Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Fragments of recent good energy news

November 4, 2022

You might not think there is any good energy news, with the current electricity price crisis which will probably result in not a few deaths over the northern winter.

However, the fossil fuel companies are showing major increases in their profit [1] [2] [3] [4]. While this is a boon if you are an investor, it may also be good for the transition as, for once, increasing profit is getting attention – perhaps because this hurts other companies as well as ordinary people. The fossil fuel companies could well appear to be profiteering in this price crises and rejoicing in the expected deaths or, at best, doing nothing to diminish the number. This is not a good look.

The price of fossil fuel electricity is rising and perhaps encouraging renewables

The International Energy Agency states:

High gas and coal prices account for 90% of the upward pressure on electricity costs around the world. …

A key question for policy makers, and for this Outlook, is whether the crisis will be a setback for clean energy transitions or will catalyse faster action. Climate policies and net zero commitments were blamed in some quarters for contributing to the run-up in energy prices, but there is scant evidence for this. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices, and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some – but far from enough – consumers. ….

[It is possible that] New policies in major energy markets [will] help propel annual clean energy investment to more than USD 2 trillion by 2030 in the STEPS, a rise of more than 50% from today.

World Energy Outlook 2022 Executive summary

While it is still possible to blame Putin and ignore the profiteering, or indeed blame renewables, EU Executive Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner Simson essentially supported the IEA, announcing that

Putin’s war has stoked an energy crisis in Europe that continues to have huge repercussions. In response, we have moved swiftly to secure alternative supplies, accelerate the rollout of renewables, and start reducing gas demand to ensure European citizens are safe for winter.

We need to understand that the pre-war situation with abundant, cheap fossil fuels is not coming back

First, [our action] brings a European reduction in electricity consumption of 10%. During peak-hours, electricity consumption must go down at least 5% so we avoid using the most expensive gas-fired power plants and bring down the price of energy. This will be mandatory, so that the targets are met by everyone

Second, our package proposes a European mechanism for collecting and redistributing the exceptional surplus profits and revenues that the war in Ukraine has brought several energy companies. This can generate up to € 117 billion for Member States to support European households and businesses who face unsurmountable energy bills.

Our dependence on Russian gas is down from 40% to 9%. Storage in every Member State is quickly nearing the required 80%, and the EU-average, as the President said this morning, is close to 84%. We are all saving more and more energy. And the pace of renewables being rolled out is steadily rising.

In the end, our green energy transition is the only way to rid ourselves of Putin’s energy yoke and it will create energy sovereignty in Europe. The era of cheap fossil fuels is over and the faster we move to cheap, clean, and home-grown renewables, the sooner we will be immune to Russia’s energy blackmail and anybody else who may think they can blackmail us with energy.

Opening remarks by Executive Vice-President Timmermans and Commissioner Simson at the press conference on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices

There is other evidence for the increasing build of renewables in the EU, despite increased costs. Bloomberg New Energy Finance announced that:

Surging energy costs are expected to help drive yet another record year for new solar installations in Europe. As households look to lower their energy bills, residential solar build in the region is forecast to hit 10.4 gigawatts in 2022, a 42% increase from a year earlier… This is projected to propel annual solar additions in Europe to an all-time high of 41 gigawatts this year, on the way to 93 gigawatts by the end of the decade. The momentum comes despite elevated prices for modules due to the raised cost of key raw material polysilicon.

Europe’s Energy Crisis to Support Record Solar Build. Bloomberg 8 September 2022

Capital is available

It also seems we have the money to get through transition, only its currently being invested in fossil fuels. The IISD has announced new meta-research (ie researching the research on pathways through climate change) which says we can probably stay under 1.5 degrees increase if:

  • 1) Global oil and gas production decreases by at least 65% by 2050
  • 2) No new oil and gas fields are started
  • 3) The planned investments in new oil and gas to 2030 were used to fully finance the scale-up of wind and solar energy needed.

In Australia, Beyond Zero Emissions in their Deploy report argue that:

81% emissions reduction is achievable by 2030 with an ambitious rollout of cleantech over the next five years, supported by targeted carbon drawdown. This can create up to 195,000 jobs and repower Australia’s manufacturing regions.

https://bze.org.au/research_release/deploy/

and that

Six technologies – all available today – will do the heavy lifting: solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps and electrolysers.

Deploy Report: Executive summary

The drawdown seems to be primarily agricultural, putting carbon in the soil – which does have some problems of easy measurement and validation. It would account for 10% of the decline total, so 71% decline can be achieved without it.

The Australian e-news site RenewEconomy open a recent article with:

Brookfield Asset Management is a global giant with assets of around $A1 trillion. Andrew Forrest, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar are Australia’s three richest men. All are committed to accelerating Australia’s green energy transition. A shortage of capital is not the problem here.

Parkinson Tens of billions are ready for Australia’s renewable revolution: Can regulators and rule makers keep up? Renew Economy 10 November 2022

Brookfield is also bidding for Origin Energy and promises to spend $20 Billion on on wind, solar and storage in the next eight years. Which suggests a possible rapid transition in the Electricity field, although Brookfield’s bidding partner wants Origin’s gas.

My guess is that this quick transition would be even more possible, if we stopped subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. This stoppage could be justified by their current high profits…. Not that any Australian government would probably survive that attempt.

Mike Cannon-Brookes seems to have got people interested in renewable energy onto the board of AGL a major Australian gas company and electricity supplier. see also here.

The Australian Government has announced a National Reconstruction Fund which may help the manufacture of renewables in Australia, but its a bit vague at the moment.

The Wiring problem is being faced

But we do need wiring for the transition. In a tweet Jenny Chase from Bloomberg remarked:

We don’t need a technology breakthrough. Today, solar developers just need a grid connection and permission to sell electricity and they’ll be off building solar plants whether it’s a good idea or not.

Jenny Chase Twitter 23 October 2022

And the Australian government has just promised to make sure grid connections exist, through the Rewiring the Nation project:

The proposal would provide $20 billion of equity equally over 3 years, from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2025 to create a new public non-financial corporation, which would be:
• responsible for building, managing and operating the Australian Energy Market Operator Integrated System Plan transmission network
• mandated to earn a rate of return that is sufficient to cover its financial and operational costs

Australian Parliamentary Budget Office. Powering Australia – Rewiring the Nation

Another Non-Government summary puts it this way:

Labor has promised $20bn to “rewire the nation” by accelerating the construction of new electricity transmission links between states and regions as the east coast power grid moves from running predominantly on coal power to renewable energy. Modelling for Labor by the consultants RepuTex suggested it would help lift renewable energy generation from about 35% to 82% by 2030.

Murphy & Morton ‘Rewiring the nation’: Albanese and Andrews governments to jointly fund renewable energy zones. The Guardian 19 October 2022

In the UK something similar was announced, but the political confusion make it harder to be optimistic.

National Grid announced this summer it was making a £54bn upgrade to the electricity network, the biggest since the 1960s, to help connect offshore windfarms more easily and enable battery storage facilities to connect up to store renewable power, a crucial issue in the industry

Lawson ‘Everything has changed, nothing has changed’: what’s stopping green energy. The Guardian 15 November 2022

Likewise in the US, a much smaller amount of US$13bn has also been announced to modernize the U.S. power grid using allocations from the infrastructure law. This is claimed to be the “biggest federal investment in transmission and distribution in U.S. history”.

the administration has also issued approvals for several interstate transmission lines that will span Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and California and unlock capacity of about six gigawatts

Budryk White House announces $13 billion in grid resilience funds. The Hill, 18 November 2022

Facing up to Full Renewables

This is a bit more recent, but the Australian Electricity Market Operator has announced a roadmap to prepare the grid to run on 100% renewables. AEMO expects 100% renewables going without fossil fuel backup going for intervals of time by 2025.

