Are We Wealthy Enough to Address Our Environmental Issues?
Here’s a continuation of the discussion I’m having with a reader who doesn’t see the fairness in pulling together the money to feed the world’s people and preserve our environment. In a previous post, I wrote:
I don’t accept your basic premise that there isn’t enough money to accomplish the tasks that are clearly laid out in front of us. The oil companies have plenty of money to lead Congress and the rest of the world around by the nose. We just got finished spending more than $6 billion in the 2014 election campaign. The military budget of the United States is $640 billion dollars a year, more than all of the next 16 countries’ budgets combined. The wealthiest 1% of Americans own more than 40 percent of the entire value of goods in this nation.
She writes back:
So, your sources of money to pay for these wonderful things are corporations and the rich. So you would limit how much anyone can make. That does not sound like capitalism to me.
My response:
It’s not a matter of “limiting how much anyone can make.” I’m not sure exactly what I would do if I were suddenly made king of the world, but here are a few ideas:
• Close corporate tax loopholes (like offshore domiciling) so that taxes become a non-trivial burden that a bunch of smart lawyers can’t simply step around.
• Create significant incentives for corporations to cut their environmental footprints, thus “internalizing the externalities,” e.g., stop using our oceans and skies as free dumping grounds for waste. Obviously, this includes replacing energy from fossil fuels with renewables, but that’s only one of dozens of angles, which include: efficiency, more humane supply chains, better LCAs (lifecycle analyses) associated with their products, etc.
• Decide what goods and services should be delivered on a for-profit vs. non-profit basis. This, of course, will be a hotly debated issue (presuming that it someday happens to rise to the level of debate; we’re certainly nowhere near that now). To take three quick examples among hundreds:
a) Most people in the developed countries around the world believe that healthcare should not be a for-profit business.
b) Forcing poor people to pay for quality education perpetuates teenage pregnancy, poverty, drug-addiction, crime, and incarceration—all forms of enormous levels of misery, not to mention untold expense to the public coffers.
c) Some people, e.g., the chairman of Nestles, believe that potable water is a commodity like gold or corn, and should be privately owned; i.e., he denies that access to water is a basic human right. This may sound like a joke, like something that would offend the moral sensibilities of Ebenezer Scrooge, but let me assure you: he’s totally serious. We really have seen the end of cheap energy, water, and food; just wait to see how super-powerful and callous people (like this ass**** from Nestles) start to act as time goes on and as all the things we formerly took for granted become increasingly scarce.
• Create a public discourse that puts all this stuff into perspective. Of dozens of possible examples, here’s one that I find particularly absurd. Environmental regulations on burning coal are putting financial hardship on many of the already-cash-strapped people of Eastern Kentucky. I’m aware of that; I don’t need Mitch McConnell (a man who, amazingly, will soon lead the U.S. federal government policy-making on environmental issues) to tell me that. While I’m not completely unsympathetic, I wish there were a way of communicating to the common American the enormous damage that coal inflicts upon all people and all other life forms on all continents by virtue of its CO2, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, mercury, radioactive isotopes, etc. The very moment anyone with a grade-school understanding of science and health wraps his wits around all this, he says, “Sorry, coal people. We need to find you new jobs.” It’s not like this is a close call. But the arena for discourse for a subject like this simply does not exist.
The issue at the core of all of this is the role of money in government. As our legal system exists now, corporations can spend as much as they wish affecting our elections, which in turn form the laws that regulate those very corporations. It’s not hard to see how ridiculously corrupt this is. American voters (“We the People”) have very close to zero power to affect change in the issues that concern us most. E.g., I want to see more investment into clean energy technology and environmentalism more generally. The people of Newtown, CT (and 89+% of the rest of the U.S. electorate) want more stringent background checks for prospective gun owners. Healthcare advocates (including a huge percentage of the electorate and even a majority of the U.S. MDs themselves) want universal health care. The list is endless. But every single one of these constituencies is frustrated by legislation put in place by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions like “Citizens United” and “McCutcheon.”
It’s hard to imagine what the framers of the Constitution would say if they were alive today to behold some of the more recent interpretations; it’s tough to guess which one would rankle them most. I guess it would be this First Amendment deal protecting corporations’ commandeering our elections. But I wouldn’t count out the Second Amendment and the NRA. I can hear Jefferson whispering from his grave: “You’re kidding, of course. I needed to tell the people of the 21st Century what a ‘militia’ is?”
