have and we have to (won, and move one).

The pieces of the puzzle — how do we solve this problem?

As I see it, the climate-solution puzzle has these pieces:

• Defining the problem correctly.
  
  
• Identifying the umbrella solution — what high-level goal will solve the problem?
  
  
• Choosing the right "ask" — making sure we don't ramp up our forces, for example, and then ask for something that won't be a solution (a surprisingly common mistake).
  
  
• Identifying the targets of action.
  
  
• Choosing effective tactics and acting aggressively.

Let's begin.

1. Defining the problem correctly

The problem has been characterized throughout this series, and recapped at the top of this post. I want to focus here on just two elements, two numbers. From a solutions standpoint, nothing else matters:

• If we stop now, global warming will reach 1½°C (3°F).
• We're currently on track for 6–7°C (11–12½°F).

From a solutions standpoint, no intermediate number is meaningful — not the elite's 2°C, not Hansen's 3°C, not any other midpoint.

Why? Because stopping at "only" 3°C is as difficult as stopping at "only" 2°C, or 4°C, or 5°C. No one in power wants to stop at all. Their solution is delayed action, and that's the 7°C scenario. Getting to any number less than 7°C will take the same monumental effort.

Carbon extraction needs to end, not slow down. The problem isn't how to ramp down to some high number. The problem is how to stop completely. If we don't, as a species, stop completely, it's over. Period.

If I'm right (and believe me, I'm dying to see the argument that shows me wrong), those two numbers characterize the two main parts of the problem. The first is the "best" that we can hope for if we do stop. The last is what we get if we don't.

Bottom line: (1) Picking the number to stop at isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. Slowing isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. No more man-made carbon should go into the air, forever.

(2) And we better not lose track of that 1½°C scenario. It's coming, and only a few countries have even begun to prepare for it.

2. What's the umbrella solution?

We mentioned that above, and we dealt with that here. To repeat:

Put the carbon industry out of business.

The goal of the carbon CEO class is to make as much money as they can regardless of the destruction they cause. Their greed is as monumental is their inhumanity.

These are pathologically sick and dangerous individuals. Our goal is to stop them.

Yes, I know this will cause convulsions. Consider the alternative. We're going to get convulsions. The point is to make sure we get the right convulsions.

Is carbon-lord behavior really pathological? Yes; I can prove it with one illustration:

According to the Forbes 2012 billionaire's list, Charles Koch and David Koch each own $25 billion, for a combined fortune of $50 billion.

Each alone is the 12th richest man in the world. The combined $50 billion makes the Koch Bros together the 3th richest on the planet — just behind Bill Gates and slightly ahead of Warren Buffett (poor fellow; he slipped).

Yet these two men (just two of 7 billion humans on this planet) — these two carbon lords — are prime financiers of climate denialism. As much as anyone alive, they're why we're headed for 7°C; they and their peers are pushing in that direction just as hard and as fast as they can.

The Kochs re wealthy beyond anyone's dreams; they have the third largest fortune on the planet; yet they want more. Worse, to win they're putting our species at risk, putting the world on course for mass extinction.

This is beyond criminal — it contemplates murder on a planet-wide scale, for the sake of mere pride, mere greed. Monstrous. Used to be, only the villains in a Star Trek movie would act this evil.

I'm serious. No one with a conscience would do what the Koch Bros are doing; what Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, is doing; what Barack Obama will be doing if he approves the Keystone Pipeline.

No one with a conscience.

Bottom line: The only solution is to kill the carbon industry. If we don't do that, we're toast. Any scenario that includes adding carbon to the air adds to the problem.

3. What's the right "ask"?

History is filled with successful movements that asked for the wrong thing and got it. I'll give you one example from just last year.

The environmental movement shook down the thunder to delay Obama's approval of the Keystone Sludge-Bearing Pipeline. They succeeded — Obama announced a delay until after the 2012 election — and the movement disbanded, left the streets and went home.

That was a monumental effort, really heroic and courageous stuff. I applaud everyone involved. Now they have to do it twice.

I know I may be in the minority here, but I'd have asked for something different the first time. How about this:

Dear sir,

Please cancel the pipeline now and forever.

Your friend, the entire rest of the world

Think I'm joking? The arguments for delay were correctly and consistently presented in "death of the planet" language. If protecting life on earth is the problem, why ask for delay? Cut out the middle man and ask for the real solution. Zero pipeline ever.

With that in mind, what's the right "ask" for us — the thing we need to shoot for to put the carbon lords out of business? Read these devolution scenarios and pick one.

The answer — and thus the "ask" — are obvious:

  ■ The only devolution scenario a sane person picks is the first one — the 1½°C we're already stuck with. No one would choose any of the others.

  ■ If that's true, there's only one ask:

Stop Now.
Stop at the earliest possible second.

Obvious, right? Consider:

1. If you could magically stop now — which would easily end up being two years or more from today — would you go for it? Of course you would. Why not? If the carbon lords knew they really had to stop, they'd be all over alternate business plans in a heartbeat. Most would involve energy.

(I'll have an example of a Stop Now scenario in a few days. Want a preview? Assume that FDR were in the White House, FDR's Congress was on Capitol Hill, then ask yourself what he would do. I know the answer, because he's already done it. And it worked.)

2. No matter what you ask for, you'll get something worse. There's zero downside to asking for what you want.

3. "Stop Now" is the only moral request. Do you really want to be the person asking for the consequences a 2°C ceiling — which no one can get to anyway — when your very argument says even that will be terrible?