The Engineering Roadmap to 100% Renewables provides an overview of the engineering challenges and associated actions that will need to be undertaken to operate the NEM for the first period of 100% instantaneous penetration of renewables, and the actions required to satisfy more regular operation at 100% renewable penetration.
Responsibility for undertaking these actions and meeting the technical requirements identified in this report will ultimately be shared across many parties, including AEMO, NSPs, market bodies, market participants, and governments

AEMO Engineering Roadmap to 100% Renewables December 2022

Coal plants take many hours, or even days, to restart operation, so once taken offline, they can’t be relied on to meet immediate intraday energy demands, or provide system restart services.
Operating regularly with 100% renewable power also means reducing the need for regular reliance on gas-fired
generators to firm the electricity supply.
Operating a gigawatt-scale power system at 100% instantaneous renewable generation is a feat unparalleled worldwide.

The main obstacles are storage and renewable source “inverters, which don’t inherently deliver all of the same stabilising attributes that traditional synchronous generators provide to the power system.”

They also realise that “The human dimensions of this transition are as important as the technical requirements”.


Polling

Polling continues to show most Australians want action on climate change. This is possibly not a big deal as Australians wanted such action all through the last government’s reign, and where ignored or did not vote for it. However, the figures indicate there is support for action. Analysis of the latest Australia Institute Climate of the Nation Poll says:

Three-quarters (75%) of Australians are concerned about climate change, the same level of concern seen in 2021 and the highest since Climate of the Nation began. The intensity of concern has increased as well, with record high levels of those who are ‘very concerned’ about climate change (42%).

The top three climate impacts of concern are more droughts and flooding affecting crop production and food supply (83%), more bushfires (83%), and the extinction of animal and plant species (80%).

Climate of the Nation 2022

This indicate that Australians are actually aware of the levels of weather damage we are suffering from, and their likely effects on food and wildlife, despite the Murdoch Empire’s constant agitation against recognition of damage, or engaging in climate action.

Weather seems to be connected to coal based power by the resopondents.

79% of Australians believe that Australia’s coal-fired power stations should be phased out… 31%… think they should be phased out as soon as possible… 65% of Australians want coal-fired power generation completely ended within the next 20 years, including 38% who want it ended within the next decade…

64% of Australians support stopping new coal mines…. 73% think Australian governments should plan to phase out coal mining and transition into other industries…

ibid

Australians also seem to be losing faith in the ability of markets to solve all problems as

64% agree that failure by the market to prepare for a transition away from fossil fuels has led to electricity price increases, including 31% that strongly agree

ibid.

Conclusion

So while I still think we need more local action, and more overt political support, there are signs that things might be changing and people are thinking it might be entirely disastrous if we start showing our support for action…

Some fundamental Problems of Energy Transition

November 2, 2022

Three initial problems

Problem 1: Climate change is one part of a general mode of ecological destruction. It is not the total, and possibly not even the most important ecological problem we have. It may even distract us from the rest of the destruction. For instance we may do nothing about potential ocean death, or the decline in availability of phosphorus.

Problem 2: it appears that achieving contemporary ‘developed’ life, and military defense, requires massive energy consumption.

Problem 3: It is not yet demonstrated that capitalism can run with no ecological destruction, and no freeloading, or without growing ecological destruction, and without growing energy consumption.

Problems with the energy transition

Renewables make a tiny percentage of the total energy supply, although a reasonable percentage of electricity supply. They constitute about 5-8% of total energy supply if you don’t count biofuels or hydro, which are probably pretty much fixed.

While renewables are increasing, so are fossil fuels, and so are emissions and the amount of GHG (greenhouse gas in the atmosphere)

One big question is “How do we generate enough energy to manufacture the renewables we need rapidly?” as there is not enough spare Renewable energy to do this.

The answer is probably via fossil fuels – again new energy production may be needed, because we don’t have much spare. So the phase out may increase emissions for a while, and increase the problems.

Renewables are supposedly now cheaper to build and install, so this problem should diminish.

However, if we do “electrify everything” such as automobiles, then we need even more renewables, or else there is not that much point.

Emissions will not diminish if renewables (or other energy sources) do not replace fossil fuels, and emissions do not peak soon….. We cannot risk more emissions.

Reducing emissions, not only requires renewables, but probably requires some kind of degrowth.

Developing countries don’t want degrowth as it gives them less military power and prosperity, and developed countries won’t degrow because they think it will lose votes and corporate profits, and they keep promoting fossil fuels as the cheapest and easiest thing for developing countries, probably because they have been bought by fossil fuel companies.

However, life as was lived in the west in the 1960s say was ok, and released a lot less GHG emissions than we do nowadays. It was also incredibly energy inefficient, so we may well be able to attain that kind of life level for most everyone, if we wanted.

Renewables require minerals, and mining is ecologically destructive. The only compensation for the new mining being done is that coal, gas and oil mining are also ecologically destructive, and getting more so, as supplies get more difficult to find (you don’t go for tar sands, deep sea oil and coal-seam gas if you have better fields).

If open slather mining destruction is stopped, the price of minerals increases, and the transition slows.

At the moment we have masses of lithium, but like everything else it is exhaustible, and prices will increase, the greater the demand.

However, people are searching for other kinds of battery, such as weight driven batteries. I’ve certainly heard people say that lithium storage is not the way to go. (People are always talking about the endless creativity of capitalism, but for some reasons those people do not talk about it when it comes to renewables)

Many places have the prices of electricity tied to the most expensive source, which means that people rarely get rewarded for paying for renewables unless they have them personally. They still have to pay the price of fossil fuels, and deal with company profiteering. Fossil fuel profits are wildly up at the moment as there is no competition between fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel companies have the dilemma of do we sell the stuff now while we can, or do we wait and slowly keep lifting the price. They need increased revenue to deal with the more difficult fields which they are likely to be left with. Gas fields are still relatively big, and easy, but we have seen the price of gas increase massively, which also suggests something like keeping production low and price high is happening.

The fossil fuel companies are incredibly rich and powerful, and will do everything to inhibit the transition, as it would mean the end of their riches and power. They are not making a transition at all – they are depending upon everyone failing to make the transition.

We can hope for improved nuclear or fusion tech, but this does not seem to be happening. Fusion is having successes, but they are small. I have seen reports that China is rolling out small reactors, but they typically have no data, and the CSIRO had no access to any real data about costs and electricity generated. Large scale nuclear appears to be slow, usually taking far more time and money than estimated to build, as well as its other problems.

AS climate damage increases, money and energy will be diverted away from the energy transition, into repair or preparation for the next set of damage. We cannot deal with cumulative catastrophe even now, never mind another 20 years.

As the problem seems insolvable people will invent fantasy solutions to help them cope with the reality. These will be theoretically feasible, but in practice which serve to keep fossil fuels going with the hope we can easily solve the problem soon. Things like carbon credits, carbon capture and storage. This can be called saved by imaginary technology.

Another way forward, is to give up on national action and encourage villages to be self supporting on solar or wind, and just accepting that sometimes the energy will be low.

It is very possible that the amount of low emissions energy will not increase at the rate we need, and that the amount of fossil fuels being burnt will also not decrease at the rate we need. We may need to degrow, and to value other things. But that does involve changing society.

But we need to keep active.

