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...

Why the Syrian crisis is not like Egypt or Libya

I've been reading Juan Cole's site to stay up on what's going on in the Middle East (among others). And I found this comment by guest columnist Søren Schmidt interesting (my emphasis and paragraphing):

Syria is neither Egypt nor Libya – and the conflict can therefore not be solved as it was in Egypt and Libya respectively.

The conflict in Syria worsens with each day that passes, and by now more than 20,000 people have been killed. At the same time, the parties are more keenly opposed than ever. The regime will have to go in the long run, but nobody knows how to get rid of it and get started on a democracy.

In Egypt, Mubarak was defeated by the mobilization of large masses of people demonstrating in Tahrir Square. In the confrontation between the regime and the masses of people, it was the regime that blinked first. The military quite simply did not have the stomach to beat back so many people, and in one fell swoop the regime’s authority vanished.

In Libya, Gaddafi was so isolated in his own country that the Libyans were able to defeat him militarily with a little help from the West.

But neither of these solutions can be applied in Syria, for two reasons.

First of all, the situation in Syria is a proper civil war between the country’s Sunni majority (65%) and the Alawi minority (10%) that the Assad clan belongs to; while the remaining minorities (Christians, Druze, Kurds and Shia: 25%) either support the regime or keep themselves on the sidelines.

Since the conflict can not be described, as it was in Egypt or Libya, only as a conflict between the regime and the people, but also between two parties, each of which represents an important social force, the opposition is not able to challenge the regime through mass mobilization.

Please read the rest. There's much more going on in the current Middle East crisis than this — it's a multi-party game that includes U.S. interests (including oil), Islamic fundamentalist sentiment, in-state rebellions, Al Qaeda groups of various stripes and flags, local political parties and power-struggles, distrust of Western (and U.S.) intentions and interventionism, and so much more.

For example, there's this, from later in the same piece:

Syria is an important link in the so-called resistance alliance, which in addition to Syria consists of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah in a deterrence alliance against Israel.

Syria’s alliance partners will therefore do whatever they can to prevent pro-Israel, Western powers from taking out an important link in this alliance.

What's going on region-wide is important and complex. But Syria is a special case, and the article provides a good baseline to start your thinking from.

Don't think binarily about Syria — regime vs. people — no matter how tempting that is (or how tempted you are by mainstream media to go that way). Syria has a political party aspect, a tribal aspect, and a defense-against-Israel aspect as well.

GP

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

Sino-Japanese relations deteriorate over oil

Though the story has not been widely followed in the West, in Asia, the most recent fight over the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands has the potential to cause a broad list of problems in the region. There's an interesting overview of the history over at Daily Kos (h/t @MiroCollas). Until oil reserves were noticed in 1968, none of the current countries claiming ownership expressed much interest in the distant, uninhabited island.

Banging the drums of war over oil is nothing new and it's likely to be seen elsewhere in the world as easy drilling supplies become more limited. From China's perspective, it's hard to see how this is going to help them long term. The reasonably good will that they've built up in recent years can easily be washed aside. These particular islands are only one spot of many that are being contested, so other countries in the region (Vietnam, Philippines) will be watching closely.

The other aspect that should be a concern for China is the business side of this fight. China has too many mob outbursts like this against foreign nationals and businesses. As the cost of doing business in China rises, instability like this is not going to help. A few years ago it may not have mattered as much but now that the economy is softening, China ought to give it a lot more thought. Their business model is at risk when the government allows nationalistic mob violence.

From Japan's perspective, though they can share in the blame for provoking this crisis, they no longer need China the way they did ten years ago. Their businesses are being attacked and this latest violence can easily be used as an excuse to pack up and move to another location in the region.

A skirmish of some sort is a possibility as the article above suggests, though China has a lot to risk with military action. The last thing that government needs is losing factories and foreign investment. Countries have taken stupid action over oil (Iraq comes to mind) so China will have to decide between nationalism and foreign business. For a few decades, China's growth has been tied to foreign business so any change would be a radical departure for Beijing.

China may have the upper hand in this dispute for now due to its military and control over rare earth minerals but it would also come at a heavy cost. Is a long forgotten island worth disrupting the business model and damaging regional relations? Time will tell. 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...

DOJ accuses BP of "culture of corporate recklessness"

Everyone who follows the environment has known this for a long time, but glad to see the Department of Justice coming around. While in the US this week I've watched a few BP TV commercials that are floating their corporate line about cooperation and help, conveniently overlooking the widely reported problems starting with the failed response right into their payment problems with those negatively impacted by the massive oil spill.