Once all this blatant unfairness and corruption is out of the way, I think it’s fabulous that bright and talented people can get rich.
Craig,
The real issue here is: what are the NET costs.
Your antagonist doesn’t grasp the concept of externalities… so she only sees a “cost” to changing the current paradigm.
I’ve heard this referred to as “silo budgeting”… Counting the beans inside your silo and not being concerned with or even aware of the bigger picture.
If you want to target this correctly – you account for how much it costs society for our status quo… then look at the cost for a different paradigm. If you just look at the beans in the silo regarding “direct costs to blow up mountaintops, load coal into train carts, transport coal, unload and pulverize the coal, burn the coal in a 70-year old power plant, then manage the electricity grid with the electricity produced…” you get a net “cost” of ~$30-$60/MWh.
Your antagonist would nod and just assume that since that’s all the beans in her silo, that’s all that is of any consideration.
But of course there’s the cost for real estate value in a 50-mile radius of the mountaintop removal, there’s the health care costs for people living near that area, there’s the energy security costs of transporting the coal, there’s the health care costs of people living within 50 miles of the coal plant, there’s increased maintenance and agriculture costs due to acid rain, there’s costs to society from the burden of water consumption, climate change accommodation costs, the intangible cost of irrevocably reducing a mountain to rubble, etc…
If you do comprehensive accounting, the NET cost to our society from coal sourced electricity might well be between $150 and $250/MWh.
This dramatically alters the landscape of the question of “How do you pay”? If you are silo budgeting and assume the transition is from $30/MWh coal to $70/MWh wind (in a region of heavy penetration) or $150/MWh solar (in a region of high sun), or $160/MWh nuclear power… and you’re looking to transfer 1.6 billion MWh… The net cost would be in the neighborhood of $160 billion/year over the next 30 years (that sounds like a lot of money).
But if you have a comprehensive accounting analysis and show that you are transferring $200/MWh coal into $70/MWh wind and $150/MWh solar and $160/MWh nuclear power… and you hope to transfer all 1.6 billion MWh/year… Now you’re looking at SAVING between $45 billion and $200 billion/year for the next 30 years. The problem is those savings will be distributed in ways that won’t be easily credited to the change in power paradigm.
I believe your antagonist is a fool.
FWIW, I consider myself a centrist/pragmatist. I think a good definition for a leftist is one who wants to help progress society without consideration of the cost, while a good definition for a rightest is one who considers the cost without any concern for progressing society… Obviously a balanced person would lean one way or the other, but still understand the need for his/her opposite. The unfortunate thing about the republican party today is it is neither right nor left… it’s just hate and rage, without concern for cost, and with no consideration for progressing society… It’s just an antagonistic force without any goals.
(*P.S. I had accidentally posted this incorrectly a few blog posts back. Please remove that other post.)
I guess I disagree with the assumption that somebody “must pay” to improve the environment. There are fortunes to be made by investors who back the many promising technologies which are aimed at improving the environment.
Hi, Bill. Good to hear from you again.
This is the real question of the day, and it’s the subject my current book project, i.e., examining the many ways in which the forces of market economics alone are driving nails in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry. We’re very close to getting to exactly that point. But are we there right this minute? Will be get there in time to rescue this civilization from catastrophe? It’s a cliff-hanger.
Profitable change cannot occur while staying the same as the past is more profitable for those who make decisions to change.. BP, your vision is among the ideas in a silo.
For simple people on pollution, the best example is the Killer Fog in Great Britian caused by coal burning and an inversion. http://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-years-ago
Craig. The issue of who pays is a key issue. Consider this premise: The hydrocarbon industry is really a hydrogen industry with a carbon problem. Most of the energy from hydrocarbons comes from their hydrogen which reacts to form water, not from their carbon which forms carbon dioxide which we need but want less of.
What if we convinced the hydrocarbon world to focus on removing much more hydrogen while leaving much more carbon underground. And we used this hydrogen to store and carry energy or combined it with nitrogen as ammonia which carries hydrogen with nitrogen rather than carbon (natural gas, CH4 vs ammonia, NH3). Ammonia is good for internal combustion as well as use in fuel cells and it turns into water plus the dinitrogen which is 78.1% of the air we all are now comfortably breathing.