Summary of Narrabri and its problems with energy

October 24, 2022

All the social struggles in Narrabri essentially centre on fossil fuels, and exist within the complex of the ‘Carbon Oligarchy’ and ‘Polluter Elites‘, joined to both the effects of climate change (long scale droughts, followed by massive flooding) and the apparent decline of agriculture. Agricultural decline seems to be arising partly through climate change, and partly through displacement, or fear of displacement by mining and loss of useable bore water, again through mining. The importance of long term drinkable, and useable, bore water supplies is obvious. As well as the long-term, risk to bore water (no matter how well the current isolation plans work), there also seems to be a risk of surface and air pollution through coal dust and through mineral leaks at the gas mine heads. While it was not discussed often, there is also the threat that burning these new fossil fuels (wherever they are burnt in the world) will increase the effects of climate change in Narrabri, even though their effect may be overshadowed by the effects of other fossil fuel burn offs.

Fossil fuels are intensely supported by the State and business interests. The mine expansions and the new coal-seam gas fields have been approved, although there are still some delaying court challenges. The NSW government has also just begun a process which they hope will lead to an energy intensive manufacturing site in Narrabri, powered by gas from the gas fields (again to boost local jobs). It does not look as though they will accept intense energy manufacturing through renewables with gas back up. The gas fields are being given an artificial market as we would expect in a Carbon Oligarchy.

This context makes the disputes in Narrabri existential. There is a real, and acknowledged, threat that the town could decline, and even come to an end, without some change, as the current trends do not appear good, especially if you think population and economic growth is good. This situation is a direct threat to the residents’ existence, and likely to heighten and polarise responses. The Oligarchy approved solution of fossil fuels should bring some jobs and finance to the town, which may go some way towards helping out. However, it is not clear how many of those jobs will come to exist, or how many will be for existing locals or for temporary workers or workers from elsewhere. It is also not clear how long those jobs will last.

There will likely be many jobs during construction of the gas fields, but they will be temporary, and largely go to outsiders, as the local population is small, and does not necessarily have the required skills. We have also seen how (probably due to the population size) the high-paying jobs in the mines can already lower the workforce available for the town, and the loss of farmers can increase dislocations between town and country, as their interdependence is broken. There are, apparently, many examples of mining towns which boomed, gained complete dependence on the mining, and then collapsed when the mining ended. The mining in Narrabri is short term. The gas fields are limited even if the company moves into the better agricultural lands nearby. Fossil fuel mining is also under pressure from the possible resolution of ambiguities of State policy, through States taking serious climate action and phasing fossil fuels out. This adds to the possibilities that fossil fuel mining may not guarantee a good future for Narrabri, and indeed may help destroy that future both in terms of the town’s economy, and the local ecology.

The existential nature of the dispute, and its polarisation, may be being encouraged by mining companies and the Oligarchy, phasing the dispute not only in terms of town vs country (accelerating the dislocation) and framing objectors as outsiders, but by phrasing mining as the only, and inevitable, way forward. Given the Oligarchy, the mining can seem inevitable despite the ongoing struggles against it. Whether correct or not, the mining companies appear to have control over most of the information that local people will find easily, through their own funding and talks, but through the local newspaper growing dependent on their advertising. The companies, also have the ability to fund the community and community events and clubs, and again whether or not this is true, can appear to obstruct the presentation of counter knowledges and counter proposals. This in itself can heighten the polarity. Not only is the dispute about existential issues, but about morality.

The effects of the dispute have caused much pain to local people, and show that this kind of dispute is not beneficial for local problem solving, although it may help the established powers carry on, as the local area is fragmented. It is also worth investigating whether the dispute hampered the region’s response to the crises of climate change, or whether those crises lowered the friction as people ‘pulled together’.

In contrast with the fossil fuel industry, the renewable industry appears to distance itself from the area. Its plans are not well advertised, seem covered in unintentional secrecy, are not integrated with local business, the companies make no claims about local jobs, or supplying local energy, and appear unconcerned about engaging with locals at all. This has rendered renewables marginal to the debate and until recently, there has been little locally organised support for renewables. Even renewable providers have come from out of town.

This means that the only way forward for a renewable alternative locally is through local organisation, and local support, and this is what has happened, and which will be the subject of another paper.

Going by this initial research, it can be suggested it is important to heal the country/city gap, to connect the country with the town’s workforce again, connect with independent information, and build increased communication. Mutual exclusion is misleading in an age which requires an understanding of an interdependent and inclusive ecology. We are “all in this together,” there is little chance of a fortunate few escaping. However, this is easier proposed than carried out, as the sides are not equal in their abilities to influence events. The Carbon Oligarchy will play its role in the approval process and the information likely to be promoted will support the Oligarchy and its needs. However, climate change threatens the Oligarchy as much as it threatens everyone else and its position is ambiguous and uncertain. Therefore it is possible that local people, joined with others, can persuade the State to take its obligations seriously, even despite a better funded campaign against climate reality.

The Republicans in the 1950s

October 18, 2022

The world has shifted rightwards. These are some highlights from the Republican Party Platform of 1956 (I’ve previously pointed to similar statements from Australian Conservative icon Robert Menzies.

This is an abridgement. Many similar to contemporary style Republican views have been deleted (such as military strength, cost cutting, etc) to emphasise the difference. I have not indicated all the breaks in the document. However, please feel free to read the original, linked above.

********************************************

August 20, 1956

Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: “The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere.”

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: “In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people’s money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.”….

We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government. We shall continue our insistence on honesty as an indispensable requirement of public service. We shall continue to root out corruption whenever and wherever it appears.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people….

We shall maintain our powerful military strength as a deterrent to aggression and as a guardian of the peace. We shall maintain it ready, balanced and technologically advanced for these objectives only….

We have balanced the budget. We believe and will continue to prove that thrift, prudence and a sensible respect for living within income applies as surely to the management of our Government’s budget as it does to the family budget.

That men are created equal needs no affirmation, but they must have equality of opportunity and protection of their civil rights under the law.

We hold that the strict division of powers and the primary responsibility of State and local governments must be maintained, and that the centralization of powers in the national Government leads to expansion of the mastery of our lives…

For our guidance in fulfilling this responsibility, President Eisenhower has given us a statement of principles that is neither partisan nor prejudiced, but warmly American:

The individual is of supreme importance.

The spirit of our people is the strength of our nation.

America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

Courage in principle, cooperation in practice make freedom positive.

To stay free, we must stay strong…..

Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families.

To meet the immense demands of our expanding economy, we have initiated the largest highway, air and maritime programs in history, each soundly financed.

We stand for forward-looking programs, created to replace our war-built merchant fleet with the most advanced types in design, with increased speed. Adaptation of new propulsion power units, including nuclear, must be sponsored and achieved.

We pledge the continuation and improvement of our drive to aid small business. Every constructive potential avenue of improvement both legislative and executive—has been explored in our search for ways in which to widen opportunities for this important segment of America’s economy.

Small business now is receiving approximately one-third, dollar-wise, of all Defense contracts. We recommend a further review of procurement procedures for all defense departments and agencies with a view to facilitating and extending such participation for the further benefit of Small Business.

We favor loans at reasonable rates of interest to small businesses which have records of permanency but who are in temporary need and which are unable to obtain credit in commercial channels.

We also propose:

Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement;..

Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: “Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America.”

Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years;

The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen’s compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration….

The Republican Party believes that the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the people is as important as their economic health. It will continue to support this conviction with vigorous action.

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President’s Cabinet.

Four thousand communities, studying their school populations and their physical and financial resources, encouraged our Republican Administration to urge a five-year program of Federal assistance in building schools to relieve a critical classroom shortage.

The Republican Party will renew its efforts to enact a program based on sound principles of need and designed to encourage increased state and local efforts to build more classrooms.

The Republican Party is determined to press all such actions that will help insure that every child has the educational opportunity to advance to his own greatest capacity.

We have fully resolved to continue our steady gains in man’s unending struggle against disease and disability.

We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases.

We demand once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.

We have strengthened the Food and Drug Administration, and we have increased the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity.

We have supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.

We initiated the first flood insurance program in history under Government sponsorship in cooperation with private enterprise.