The DOJ could and should be doing more to stand up for those hit by the bad choices made by big business. It's false to be labeled as "bad for business" when demanding accountability by a business though that won't stop some from making the charge.

Why should BP be above the law?

“The behavior, words and actions of these BP executives would not be tolerated in a middling size company manufacturing dry goods for sale in a suburban mall,” the government lawyers wrote.

“Yet they were condoned in a corporation engaged in an activity [deepwater drilling] that no less a witness than Tony Hayward [former BP chief executive] himself described as comparable to exploring outer space.”

If the DoJ can establish gross negligence, the penalties under the Clean Water Act would be up to $21 billion, depending on how much oil was spilled. Compensatory and punitive damages would come on top of that sum.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney-Ryan tax plan gives an additional $2.3 billion in tax cuts to Big Oil

Government for the 1% by the 1%. This is government corporate welfare for those least in need and it needs to stop. If the Big Oil industry can't figure out how to make money on their own all of these years, it may be time for them to close shop and move on.

The world’s five biggest public oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—would keep special tax breaks worth $2.4 billion each year. And by cutting corporate tax rates, the Romney plan could lower the companies’ annual tax bill by another $2.3 billion, based on an analysis of the companies’ tax expense for 2011. The special tax breaks, supplemented by Gov. Romney’s lower corporate rates, could benefit the oil companies by more than $4 billion annually.

As we will show, these five companies are hardly in need of a tax cut: They earned a combined record profit of $137 billion in 2011 due to high oil and gasoline prices.

Read the rest of this post...

Solving the climate crisis: How to paint the possible futures

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

[This post has been temporarily withdrawn for revision. Please check back later. Thanks.]


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...

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...

The Climate series: a reference post (UPDATED)

This post lists all the pieces that make up our Climate series. I'll update this post with new links until the series is complete. The order is not quite chronological; the pieces are grouped mainly by sub-topic.

For those of you who have been following along, thanks for reading.

Posts in the Climate Catastrophe series

Introduction

• Hugging the monster: Climate scientists and the C-word
  
  
• What is "climate catastrophe"?
  
  
• Your Climate Crisis elevator speech — Addresses one prong of the five-pronged approach (below), "unconfuse the people."
  

A walk through the numbers

• McKibben's Three Numbers—Measuring the march toward climate catastrophe
  
  
• Illustrating global warming—What does "a 2°C increase" refer to?
  
  
• Hansen on 3°C: Quarter to half of species on earth may die from global warming
  
  
• We're on track for up to 7°C (12½°F) temperature rise by 2100
  
  
• IEA Director: Temps to increase 11°F by 2100; "That’s basically Miami Beach in Boston"
  
  
• How did James Hansen's 1981 global warming predictions work out?
  
  
• Koch-funded climate denier reverses: "Humans almost entirely the cause" of global warming
  
  
• Climate report: "Almost no chance" of less than 3½°F (2°C) rise; 50-50 chance of 5½°F (3°C); headed for 9°F
  
  
• Thoughts on climate crisis speed — My personal climate model [NEW]

Two recent phenomena

• The epic heat wave: "Of course it's about climate change"
  
  
• Radical decline in Arctic ice "at least 70 percent" man-made
  
  
• New satellite data: Arctic ocean losing 50% more summer ice than predicted
  
  
• "We're in a planetary emergency" thanks to Arctic ice melt and Greenland permafrost [NEW]
  

Toward a solution: Preface

• McKibben 2—Climate strategies that don't work
  
  
• Who is the enemy leading us to climate catastrophe? (plus reflections on the nature of corporations)
  
  
• McKibben 3—Is Carbon Tax the answer to climate catastrophe?
  
  
• Why all of the current "solutions" deepen the crisis
  
  
• U.S. says drop the "2°C guarantee" from the global warming deal, calls for "flexibility"
  

Toward a solution: Suggestions

• Solving the climate crisis — Picking goals, targets and tactics — Introduces the five-pronged approach to a solution
  
  
• Solving the climate crisis — Goals, targets and tactics (a summary) — Introduces the five-pronged approach to a solution in summary form
  
  
• Solving the climate crisis — How to paint the possible futures — Addresses one prong of the five-pronged approach, "unconfuse the people."
  
  
• A modest proposal for dealing with climate denial "scientists" — Part of a longer post on dealing with political operatives as operatives
  
  
• "Niallism" — This is what defrocking an academic looks like (climate scientists, take note) — A "defrocking the false academic" example

Writing and interviews referenced

The following lists major writing referenced in this series (do click; all are data-rich).