The hydrocarbon world has 6 trillion$ in investments in future hydrocarbon sources. It stands to lose this and more.
But it has an option and that is to move in the direction of carbon free energy sources.
Two companies, NaturaFrac Inc and Altmerge LLC offer the full realization of such a system.
It would be wise of the sustainable energy world to make them allies rather than enemies.
Bruce H Peters M D
The question is not primarily what will this cost to whom, rather how can these corporations or coal miners be convinced- suduced to cooperate? If we would live in a totalatrian country it might be do-able. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the urgent obligation to at least attempt to accelarate clean-tech development. Anything that can be done to facilitate new forms of efficient energy should be supported by advertising, encouraging investors or investing, lobbying, etc. 47% of world energy consumption is in buildings. There are buildings, for example in China, that are built 8 times as energy efficient, in Israel, and other places final development of “solar windows” are available making new buildings able to be off grid! This is a massive saving for large office buildings. Who isn’t for better when it is a lot cheaper? So let’s try simply to make connections social media, politicians,builders, private home users,etc.!
I like your spirit! The answer to your “Who isn’t better” question at the end, sadly, is the most powerful industry in the history of humankind: Big Energy.
We should be doing R & D on nuclear power with the aim of finding a safer, more economical, and less wasteful source of nuclear power.
I am reminded of the old adage not to put all of one’s eggs into one basket, but by completely ruling out nuclear power, we are coming close to doing just that. If we put all our effort into renewables and then discover in perhaps 30 years that renewables will not do the job, then, unless we have developed a superior nuclear technology, our fall-back position will be to expand our present mediocre nuclear technology, with all of its problems and, in addition, expand the use of fossil fuels. Surely it would make sense to have a superior nuclear technology as a fall-back position if renewables cannot do the job.
Currently the most promising nuclear technology seems to be the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) which has been successfully tested in prototype form. If it proves practical when scaled up, it could safely and economically solve all of our energy problems. It it does not prove practical, there are other possible nuclear technologies which should be explored.
With abundant, economical, safe, and clean power available, artificial liquid fuels could be manufactured for use where there is no adequate substitute for liquid fuels. Engines can be designed to run very well on ammonia. It may even be possible to manufacture hydrocarbon fuels if abundant energy makes it practical to extract the carbon from atmospheric CO2.
In any case, we should not give up on developing a superior nuclear technology unless large-scale global experience shows that renewable systems can do the job.
I’m with you all the way on this. I have a chapter on “advanced nuclear” in my current book project. The rabid anti-nuke believe are kind-hearted but misinformed.
If it was about the $, the answer would be easy-Yes!-consumers spent 600+ Billion on Black Friday & the ticket total to pay for solving all social & environmental issues is estimated at 178 Billion (according to a post on FB yesterday-gotta be so!). Taking that at face-value, 1/3 of Black Friday cash diverted towards the solutions would do the job!
So many of “our” problems are someone’s cash-cows and actively created/sponsored/celebrated…such as warfare,(and notice how those supporting warfare are so often the same folks who deplore social welfare programs).
There is a 1%, there IS an “us” and “them”, though by the nature of there being only “one game in town”, much of the 99% are forced/seduced into being complicit in the degeneration of social and planetary well-being as well.
We are acculturated to believe that exploiting real needs (water, food, shelter) as well as human vulnerability and weakness (alcohol & Lotto 649, anyone?) is an ethical approach to take for individuals, corporations and even governments.
Wonder what would happen if we socially & governmentally sponsored philosophical education at the same rate & intensity that we sponsor science & MBA’s?
Rambling, but conclude that it isn’t about having enough $, its about knowing what “enough” for us as individuals, and as collective society, really must be and living & acting accordingly.
You’re 100% right; the apparently lack of money to address environmental and social issues is about acculturation. If you haven’t already done so, check out how Annie (“The Story of Stuff”) Leonard communicates this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G49q6uPcwY8.
The cost is generally underestimated.