We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.

Our objective is markets which return full parity to our farm and ranch people when they sell their products. There is no simple, easy answer to farm problems. Our approach as ever is a many-sided, versatile and positive program to help all farmers and ranchers.

Benefits of Social Security have been extended to farm families. Programs of loans and grants for farm families hit by flood and drought have been made operative.

To safeguard our precious soil and water resources for generations yet unborn;

To continue and expand the Republican-sponsored school milk program, to encourage further use of the school lunch program now benefiting 11 million children, and to foster improved nutritional levels;

To work with farmers, ranchers and others to carry forward the Great Plains program to achieve wise use of lands in the area subject to wind erosion, so that the people of this region can enjoy a higher standard of living; and in summation:

The Republican Party is wholeheartedly committed to maintaining a Federal Government that is clean, honorable and increasingly efficient. It proudly affirms that it has achieved this kind of Government and dedicated it to the service of all the people.

We condemn illegal lobbying for any cause and improper use of money in political activities, including the use of funds collected by compulsion for political purposes contrary to the personal desires of the individual.

we have modernized and revitalized the postal establishment from top to bottom, inside and out. We have undertaken and substantially completed the largest reorganization ever to take place in any unit of business or government:

We have provided more than 1200 badly-needed new post office buildings, and are adding two more every day. We are using the very latest types of industrial equipment where practicable; and, through a program of research and engineering, we are inventing new mechanical and electronic devices to speed the movement of mail by eliminating tedious old-fashioned methods.

We pledge to continue and to complete this vitally needed program of modernization of buildings, equipment, methods and service, so that the American people will receive the kind of mail delivery they deserve—the speediest and best that American ingenuity, technology and modern business management can provide.

We favor self-government, national suffrage and representation in the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia.

We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women.

The Republican Party points to an impressive record of accomplishment in the field of civil rights and commits itself anew to advancing the rights of all our people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

In the area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, more progress has been made in this field under the present Republican Administration than in any similar period in the last 80 years.

The many Negroes who have been appointed to high public positions have played a significant part in the progress of this Administration.

Segregation has been ended in the District of Columbia Government and in the District public facilities including public schools, restaurants, theaters and playgrounds. The Eisenhower Administration has eliminated discrimination in all federal employment.

Segregation in the active Armed Forces of the United States has been ended. For the first time in our history there is no segregation in veterans’ hospitals and among civilians on naval bases. This is an impressive record. We pledge ourselves to continued progress in this field..

The Republican Party accepts the decision of the U.S.. Supreme Court that racial discrimination in publicly supported schools must be progressively eliminated. We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that its decision directing school desegregation should be accomplished with “all deliberate speed” locally through Federal District Courts.

The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.

In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice.

We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support.

NATO itself has been strengthened by developing reliance upon new weapons and retaliatory power, thus assisting the NATO countries increasingly to attain both economic welfare and adequate military defense.

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

We believe that active duty in the Armed Forces during a state of war or national emergency is the highest call of citizenship constituting a special service to our nation and entitles those who have served to positive assistance to alleviate the injuries, hardships and handicaps imposed by their service.

In recognizing this principle under previous Republican Administrations we established the Veterans Administration. This Republican Administration increased compensation and pension benefits for veterans and survivors to provide more adequate levels and to off-set cost of living increases that occurred during the most recent Democratic Administration.

We have also improved quality of hospital service and have established a long-range program for continued improvement of such service. We have strengthened and extended survivors’ benefits, thus affording greater security for all veterans in the interest of equity and justice.

One of the brightest areas of achievement and progress under the Eisenhower Administration has been in resource conservation and development and in sound, long-range public works programming.

Policies of sound conservation and wise development—originally advanced half a century ago under that preeminent Republican conservation team of President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot and amplified by succeeding Republican Administrations—have been pursued by the Eisenhower Administration. While meeting the essential development needs of the people, this Administration has conserved and safeguarded our natural resources for the greatest good of all, now and in the future.

Our national parks, national forests and wildlife refuges are now more adequately financed, better protected and more extensive than ever before. Long-range improvement programs, such as Mission 66 for the National Parks system, are now under way, and studies are nearing completion for a comparable program for the National Forests. These forward-looking programs will be aggressively continued.

Our Republican Administration has modernized and vitalized our mining laws by the first major revision in more than 30 years.

Recreation, parks and wildlife.

ACHIEVEMENTS: Reversed the 15-year trend of neglect of our National Parks by launching the 10-year, $785 million Mission 66 parks improvement program. Has nearly completed field surveys for a comparable forest improvement program. Obtained passage of the so-called “Week-end Miner Bill.” Added more than 400,000 acres to our National Park system, and 90,000 acres to wildlife refuges. Has undertaken well-conceived measures to protect reserved areas of all types and to provide increased staffs and operating funds for public recreation agencies.

We favor full recognition of recreation as an important public use of our national forests and public domain lands.

We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands.

We favor recognition, by the States, of wild-life and recreation management and conservation as a beneficial use of water.

We subscribe to the general objectives of groups seeking to guard the beauty of our land and to promote clean, attractive surroundings throughout America.

We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas to provide opportunity for future generations to experience some of the wilderness living through which the traditional American spirit of hardihood was developed.

Water resource development legislation enacted under the Eisenhower Administration already has ushered in one of the greatest water resource development programs this Nation has ever seen, a soundly-conceived construction program that will continue throughout this Century and beyond.

We will continue to press for co-operative solution of all problems of water supply and distribution, reclamation, pollution, flood control, and saline-water conversion.

We pledge legislative support to the arid and semi-arid states in preserving the integrity of their water laws and customs as developed out of the necessities of these regions. We affirm the historic policy of Congress recognizing State water rights, as repeatedly expressed in Federal law over the past 90 years.

We pledge an expansion in research and planning of water resource development programs, looking to the future when it may be necessary to re-distribute water from water-surplus areas to water-deficient areas.

The Republican Party is acutely aware that a foundation stone of the nation’s strength is its wealth of natural resources and the high development of its physical assets. They are the basis of our great progress in 180 years of freedom and of our nation’s military and economic might.

We pledge that we will continue the policies of sound conservation and wise development instituted by this Administration to insure that our resources are managed as a beneficial trust for all the people.

The US right and Hungary 2

August 7, 2022

Orbán’s speech in Texas, opens with lots of flattery and a few jokes, but it soon settles into a rhythm more familiar from his last speech to CPAC. He is:

A leader of a country that is under the siege of progressive liberals day-by-day.

Obviously there is a huge army of progressive liberals outside the gates. Like Russia in Ukraine???

I can already see tomorrow’s headlines: “Far-right European racist and anti-Semite strongman, the Trojan horse of Putin, holds speech at conservative conference.” But I don’t want to give them any ideas. They know best how to write Fake News. 

He was pretty accurate, but the level of reportage seems to have been pretty low key, just as it was when CPAC went to Hungary. My experience then was that many on the US right had no idea it was happening, and regarded reports as fake news “why would CPAC go to Hungary?”. On the whole, the US media likes to pretend that authoritarian pro-corporate governments are not a threat.

The Obama Administration tried to force us to change the Fundamental law of Hungary, and delete Christian and national values from it.

I’m guessing they tried to support some group which was being declared non-human, but I’ve no idea, he does not say. An accusation is always better if its too vague to be denied, or you don’t look bad making it.

Progressive liberals didn’t want me to be here because they knew what I would tell you. Because I am here to tell you that we should unite our forces.

Fair enough. If you are going to tell lies about progressive liberals and declare war on them, they probably won’t be happy you are here, but it does not prove your virtue.

If somebody has doubts whether progressive liberals and communists are the same, just ask us, Hungarians. We fought them both, and I can tell you: they are the same.