The Copenhagen Diagnosis document (below) was prepared ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, which affirmed the 2°C (3½°F) "ceiling" then adjourned with no action.

• James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, 2012: "Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice" (pdf)
  
  
• Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone, 2012: "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math"
  
  
• Twenty-six authors, 2009: The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science
  (high-res pdf) (low-res pdf) (website)

A few helpful interviews:

• Dr. Michael Mann with Thom Hartmann (plus my comments)
• Michael Mann with Tom Levenson on Virtually Speaking Science (audio)
• "Who are the climate criminals?" — Mike Papantonio with yours truly on Ring of Fire Radio
• Naomi Klein with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now discussing the political implications of addressing the global warming crisis (and discussed at length in this post)
  

The series will close with a group of posts containing my own suggestions — thoughts on goals, targets and tactics. Thanks for giving this issue your attention.

GP

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

Toward a climate solution: Why all of the current "solutions" deepen the crisis

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

---

(Button via Shutterstock)

This is a preface to a series of posts on climate crisis solutions. This series contains my own suggestions for solving the problem I've described in the previous posts — avoiding climate catastrophe.

I'm obviously not the only person thinking about this, but I think I have a perspective that's not shared by many, so I offer these for consideration.

Assumptions

My thinking makes the following assumptions:

1. The problem is essentially political, not technological. To avoid the worst consequences of global warming involves the use of power along with education and technology. Without addressing the power dimension, the solutions project will continue to fail. (More on this below.)
   
   
2. The only "baked in" consequences are those that come with the 1½°C (3°F) increase we can't avoid. None of the other, more drastic scenarios is inevitable.
   
   
3. The war is worth fighting and we haven't lost yet, regardless of the odds against us.
   
   
4. Playing to win means playing to the end of the game.

If you don't share those assumptions, this series may not be for you. That said, onward to the preface.

Why technology alone is not the answer

There are several baseline ideas we need to accept in order to design effective solutions. They provide context and help us understand why no attempt at a solution has yet worked.

The fact is, we haven't even come close to a solution. We're drifting, circling ever closer to the climate catastrophe drain. And it's not because we're stupid.

In fact, our species is the opposite of stupid — we're the most effective, adaptive hominid species ever evolved on the planet.

We are the most recent of our relatives and the last to leave Africa. Even though we're the babies on the block and shared the planet with millions of our genetic cousins — homo habilis and homo erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons — we out-thought and out-competed them all till we stood alone. There's no one on earth this good at problem-solving.

If we cannot solve this problem, it's not because of brains and technology. The truth is more stark. The lack of a solution proves that the answer isn't brains — that the key must lie elsewhere.

This series is an attempt to find that elsewhere. Make no mistake — new technology is critical. But it's not enough.

What we need to know to design a solution

The writer Naomi Klein comes as close as anyone to succinctly identifying the roadblocks to a climate crisis solution. Simply put, solving the climate crisis forces fundamental change.

Here she talks with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Listen first. I'll offer some notes after the video.



If you want to relisten, this segment starts at 42:45. For readers, a transcript is here.

First, on why denialism has taken such a strong hold, even recently, even while the message of our senses says denial is wrong:

[The increase in denialism in countries with strong culture wars is] remarkable, because what it means is that it no longer really has anything to do with the science. And the environmental movement has just been shocked by how it would be possible to lose so much ground so quickly when there is so much more scientific evidence[.] ...

And the reason is that climate change is now seen as an identity issue on the right. ... [When you] ask why people don’t believe in it, they say that it’s because they think it’s a socialist plot to redistribute wealth.

This is the critical insight — it's what you need to know to solve this problem.

Note, this is not an insight about the right-wing rubes. There will always be right-wing rubes. It's an insight about the threat felt by Our Betters, who are ginning up rube-resistance as hard and fast as they can.

The rubes are being led to scream "wealth redistribution" because that's exactly the threat. As with other modern crises, wealth redistribution is precisely what this one is about. But it's not about the wealth of the rubes.

The solution to global warming is a direct threat to the greed and wealth of the lords of carbon, the Rex Tillersons, the David Kochs of the world.

These are powerful, wealthy, driven people, and fixing global warming threatens their whole way of life. Klein again:

Why is climate change seen as such a threat? I don’t believe it’s an unreasonable fear. ... [A]ctually, climate change really is a profound threat to a great many things that right-wing ideologues believe in. ... [H]ere’s just a few examples what it would mean.