In addition to having to get electricity from non-CO2 emitting sources, we also need to eliminate CO2 emissions from transportation, cooking, and home heating. Also, more and more power is being used for sea water desalination and even with modern efficient methods, considerable energy is required for that. Changes must also be made to agriculture. These changes must be made on a global basis especially considering that as poor countries strive to lift their citizens out of poverty, global energy usage will probably increase by about FOUR TIMES! Globally, probably around 90% of all power will have to come from non-CO2 emitting sources.
It is too late to prevent climate change. The best we can hope for now is to limit to a significant degree how much climate change occurs and find ways to live with what can no longer be prevented.
Our knowledge of what we are dealing with is limited. Climate change could be far worse than we expect, or it could be less than we expect; we don’t know. Also, while some places may become unlivable, places which are now too cold may become livable. That could require massive migration which our political systems are incapable of dealing with.
It is better to err on the safe side which means that it would be better to reduce CO2 emissions by more than necessary, in spite of the cost, than to reduce CO2 emissions insufficiently. But in the very long run, fossil fuels could not last indefinitely, so eventually their use would have to be drastically reduced eventually anyway.
If we can get adequate global coöperation to reduce CO2 emissions drastically, there could be a beneficial spillover effect because a spirit of coöperation could result in a more peaceful world.
Craig. Sorry to see you’ve declared Big Energy your worst friend forever. Whenever waging warfare, its good to carry a Big Gun. Best and Bye. Bruce
We can wring our hands all we want and wish for external solutions when we can show the way by our own individual efforts. An investment of less than $10,000 Canadian and the help of a couple clever friends for a day installed a 5.5 kw grid tied PV system which makes us a net exporter of electricity – enough to drive our electric car ( ford focus) 13,000 km per year(about 8,000 miles), Even with the pitifully low price we get for grid feed in Alberta (7.3 cents/kw hr) the calculated simple rate of return on investment is about 8% and it would be considerably more if we received a price that reflected that our exports are available during daylight hours in peak air conditioning demand periods, not to mention reducing investment requirements in transmission and distribution. But still, where can you get that rate of return, tax free and secure these days and feel good about it. Just do it and tell your friends.
There are conferences on nuclear reactors which will use thorium for fuel instead of uranium. Regardless of one’s position on nuclear power, it is a good idea to keep one’s knowledge up to date on the various possible designs of nuclear reactors and the fuels they use. Probably not many people here would wish to travel a long distance to attend such a conference, but for those near where there will be a conference, attending would be a good idea.
Here is information on a conference which will be held in Palto Alto, CA:
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com
Here is information on a conference which will be held in Mumbai, India:
http://thoriumenergyconference.org
Even for those who find it impractical to attend, the web sites provide interesting and useful information.
The following site has information that was presented at a conference that was held in Chicago:
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC6.html
I suggest you read Brian Czech’s “Supply Shock” on the thermodynamics of why we can’t grow or profit our way out of our onrushing date with extinction.
Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” is another essential book to read.
We have to stop making decisions based on what makes the obscenely wealthy more money. If you haven’t noticed, it isn’t working…
Thank you Alan. Please see my post on this that I’ll up in a few minutes.
Bravo on the post, Craig – brilliantly stated. I heartily agree with nearly every single word, and the few exceptions are not of supreme importance.
I do find it quite interesting that there always seem to be folks who ask, “Who’s gonna pay for all this.”
We all are. We’re all going to pay. That’s a hard reality, and it’s not up for debate – however much people may insist it is.
The only choices we have before us are what path we want to take, and whether we pay less now, in money, or more later, in blood.
Well written and correct Craig. Maybe some of the money is also from foreign governments and foreign companies that want to buy our politicians further foreign interests. Who knows?There is a great TED talk about a fix for campaign money.
National security? Many threats are self inflicted ie: climate change, fracking to pollute huge areas of ground and river water, fracking and prematurely burning the last American fuel reserves and exporting it instead of keeping it in reserve……….
We knew 35 years ago and have wasted all this time. It is a very big problem.
Unfortunately, it has been found that the amount of money spent on political campaigns does make a difference. However, the amount of money spent on political campaigns would matter little if voters used better judgment. The problem seems to be that many voters are influenced by repetition and flash as much as by objective content.
The solution would seem to be twofold. The most obvious part of the solution seems to be to limit the amount of spending on political campaigns. The other part of the solution would be for our schools to do a better job of educating people so that they will be less influenced by repetition and irrelevancies.