So the technique is as before, try to combine different groups in the one smear of guilt by association. Is it possible that communists and progressive liberals both opposed Orbán for different reasons and did not join together?

political life is ruled by liberal hegemony

If only it was. This is about scare mongering, and suggesting the right has been stripped of rightful power.

So, first and foremost: we need to trust our Judeo-Christian teachings. They help us decide what actions are right and what actions are wrong. If you believe in God, you also believe that we humans were created in God’s image. Therefore, we have to be brave enough to address even the most sensitive questions: migration, gender, and the clash of civilisations. Don’t worry: a Christian politician cannot be racist. 

Interesting. Presumably this statement above means that racism is bad, but if you are Christian you just can’t be racist and don’t have to trouble your conscience about it. Which given his speech just before he came in which he supposedly said, seems to be what he thinks.

There is a world in which European peoples are mixed together with those arriving from outside Europe. Now that is a mixed-race world. And there is our world, where people from within Europe mix with one another, move around, work, and relocate. So, for example, in the Carpathian Basin we are not mixed-race: we are simply a mixture of peoples living in our own European homeland. 

 Conor Friedersdorf Why Viktor Orbán’s Racism Matters in the U.S. The Atlantic 4 August 2022

In Texas he said:

I’ll tell you the truth: in Hungary we introduced a zero-tolerance policy on racism and anti-Semitism, so accusing us is fake news, and those who make these claims are simply idiots.

The idiots obviously include writers on the Jerusalem Post, who report that an official report on anti-Semitism is just a press release with no information on how the data was compiled, that the government has effectively censored Holocaust museums and that:

a European Union survey finds that 40% of Jews in Hungary have thought about leaving the country because of antisemitism, [so] it’s hard to swallow that Hungary offers a high quality of life for Jews.

He implies that mixing is about culture…. ?

Don’t be afraid to call your enemies by their name. You can play it safe, but they will never show mercy. Consider for example George Soros, as you call him here…. He is my opponent. He believes in none of the things that we do. And he has an army at his service: money, NGOs, universities, research institutions and half the bureaucracy in Brussels. He uses this army to force his will on his opponents, like us Hungarians. 

George Soros’s army is a recurring figure in his speeches. Indeed there are huge billboards in Hungary which attack Soros. Soros wants an “Open Society,” with many opinions, something which authoritarians do not want. He has not been very successful given the supposed reach of this army. I suspect that Soros’s prime crime, is that he has not believed in the ideology that the free market always delivers the best result, or that corporations don’t have power. But I suspect that Orbán does not believe in a free market either. I don’t know, but he probably believes in a market which cronies with business to make what looks like the best result for Hungary.

You also have to know how you should fight. My answer is: Play by your own rules! But how do you do that? It is as simple as it sounds. You must play to win. ‘You cannot expect victory and plan for defeat.’ You have to believe that you are better than your left-liberal opponents are. And don’t care what the liberals say! They always say you will lose. They say it cannot be done.

You also have to know how you should fight. My answer is: Play by your own rules! But how do you do that? It is as simple as it sounds. You must play to win. ‘You cannot expect victory and plan for defeat.’ You have to believe that you are better than your left-liberal opponents are. And don’t care what the liberals say! They always say you will lose. They say it cannot be done.

You just have to prove them wrong. 

Again we learn that in war anything goes. Presumably a Christian not only cannot be a racist, they also cannot play dirty, or destroy tradition or principle in their politics; whatever they do is justified by victory.

this war is a culture war. We have to revitalize our churches, our families, our universities and our community institutions. Hungary is an old, proud but David-sized nation standing alone against the Woke Globalist Goliath. 

I’ve already stated many times that the right engages in culture wars, because its real agenda would not be popular and Orbán seems to run similar culture war memes to those of the US Right. Some say he has pioneered the vote rigging the Republicans seem to be engaged with [1]. But that makes sense: if your opposition is evil, you cannot afford the risk of them winning. Again we have the idea of the “Woke Globalist Goliath”. Whatever wokeness is, its not that big a movement, but presumably its an evil giant. Always magnify your enemy while making them look weak?

His next point is that they built a wall and kept out migrants. The corresponding point that Trump said he would build a wall, and failed at enormous cost, after 4 years, is not made.

Progressives claim all over the world that families should not be protected. In Europe they say there is no such thing as family, because love is love and family is family. If you cannot define family, nothing is a family.

This is simply not true. Most progressives do not want violence in families, rape in families and so on. They want families to be protected. This has sometimes been seen as an attack on families, by those people who support violence in families. Who says there is no such thing as family? People do say, however, that there are more complicated families than a married man and woman and their children by that marriage. This is reality, and those more complicated families need protection.

All subsidies are already available to families following conception. Families automatically get tax breaks, the state takes over your student loans after your third child. Women are exempt from paying personal income tax for life after the birth of their fourth child. And we are fighting to extend the same zero tax policy for mothers with three children.

Sounds like communism 🙂 Mother Heroines of the Soviet Unions etc.

He also boasts that children should not know about non-straight people.

We decided we don’t need more genders; we need more rangers. Less drag queens, and more Chuck Norris. We believe there is no freedom without order. If there is no order, you get chaos… In Hungary you will only hear: “more funds to the Police!”

Sometimes you get more chaos the more you try and impose order. But let us remember why people in the US said things like defund the police. This was because many black people, respectable middle class black people, are still treated like criminals by police, even without any criminal record or criminal behaviour. It was because black people are convicted for crimes which are ignored if you are white. It was because black people where killed by police out of proportion to their numbers. It is because police are frightened they are going to be shot if they don’t shoot first. If you can sort out the police, then the police will be more popular. There is no sign that Republicans want to deal with these problems, and maybe they are happy with those problems, and happy to blame the people being shot and arrested. Orbán gives no hints how to solve those problems.

we introduced a flat tax on personal income, which is currently 15 per cent. In just 10 years-time we reduced the tax wedge by 10 per cent, which was the biggest tax cut in Europe. We have the lowest corporate income tax in Europe, which is a flat 9 per cent. With this low corporate income tax last year, we had a 27 per cent investment rate, which was among the best in Europe.

Should it surprise us that corporations pay a lower tax rate than workers? Probably not. That would possibly be pleasing to Republicans as well. The only question is whether corporations pay that 9% or not, or manage to get out of it. If a flat tax works then good.

With the war in Ukraine. He argues that America and Russia need to negotiate peace. I don’t know whether his statement implies that the Ukrainians have a say in this. If they don’t then its a betrayal of peace.

only strong leaders are able to make peace. We in the neighbourhood of Ukraine are desperately in need of strong leaders, who are capable of negotiating a peace deal. Mayday, mayday! Please help us! We need a strong America with a strong leader.

He may just want Russian gas.

We in the West have not faced a crisis like this for a long time. The ideological wars of the twentieth century – against the totalitarian powers of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union – were terrible, but democratic West rallied, and defeated them both. Now the West is at war with itself.

He does not mean the crises of climate change or ecological destruction. It would seem he means people being gay and disobedient, not being professed Christians, having complicated families, resisting being beaten up by police for no reason, or wondering why they are paying higher rates of tax than corporations.

All pretty trivial compared to the challenge of Hitler and Stalin. And let’s not forget that many Christian Churches supported Hitler, and went out of their way not to attack his policies, or refuse to teach “Aryan Christianity.” Hungary might be said to have gone along with Hitler as they later went along with Stalin.

We must take back the institutions in Washington and in Brussels. We must find friends and allies in one another. We must coordinate the movement of our troops, because we face the same challenge

Again its a war. And its a war for ideological space and power. There is no compromise. Only the extinction of liberals having any basis for power. Its a war based on a claim of religious tradition to get some religious bodies onside. It is a war based upon a claim about family and being straight. It is a war based on disliking difference. It is a war in which fixing elections, controlling the media and controlling supposedly independent institutions is considered normal.