Well, it would mean upending the whole free trade agenda, because it would mean that we would have to localize our economies, because we have the most energy-inefficient trade system that you could imagine. ... You would have to deal with inequality. You would have to redistribute wealth, because this is a crisis that was created in the North, and the effects are being felt in the South. ... You would have to regulate corporations. ... You would have to subsidize renewable energy[.] ...

And finally:

And then, layered on top of that is the fact that many of the "solutions" to climate change ... play shell games, right? We have to have carbon offsets there. We have to — we can keep polluting, but we’ll plant — you know, we’ll protect a forest in the Congo[.] [But] all of these solutions are actually deepening the climate crisis [elsewhere].

We have a problem that challenges our way of life, made many times worse by the monomaniacal greed of the very wealthy few, who offer "solutions" that solve nothing.

The "solutions" in fact are part of the problem, since they only serve to delay. Delay is the win-scenario of the other side; it's their only goal.

This is an excellent explanation of the context within which we're trying to solve our planet-wide global warming crisis. We can't be effective, in my view, if we don't start here.

That context again:

• Solving the climate crisis forces fundamental change.
• Education and technology are not enough.
• Negotiated "solutions" create delay.
• The other side is powerful and doesn't want to change.

Devolution scenarios — our comic-book future

It's an unfortunate accident of history that the worst political and social event of our time — the rise of the rich in the wake of the Nixon impeachment and the total capture of our government by greedy hippie-hating monomaniacs (every word a true one) — coincides with the eve of potential self-destruction.

More than coincides — to stop the self-destruction, we must stop the rich.

No other choice is pretty. How far backward would we like to devolve?

  ■ Where do the consequences of "only" 1½°C (3°F) warming take us? Combined with the rapidly widening wealth inequality, we could devolve to life in the 1930s — post-electricity but pre–middle class.

  ■ What about the consequences of 3°C (5½°F) — by 2100? James Hansen calls that "game over", leading to a "mass extinction" scenario. Easily a famine, drought, epidemic, mass-migration scenario. (Check the chart here for U.S. temperature predictions. Translate weeks to months to get the full effect.)

At that point, would most of the country be pre-industrial? I would think so. Politically, a famine-ridden, disease-infested, mass-dying, mass-migration America would certainly not be an orderly society. For starters, say goodbye to Safeway. And gas stations. And farming. Picture that life.

More food for thought: How much of the country would be under the control of the central government? Would the central government even try, or would they see as their mandate the only mandate they see today — protection of the very rich?

Who would run your town at that point? A state governor? A county strongman? This is a real science fiction scenario, and we're not at the worst one yet.

  ■ At what temperature point would global warming level off simply because of societal collapse? We're currently on track for 6°C–7°C (11°F–12½°F) — again, by 2100.

Would the Carbon Lords be able to drill, pump and sell enough CO2 to get us to those temperatures before the collapse that stops them? Because I swear to god they will try. If they succeed, the humans who follow will be mainly hunter-gatherers — they will look and live just like the homeless on our streets today.

The more I think about this, the more I want to laugh — this is so like a comic book story:

Daddy Doom (that's him in all-black pinstripes) has a planet-eating machine that will end life as we know it.

Will the Carbon Avenger, our green-draped hero, save us in time? Look, he's flying off to the final showdown now.

Actually, it's just half a comic book story. Daddy Doom (our aggregate Lord of Carbon) really does have that machine; it's called his psychopathic greed and our current way of life.

But there's no Carbon Avenger to save us. We have to do that for ourselves.

The problem in a nutshell

Which brings us to the umbrella problem statement. This is where we hug the monster, face facts, and focus our action where it counts.

Unless all of the science is wrong, the problem in a nutshell is to put the carbon industry out of business. And everything noted by Ms. Klein above is what's in the way.

How fast should that happen? Look back at the devolution scenarios and pick one.

Death of the carbon industry — if we don't do that soon, we lose. But if we do meet that goal, I'll guarantee that the rest — all the good technology — will follow as fast as man can do it.

Is is fair to them, the carbon lords, to destroy their businesses? Of course it is. They're risking the lives of 7 billion humans to satisfy hubris and greed. What could be more monstrous? Their offices are crime scenes. What could be more fair than stopping them in their tracks?

We don't have to negotiate. We don't have to discuss. We don't have to explain. No one needs to seek their permission, or slow to a rate of their choosing.

