Kakfa, Absurdity, and an Irrational Energy Policy
I happen to share my birthday (July 3rd) with Franz Kafka. According to the Writer’s Almanac:
He found love and happiness in the last year of his life, with a woman named Dora Diamant. Even though Kafka was suffering excruciating pain from tuberculosis, Diamant later said, “Everything was done with laughter,” and “Kafka was always cheerful. He liked to play; he was a born playmate, always ready for some fun.”
Seriously? Those novels, that so ably point out the absurdity and pointlessness of human life, sure don’t seem like the creation of a cheerfully, fun-loving guy. As I wrote last year:
For those who haven’t gotten into Kakfa, I recommend The Trial–but I warn you not to expect a “feel good” reading experience.
To be sure, there are numerous absurd, inescapable elements in our modern life. For example, many of our civilization’s most powerful people who made their money in fossil fuels are so ardent about doubling and redoubling their billions of dollars of net-worth at the expense of the well-being of all life forms here on Earth. For every one of them, there are hundreds of millions of people like you and me, struggling to turn this around before it’s too late.
In particular, we don’t need an “all of the above” energy policy; we need one that leads us sanely and methodically away from fossil fuels and into renewables. But does it seem likely we’ll get there?
As Kafka put it in The Trial, “Do you know that your case is going badly?”
LA Times had an editorial today about the obvious need to abandon coal as an energy source, and yet what to do about the coal miners and others whose jobs directly exist because of that industry. In theory, we should have no care about the corporate entities themselves, and the small cadre that enormously benefits from the corporation. Creative destruction is fundamental to the theory of business. So, it gets down to the workers who become impoverished due to their industry going away, and most of us saying retraining to the ‘new’ industries is appropriate. There is little solace to the worker and their family, now homeless, in that theoretical response. Classic needs of the many versus needs of the few scenario. So, what’s the real answer to the conundrum here? Nature’s answer in such scenarios is harsh. Do we follow in that path?
It will be necessary, ahead of the transition, to establish a preparatory carbon extraction fee, and to firmly redirect the revenue now lost to all the many fossil fuel tax breaks and subsidies, into a transition fund for retraining and retrofit programs to soften the impact of the transition on the workers and the consumers at the bottom who have all facilitated and contributed to the success of these now-doomed industries.
In fact, through mechanization there are far fewer coal jobs then ever, and yet Republicans still win elections touting all the jobs in the coal region. Comparing the energy sources, renewable create many more jobs than oil, coal and gas without ruining the environment.
Yes, true, Bruce. According to the figures I’ve seen, the peak was in 1920 at 783,648 miners, and 2013 saw only 80,234 miners – those figures are derived by dividing total annual production by total average annual production per miner.
Hi Craig,
Decision makers in the oil & gas sector and government are not supposed to be stupids. They are supposed to be ignorant on what´s going to happen to their businesses within a generation ahead.
A classical solution is grand scale civil mobilization towards massive subsidies to reneawable energy routes and energy efficiency, and none to fossil fuels. O&G business need to reborn or else die in this century. Frugal consumption behavior is important too.
You can foster grand scale civil mobilization in your town. Others like you in theirs. The majority to drive our lives, not the minority.
Or else the planet or external events shall break paradigms.
We are gaining ground on those greedy, selfish, destructive Oil Con Men
Craig, well you’ve certainly drawn a favourable response from all those with an irrational hatred of oil companies, and the rich in general !
But just how justifiable is your observation ?
As a citizen of the US, you must be aware that for the first time in nearly two decades, the US economy is growing, due to the great resurgence in North American oil and gas.
For a nation with a National debt equaling GDP, that’s got be good news !
Ol’ Hank , comments sanctimoniously about ” greedy, selfish, destructive Oil Con Men”, yet everyday he enjoys the products provided by those same individuals, without which he couldn’t survive !
Far from threatening ” all life forms here on Earth “, the oil and gas industry, has made modern life possible. Without the Oil-Gas, (even coal) industries, most of the planet’s population would descend into poverty, disease, chaos, and genocide.
Without the prosperity brought by the oil and gas industries, development of alternate energy would become impossible.
So, (especially for Americans) railing against the “evils ” of the oil-gas industry, is a case of ungratefully biting the hand that feeds, not just you, but your old folk, and children.
The Oil-gas industry may not be paragons of virtue, but they are not the demons that you simplistically portray as stereotypical ” black hats” .
Nor is the alternate energy industry without it’s fair quantum of dishonest, selfish, delusional, parasites, squandering the public and private purse while loudly proclaiming sanctimonious, hypocritical propaganda !
The only way the world will progress away from old technologies, is to develop newer, and better technologies, without causing major economic disruption. ” Revolutions” seldom achieve anything worthwhile, but constructive evolution can effect transition without all the human miserly created by disruptive revolutions.
Industrialists who don’t keep apace of new developments are made obsolete by younger, more efficient industrialists. With increasing globalization, those who can’t adapt are naturally swept away in the tide of change. But change for changes sake, doesn’t always produce the most beneficial results.
It’s worth remembering that each man, whether rich or poor, is of value. Being poor is no guarantee of virtue, nor does it automatically follow that the rich lack virtue.
Apparently, you’re not an adherent to the biblical passage Matthew 19:23-24
23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-26&version=NASB
It’s always struck me as a curious aspect of the bible.
Heh heh, ..yeah, that’s always been a bone of contention ! (or as my daughter ( then aged six) pointed out, ” maybe the rich man just buys really big needle: ! ) .
That was the subject of the great medieval debate as to whether Christ owned his own clothes.
To some, Christ’s admonition to the young man would seem to be a condemnation of wealth. Yet, others accept that Christ’s observation must be taken in context, and his admonition is to be interpreted correctly as the young mans love of money taking precedence of his love for God.
Also in the Gospel of St Matthew, Jesus recounted the Parable of the Talents. The parable can be interpreted as a lesson in capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of scarce economic resources. The parable teaches that it’s possible to enjoy business success and still live a Christian life.
The writings of St Paul also portray Jesus as approving of free-enterprise capitalism.
According to Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on earth.”
It’s all a matter of perception, and interpretation……:)
Wow, that is one precocious young lady.
And yes, that passage from Genesis has had its objection from modern-day environmentalists, animal rights activists, etc. But I suppose it depends on how one interprets the word “dominion.”