Everything is to be held in check and made the same.

The US right and Hungary 1

August 7, 2022

People may know that the important US rightwing Organisation CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is courting Hungary’s President Viktor Orbán, and getting his advice on how to proceed to win victory in the USA. CPAC has both formally gone to Hungary to observe the results and invited Orbán to speak to them in Texas. So this is not a bit of random noise. This is saying that the USA has no ideas of its own, and it’s a bit like inviting Mussolini to speak to them in the 1930s. It indicates what the US right is looking for, if we did not already know.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n_(13581867193).jpg

So its worthwhile looking at Orbán’s two speeches to them. Some of what he says is probably good advice for everyone, and people who are not authoritarian right wingers should pay heed, not only to the authoritarian advice, so they know what is being done against them, but to find out what they might learn.

The first was given in Hungary, when CPAC visited him. It was called “The cure for progressive dominance was invented in Hungary.” Some of us may dispute the idea of progressive dominance, but the idea that progressives are dominant is important to right wing ideology, it makes a good excuse to justify unethical action. Orbán says

four days ago I formed my fifth conservative, Christian government

I guess we can guess that this means he is hostile to non-Christians, and is full of self righteousness, because he has God on his side, and can punish the heathen, or other people he does not like. Some claim that he expelled many Christian denominations from Hungary, so American people should be worried about what Republicans think is Christian. But this might be a bit premature.

How can I contribute to today’s gathering? Perhaps if I tell you how we won: how we first defeated the communist regime; then how we defeated the liberals; and then, most recently, how we defeated the international liberal left when they combined their forces against Hungary in the election.

International people are bad unless they are right wingers, obviously the right is international, but it again conjures the idea that the left is powerful and stretches all over the world.

This problem – if I am not mistaken, both in America and Western Europe – is the domination of public life by progressive liberals. The problem is the fact that they hold the most important positions in the most important institutions, that they occupy the dominant positions in the media, and that they produce all the politically indoctrinating works of high and mass culture. 

He offers no evidence of course, again the point is to officially claim that right wing politics is fighting against a monster. It is hard to believe that Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson are dominating the media as progressive liberals, and its hard to pretend that there is not a large body of right wing literature, rightwing publishing houses, or rightwing corporately sponsored think-tanks, or that the right does not feature in many important institutions (including universities), unless you refuse to look, or unless you consider that everyone that disagrees with you is a progressive liberal, and should be removed or censored.

One way you can detect authoritarianism, is a refusal to admit the other side could win legitimately, and to suspend all restraint against that other side, while pretending to be victims to justify whatever steps you might take.

He talks about the revolution against the communists

We thought we had finally got what we wanted, but we were wrong: under the dictatorship liberals and conservatives entered into an anti-communist pact, but at the first subsequent opportunity the liberals sided with the communists. It turned out that in fact they were natural allies. If I am not mistaken, this kind of sinful covenant has also been seen in the United States.

I’m not familiar with Hungarian history, but talking of “sinful covenants” should ring alarm bells, especially as there is no evidence that current day “progressive liberals” have much more in common with communists than the conservative right.

And then, between 2002 and 2010, we saw what generally happens in such circumstances: the socialists spent the people’s money. Hungary sank into debt, the economy fell into recession, inflation ran out of control, unemployment rose and people were unable to pay their bills. Street violence broke out and paramilitary groups were on the march. It was a long time ago, but let us not forget: strings of ethnically-motivated murders outraged public sentiment. 

We might wonder which side these paramilitary groups were supporting.

the fruit of progressive government speaks for itself: economic ruin and street violence. When a left-wing government comes to power, the story almost always ends in the same way.

Again there is not even an attempt to justify this. There are plenty of governments that he would call left progressive that don’t encourage street violence and that don’t leave economic ruin. More modern street violence occurred under Trump than under Obama, including the attack on the Capitol and the BLM riots in response to police violence, and Obama started the US economy on a road to recovery from the crash of 2008. Biden seems to be doing ok on the US economy as well. Under Trump the U.S. national debt increased by 39%, reaching $27.75 trillion; the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio the highest since WWII. When he left office there were 3 million fewer jobs in the U.S. than when he took office, which is something of a surprise given the increase spending. However, being able to condemn street violence is probably a good place to be. Most politicians have developed the art of excusing violence by their own.

The first point in the Hungarian formula is to play by our own rules. The only way to win is to refuse to accept the solutions and the paths offered by others.

Another way of expressing this, is don’t play by conventions, don’t play by the rules, don’t heed tradition. Let the rules inhibit others. Never agree with the others. Politics is total war. There is no reason not to encourage violence in the Streets, or violence against opposing politicians. Stochastic Terrorism is great, if you don’t want to risk normal terrorism.

The second point: national conservatism in domestic politics. The cause of the nation is not a matter of ideology, nor even of tradition. The reason that churches and families must be supported is that they are the building blocks of the nation. This also means that one must remain on the side of the voters….. One must find the issues on which the Left is completely out of touch with reality and highlight them – but in a way that can be understood by people who are not eggheads

Churches are good sources of ideology, and they will support people who go along with them and support them. No immigrants. Walls on borders. Lie about what your opponents want.

Third point: the national interest in foreign policy…. the Nation First! Hungary First! America First!

You might wonder what groups are being identified with the Nation, but people will want to know what is in the policy for themselves and their associates. This is reality. Always portray wars in the national interest, or not being involved in a neighbouring war as in the national interest.

Fourth point, Dear Friends: we must have our own media….  My friend Tucker Carlson stands alone and immovable. His show has the highest audience figures. What does this mean? It means that there should be shows like his day and night – or, as you say, 24/7. 

There should be no media, other than media which supports the right. This is pretty much the case in Hungary, nearly all the media is owned by supporters of Orbán. But yes, the left needs to heed this and build its own media. Hard, when media requires money and there is an established corporate media which generally ignores the left, but it used to be possible: unions could own media.

Fifth point: expose your opponent’s intentions. As a condition for victory, media support is necessary, but not sufficient…. Here in Hungary we expose what the Left are preparing before they even take action. At first they will deny it, but success is all the sweeter when it emerges that we were right all along. For instance, there is the issue of LGBTQ propaganda targeting children. This is still a new thing over here, but we have already destroyed it…. to quote General Patton again: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”

Invent stuff about your opponents, and keep repeating it until it is believed, and then act against what you said they were doing, violently. This can be done by any side that does not believe truth is relevant, or who is prepared to say some minor groups of the opposition represent the whole group of the opposition.

Sixth point: economy, economy, economy. We all know that the Left want to operate the economy according to abstract notions…. When we came to power, we decided that we must only pursue economic policies that benefit the majority of voters

This is probably borrowed from Bill Clinton…. not that he would accept of course. But sadly we know that with control of the media, then you can, like Trump, claim to have made economic progress and people will believe you for a while, and some will be able to truthfully say they are doing better.

Our seventh point: do not get pushed to the extreme. I say this because extreme conspiracy theories rear their heads from time to time on the right – just as extreme utopias regularly rear their heads on the left.

No objection to this, just wish it would happen, and that the right would not deny science, and invent imaginary conspiracy theories to attack their opponents. But I suspect he is saying try to keep the conspiracy arguments in bounds

Eighth point: read every day. A book a day keeps the defeat away. I know that this sounds strange. I am not an academic myself, but the fact is that no invention has yet surpassed the book as a vehicle for understanding and conveying ideas. The world is becoming increasingly complex, and we need to dedicate time to understanding it. I, for instance, set aside one whole day every week for reading. Reading also helps us to understand what our opponents think and where their thinking is flawed. If we know that, the rest is mere technique. 