And we certainly don't have to reimburse them for their lost future profits — the real beneficiaries of this psychopathic process are wealthy enough already. In a truly just world, they'd be stripped of every dime to help pay to clean up the mess we're inevitably going to face.

What we do have to be is effective (sound familiar?). It will take a combination of actions — education, technology, and multiple applications of power — to mitigate the disaster.

But especially the latter — multiple applications of power — because these men and women are digging in and doubling down. They won't stop until we stop them.

Bottom line

This sounds daunting, I know, but I really don't think it's over, and as I said above, it's a fight worth taking on. I don't pretend to have the answers. I just want to help us think our way to solutions that work.

If none of this helps, it's mainly my own time that's lost, and it pleases me to use it this way.

Thank you for reading this far. The next post will look at layers of the solution — drilling down in a process that identifies goals worth achieving, targets of action (I see five groups) and tactics applied to those targets.

Much of what I'll say is already clear to many, but maybe this thinking hasn't been assembled in one place.

Until then, in the words of Alan Grayson — courage.

GP

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

New satellite data: Arctic ocean losing 50% more summer ice than predicted

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

We've written here about the shrinking Arctic ice. Now satellite data confirms that the ice is thinning as well, hastening the day when the Arctic summer will be ice-free.

First the news, then a note about the phrase "in the pipeline":

■ From Raw Story and the Observer (h/t MiroCollas via Twitter; my paragraphing and emphasis throughout):

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements [made by the new CryoSat-2 satellite] indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time.

For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six meters in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three meters.

“Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected,” said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analyzed.

“Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water.”

Being able to measure the area covered by Arctic ice gives us one metric. But being able to measure the thickness (as this new satellite does) gives us quite another.

Note those numbers above — from 5–6 meters just a decade ago, to 1–3 meters now. That's a loss in volume from thinning of more than 50%, even if the area covered stayed the same — which it hasn't.

From an article I covered recently:

“Since the 1970s, there’s been a 40% decrease in the summer sea ice extent,” said Jonny Day, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, who led the latest study.

A 40% decrease in area (over 40 years) times a greater-than-50% decrease in thickness (in a decade) is a shockingly small number, even if the thickness changes aren't uniform. The Raw Story article states:

[R]eductions in the volume of summer sea ice [have been] around 70% over the past 30 years.

Read it through carefully — there are some ifs and maybes in it regarding rate of change, including a semi-offsetting trend in winter ice.

But still, the summer data is real, the summer losses are real. I think we'll certainly see ice-free Arctic summers in this decade.

We've been off on every estimate of global warming consequences I've seen; each has been too conservative compared to later measurements. I expect this be the same, to surprise us with its speed.

■ Another section of the same article illustrates a point I've made repeatedly about our current situation, namely:

• Even if we stop right now, we still get 1.5°C (3°F) global warming by 2100. Half has occurred; half is in the pipeline, unavoidable.

This is what "half is in the pipeline" means, just so you know:

The consequences of losing the Arctic’s ice coverage, even for only part of the year, could be profound.

Without the cap’s white brilliance to reflect sunlight back into space, the region will heat up even more than at present. As a result, ocean temperatures will rise and methane deposits on the ocean floor could melt, evaporate and bubble into the atmosphere.

Scientists have recently reported evidence that methane plumes are now appearing in many areas. Methane is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas and rising levels of it in the atmosphere are only likely to accelerate global warming.

And with the disappearance of sea ice around the shores of Greenland, its glaciers could melt faster and raise sea levels even more rapidly than at present.

Professor Chris Rapley of UCL said: “With the temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator dropping, as is happening now, it is also possible that the jet stream in the upper atmosphere could become more unstable. That could mean increasing volatility in weather in lower latitudes, similar to that experienced this year.”

Permanent loss of summer Arctic ice is just one of the changes that's unavoidably "in the pipeline." But it illustrates the concept; we will get to 1.5°C (3°F) no matter what we do.

I've heard, by the way, that methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. If so, this is one reason beef consumption is being discouraged by climatologists. The number of cows raised to feed a planetful of beef-eaters can produce a whole lot of methane.

World population is 7 billion humans. How many cows do you think are alive right now, producing atmospheric methane?

Combine the story above — that getting to 1½°C warmer is inevitable — with this story (do click; Obama gets a name mention), and I hope you can see where I'm headed with my own recommendation.

There really is only one choice; the others are almost not worth pursuing, since they all lead to the "do nothing" outcome.

Said differently, as I look at this problem, the answer is increasingly obvious. The only trick is getting there.

GP

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