Given the moral imperatives and what's at stake, you end up looking like you don't take your own rhetoric seriously:

I'll die within minutes if I don't eat now. But I'll settle for later tonight if that works for you.

No; if we need to Stop Now, say so.

4. Finally, given the way the other side is playing — delay is their trump card — only two numbers matter. The 1½°C (at least) that's baked in, and the 7°C we're headed for. It will take a Stop Now effort to keep us anywhere below that second number.

Bottom line: There's only one "ask" — Stop Now. Stop at the earliest possible second. That's the only way we'll stay under 6–7°C. In my opinion, of course.

4. Who are the movement's targets?

If the goal is to apply leverage to people whose actions matter, I see two broad courses of action:

• Lean on the perps.
• Unconfuse the people.

Other actions are fine; all hands and minds are welcome. But this is my contribution for leveraged action.

There are four groups of perps whose behavior I'd target for change — the top predators who are driving the show, and three groups of important enablers. The fifth group is the people, who need to hear the truth:

  1. The carbon CEO class. Any individual making obscene money from personal participation in corporate carbon extraction. These are the "carbon lords" I've been referring to, the top predators. They really are feeding big.

We could broaden that out, but let's keep it simple. This gives us about ... what? ... 20 or 30 individuals to make the face of mass extinction? In my opinion, that's plenty.

We could start with four or five to focus initial action, but I'd develop the whole list first. It wouldn't take that long, and it makes a nice newspaper ad and reference list.

  2. Their "friends" in the political class. Political enablers give the carbon lords enormous leverage and reach. If the political class ever turned against the carbon CEOs, we'd be playing a different game.

So target the carbon politicians. Imhofe is an easy one. So is Obama the minute he won't say No to Keystone. But there are quite a few others. We could probably add about 100 names in the U.S. alone. That's more than enough. If we started with just three and really pushed, the rest will take notice.

(How about it, Barack. Just say No. Do you really want to be the face of mass extinction? How's that for a legacy?)

  3. Their "friends" in the media. If it weren't for the top media enablers, the people would be unconfused by now. It's not just Dancing Dave ("One Live Crew") — we could list maybe 10 in his business and do just fine.

Again, if you target just two or three, the rest will take notice. Does nice David Gregory or smiling Brian Williams want to be the face of mass extinction? I can think of several ways to make them say Yes or No — on camera. Just takes the courage to ask.

  4. The important denier "scientists". I thank Mike Papantonio for making this suggestion. Yes, these people are "whores" (to quote Mr. Papantonio) and need to be punished, taken off the board as actors.

For starters, how much easier would Michael Mann's job be, if he didn't have to fend off the top deniers in his profession? How much more good work could he get done?

Help Michael Mann and all who work with him. Help make the top deniers the face of extinction. I'll bet if we took two or three of these folks to serious task — destroyed their professional reputations — the rest would soon crawl away.

  5. The people. Unlike the other four groups, the people should be unconfused only, not punished or threatened.

True, some are right-wing rubes and will never be "unconfused." But most are not; most are genuinely perplexed.

A campaign of education — not aimed at the deniers (lost cause), but messaged around "the data is in and here's what it says" — is the only next step.

We have to talk like we know, because we do, and get the message out in a way that's easy to grasp. This series of posts is an effort in that direction.

Now combine that education effort with actions that publicly target the CEO class for their greed, the way abortion haters target clinics with signs showing fetuses. (We could make signs too, don't you think?)

Combine it with an attack on two or three prominent politicians — I'm looking at you, Mr. Obama — that challenges them directly, personally and morally. Combine it with a parallel attack on one or two billionaire news-blond(e)s — on camera.

As the enablers begin to fall, as they're starting to do, the messaging becomes easier, self-reinforcing. Education of the broad population isn't enough by a long shot; but it's critical.

Bottom line: Who are our targets? The perps and the people. Lean on perps as individuals who are making immoral choices. Be bold, aggressive, persistent. Unconfuse the people with easy-to-grasp explanations. Don't apologize, don't speak to deniers, and don't stop.

5. Tactics and action

I'll leave this for a future post, but regular readers know my thinking already.

I always recommend using leverage and timing, being aggressive and courageous, rejecting violence, and following the rules for effective coalitions.

For two examples of leverage and timing that work, read this post. Focus on what Color of Change did to ALEC and why they succeeded.

Then scroll down to the Joe Sudbay–Barack Obama story. That was leverage. All it took was one man, a one-time-only situation, and courage. Joe changed the history of gay rights on that afternoon.

Again, I'll have much more on this in the future. I'm certainly not the only source of tactical suggestions (god help us if I am). But I think I'm one of just a handful who thinks this way. We need to up our game; a movement based on mass demonstrations alone is not going to get the job done, as I see it.

Bottom line: A variety of tactics are needed, but my preference includes focused "asymmetrical" actions that use few resources and take advantage of leverage and timing. Think Tim DeChristopher; think out of the box.

But all tactics, in my opinion, should focus on the two actions mentioned above. Again:

• Lean on the perps.
• Unconfuse the people.

Conclusion

Because this is already long, I'll save the summary for a future post. It's easy to devise — I'll just extract the bones of this post — and I don't want to bury the simple version of what's here by placing it this far down.

When that summary is written, I'll link to it in this space. [Summary is here.]

If you want to see all posts in the Climate series, I've created a reference list. I'll be updating it continually until we're done. Hope it helps.

As always, thanks for reading this far.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...