Good advice for everyone. I doubt the Republicans will accept it they seem to be wanting to stop people reading anything that they don’t approve.

Ninth point: have faith. A lack of faith is dangerous. If you do not believe that there will be a final reckoning and that you will be held to account for your actions before God, you will think that you can do anything that is in your power

The problem with this is simply the obvious one that if you think everything you do is guided by God, then you may well think that you can do anything that is in your power.

Tenth point: make friends. Our opponents, the progressive liberals and neo-Marxists, have unlimited unity: they have one another’s backs. 

if only that was true 🙂 but it does make them a monolithic block capable of evil, and unprincipled.

if we want to succeed in politics, we should never look at what we disagree on, but instead look for our common ground. 

another likely truth. This is why Libertarians and Evangelical Christians can live with pagan fascists.

Eleventh point: build communities. My Friends, over the years I have also learned that there is no conservative political success without functioning communities.

This is true for every politics. Politics must become communal. It must build relationships, identity, mutual support and mutual dedication to the cause. However, he also suggests taking over community organisations to gain influence. For the righteous, communities must have no voice of their own.

the twelfth point: build institutions. For successful politics, one needs institutions and institutes. Whether they are think tanks, educational centers, talent workshops, foreign relations institutes, youth organizations or whatever, they should have a political aspect. Let us not forget: politicians come and go, but institutions stay with us for generations.

This is also true, and follows that only the righteous should have a voice, and there should be no institutions which do not support the righteous and their government. No pluralism. Authoritarians see this uniformity as paradise – an echo of the unity in God.

Few people can stand against this gentle coercion.

Now we see that the progressives are threatening the whole of Western civilization, and the true danger is not from without but from within….

We are dealing with the same people: faceless, ideologically trained bureaucrats sitting in Washington DC and Brussels. Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists intoxicated by the dream of wokeness, those in the pay of George Soros, the advocates of the open society. They want to abolish the Western way of life that you and we love so much: what your parents fought for during World War II and the Cold War, and what we fought for when we drove the Soviet communists out of Hungary. 

Again we have the inflation of the progressive evil, to make the fight existential and unbounded. Remember your opponents are evil and faceless. They are completely hostile to civilisation, and they must be removed and driven out. We are right. They are wrong. There is no common point. You might build commonality with those you share goals with, but your defined opponents have nothing in common with you. They must be exterminated. This really is war. And if democracy involves disagreement, and acceptance of disagreement, this is a war on democracy.

continues… the US right and Hungary 2

Nuclear again…..

August 3, 2022
Stock Photo: https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-somerset-uk-february-proposed-construction-site-new-image67435962

The Background

The Federal Coalition, now the Federal opposition, is ignoring climate change after helping to subsidise massive ‘climate bomb’ gas projects, such as Woodside’s Scarborough Gas Project, or the Beetaloo Gas Project.

According to reports of a 350.org and Lock the Gate report:

at least $1.3bn and up to $1.9bn in direct funding for the gas industry was promised between September 2020 and the election. They found another $63m was pledged in indirect funding for federal agencies to support the expansion.

Adam Morton, Katharine Murphy and Paul Karp Greens in ‘powerful position’ on climate as Labor faces scrutiny over Coalition’s ‘gas-fired recovery’ projects. The Guardian 3 August 2022

The International Energy Agency made it clear in May 2021:

from today, [there should be] no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. By 2035, there are no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars, and by 2040, the global electricity sector has already reached net-zero emissions.

IEA Press Release, Pathway to critical and formidable goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 is narrow but brings huge benefits, according to IEA special report. 18 May 2021.

We are also in a position in which

Exxon Mobil made $18bn in profits in the past three months. Shell and Chevron each made nearly $12bn. Those are all record numbers.

A recent study showed that for the past 50 years, the oil industry has made profits of more than $1tn a year, close to $3bn a day. These profits are driven not by some fantasy of free enterprise and perfect competition, but by the exact opposite – cartels, mega-corporations and the regulatory capture of governments..,

Hamilton Nolan The world is ablaze and the oil industry just posted record profits. It’s us or them, The Guardian 2 August 2022

And we still have the figures from MarketForces of corporate tax paying in Australia

https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/subsidies/taxes/taxavoidance/

As well, in Australia we will likely face a gas shortfall next year, as well as this year, not because we have no gas, not because there is no government support for gas, but because it is more profitable to sell it elsewhere, we don’t have enough renewables to avoid dependency on fossil fuels, and we live with fossil fuel companies that behave like cartels. We have massive increase in household electricity bills as a result.

Australia and the World has massive problems with continuing fossil fuel production.

Talking Nuclear

However, after apparently ignoring these problems while it was in government, the Coalition has suddenly promised to talk about nuclear. This is despite the leader, Peter Dutton, saying a couple of months ago “nuclear energy is currently ‘not on the table’ for Liberal Party policy consideration.”

However, more recently, the leader of the opposition said:

It is high time that Australia had an honest and informed debate on the benefits and costs of nuclear energy….

The current energy crisis has shown the importance of getting more dispatchable power into the grid. The average wholesale electricity price in the second quarter this year was three times higher than the same time a year ago – a situation described by the Australian Energy Market Operator as ‘unprecedented’….

Australia is already a nuclear nation.  The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has operated a nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights for over 60 years. A national conversation about potential of nuclear energy is the logical next step.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION – STATEMENT – NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 August 2022

Let’s be clear the ANSTO reactor at Lucas Heights, is not a nuclear power plant. It is a small reactor used to manufacture radioisotopes for medicine, and science experiments. It is not relevant to nuclear power.

So why do the Coalition apparently think focusing on nuclear is a good idea?

We need to note.

  • The Coalition could not succesfully start the ‘conversation’ while they were in government and had the power to do anything – despite producing the report: “Not without your approval: a way forward for nuclear technology in Australia” .
  • We have already had multiple inquiries that suggest nuclear power is too expensive without a carbon price which the Coalition will not accept, and few people want to live next door to one.
  • In their mind it appears to ‘excuse’ opposing climate targets, and suggests they might have a plan.
  • They will probably hope to distract from their failure to agree to actually cut emissions by arguing that people disinterested in nuclear energy, such as most people in Labor, Green and Teals, are not really prepared to tackle climate change, and are only interested in crippling the Australian economy, while the Coalition has a practical solution to the problem with zero social cost.
  • However, they have no ability, or probably intention, to get nuclear up before 2030 and thus help phase out greenhouse gas emissions. It’s just empty virtue signaling.

If you want to see the difficulties of modern nuclear then have a look at the Hinkley Point project.

The CSIRO was recently unable to get any pricing from the people claiming to have developed Small and Medium Reactors, and CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Larry Marshall pointed out that:

The latest report shows renewables are holding steady as the lowest cost source of new-build electricity.. With the world’s largest penetration of rooftop solar, unique critical energy metals, a world class research sector and a highly skilled workforce, Australia can turn our challenges into the immense opportunity of being a global leader in renewable energy

CSIRO press release Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold. 11 July 2022

The report summary also said:

The status of nuclear SMR has not changed. Following extensive consultation with the Australian electricity industry, report findings do not see any prospect of domestic projects this decade, given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost. Future cost reductions are possible but depend on its successful commercial deployment overseas.

CSIRO press release Renewables remain cheapest, but cost reductions on hold. 11 July 2022

The real report states:

We have had a range of feedback into the assumed current costs for nuclear SMR over several years reflecting the difficulty of finding good evidence for costs in circumstances where a technology is not currently being deployed. This year only one submission was received but it continues the theme established in previous years that current costs of nuclear SMR should be lower. Vendors seeking to encourage the uptake of a new technology have proposed theoretical cost estimates, but these cannot be verified until proven through a deployed project.

Graham et al… GenCost 2021-22 Final report p.14

So the chances of getting affordable nuclear in time, seems small. However the cost of renewables is decreasing and they are much easier to build than reactors.

It seems likely that a conversation on nuclear, at the same time as ignoring all the other fossil fuel problems we have, and all the solutions we have, is likely to be an attempted shield for doing nothing.

Monbiot argues…..

July 31, 2022

This is a set of quotations and arguments from George Monbiot, with an occasional paraphrase. Monbiot is easily the most important journalist who writes on climate change, power and economics, and his work is well worth your perusal, and hopefully this will help. If there are copyright issues, please let me know and I will remove this.

Monbiot. Photo from the Guardian

Summary

Complex Systems can change quickly to a new state of equilibrium – events cascade and reinforce the change – this is what the global eco-system, Gaia if you like, is facing.

The media is engaged in distraction, and blame shifting, partly this could be because the situation is frightening, and partly because we are ruled by a plutocracy that resists change, or awareness of change.

Plutocracy may lead to avoidance even in the powers that be. this can be summarised by the idea of “learning to live with” climate or Covid. This “living with” usually seems to mean ignoring the problem, invoking magic, blaming the relatively powerless, and not learning at all.

Plutocracy leads to confusion, even when governments try to do something, as they also try and support the plutocracy that is causing the problems. For instance, they avoid stopping new fossil fuel development, or removing regulations that support fossil fuel companies.

Much of the technology promoted and imagined as helpful is magical as well. It may not even exist, but will still solve our problems. Carbon Credits and biofuels are good examples of technology which is supposed to help, but which may make the problems worse.

On top of everything else we have a world food crisis. The food system is complex, but has the kind of structure which indicates it is likely to collapse altogether if there is much stress.

Finally we quickly look at a few solutions: basically supporting democracy against plutocracy and getting rid of climate debt to free poorer countries to deal with their own climate crises.

Complexity and mess of information

[Complexity is important, as I keep hammering] Monbiot writes that people who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. In normal conditions, the system regulates itself, maintaining a state of equilibrium. It can absorb stress up to a certain point. But as stress escalates, these same properties start transmitting shocks through the network. [The system] suddenly flips: a small disturbance can tip the entire system over its critical threshold, whereupon it collapses, suddenly and unstoppably. It passes a tipping point, then falls into a new state of equilibrium, which is often impossible to reverse.

If the nodes behave in a variety of [different] ways, and their links to each other are weak, the system is likely to be resilient. If certain nodes become dominant, start to behave in similar ways and are strongly connected, the system is likely to be fragile. [This happened leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, in banking].

Human civilisation relies on the current equilibrium states. But, all over the world, crucial systems appear to be approaching their tipping points. If one system crashes, it is likely to drag others down, triggering a cascade of chaos known as systemic environmental collapse. This is what happened during previous mass extinctions.

[One] way of telling whether [the complex system] is approaching a tipping point [is that its] outputs begin to flicker. The closer to its critical threshold it comes, the wilder the fluctuations. What we’ve seen this year is a great global flickering, as Earth systems begin to break down. The heat domes over the western seaboard of North America; the massive fires there, in Siberia and around the Mediterranean; the lethal floods in Germany, Belgium, China, Sierra Leone – these are the signals that, in climatic morse code, spell “mayday”.

[However, our media are not talking about the problems. They engage in distraction and the pursuit of ratings] Tune in to almost any radio station, at any time, and you can hear the frenetic distraction at work. While around the world wildfires rage, floods sweep cars from the streets and crops shrivel, you will hear a debate about whether to sit down or stand up while pulling on your socks, or a discussion about charcuterie boards for dogs. I’m not making up these examples: I stumbled across them while flicking between channels on days of climate disaster.

Most political news is nothing but court gossip: who’s in, who’s out, who said what to whom. It studiously avoids what lies beneath: the dark money, the corruption, the shift of power away from the democratic sphere, the gathering environmental collapse that makes a nonsense of its obsessions.

This distraction has taken up things like anti-litter campaigns [shifting the packaging industry’s deliberate creation of waste onto consumers] personal carbon footprint [instead of industry footprint, again shifting responsibility to relatively low emitters]. The oil companies didn’t stop there. The most extreme example I’ve seen was a 2019 speech by the chief executive of the oil company Shell, Ben van Beurden. He instructed us to “eat seasonally and recycle more”, and publicly berated his chauffeur for buying a punnet of strawberries in January. [In other words, none of the problems were apparently related to his company’s business. It was the general public, that was the problem. Wealthy polluters have to be protected from anyone doing anything about the pollution they emit.]

[Personally the question arises is this avoidance because of climate change being a scary “turn off” and they fear audiences will go elsewhere, is it because the media is owned by the same class of people as those who profit from climate change, who don’t want people to get the idea that people could have power over the corporate sector, or is it because there is always a corporately sponsored think tank which can point to something optimistic or to the evil consequences of doing something?].

Plutocracy

[We live in plutocracies, and its sometimes pretty overt] The Sunday Times [recently] reported that people who have donated at least £250,000 to the Conservative party have been invited to join an “advisory board”, with special access to the prime minister, cabinet ministers and senior government advisers. They have used this access to lobby for changes in government policy. The 14 identified members of the group have a combined wealth of at least £30bn, and have donated £22m to the Conservatives. The group and its agenda had hitherto been kept secret. 

We have also been told that the Conservative party is helping its donors to apply for key government positions.

The interests of the very rich are not the same as the interests of the nation. We should never forget what the billionaire stockbroker Peter Hargreaves, who donated £3.2m to one of the leave campaigns, said about Brexit: “We will get out there and we will become incredibly successful because we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic.”

[The real] power is oligarchic capital, [and that bends the way that we respond and the ways that the corporate media reports the crises]

Plutocracy leads to UK Water Crisis

[Monbiot suggests that] Absence, [and lack of action from government,] is what the party donors paid for.

[R]ecent prime ministers and their governments have prepared us for none of the great predicaments we face. They have looked the other way as the water companies failed to commission any new reservoirs since they were privatised in 1989, and allowed astonishing volumes of that precious commodity we call treated drinking water – 2.4bn litres a day on current estimates – to leak away. It’s a carelessness so grand that it feels like a metaphor. Instead of forcing them to stop these leaks, the government has allowed these corporations to pump the rivers dry: the living world, as ever, is the buffer that must absorb failure and greed.

So determined is the government to absent itself from decision-making that it cannot even institute a hosepipe ban: it must feebly ask the water companies to do so. Most, with an interest in ensuring their metered customers use as much as possible, have so far refused. Nor have the companies been obliged to upgrade their sewage treatment works. The combination of over-abstraction and sewage dumping is devastating. The water in the upper reaches of some of our chalk streams – remarkable ecosystems that are almost unique to England – now consists of nothing but sewage outflows and road run-off. During this long period of regulatory absence, the privatised water firms have piped £72bn in dividends into the accounts of their shareholders.

To [plutocrats], the duty of care is an abomination. Ten years ago next month, Liz Truss launched Britannia Unchained,… [that blamed] everything going wrong in the UK to “a diminished work ethic and a culture of excuses”. Of her four co-authors, three – Priti Patel, Kwasi Kwarteng and Dominic Raab – are frontbenchers in the current government… They blamed inequality and the lack of social mobility in this country not on the patrimonial spiral of wealth accumulation and the resultant rentier economy, but on “laziness”. Citing no meaningful evidence, they maintained that “once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world”.

[And to return to a previous point;] When governments are contractually incapable of solving their people’s problems, only one option remains: turning us against each other [giving them a distraction].

Magic and Avoidance

[Avoidance is common in plutocracy, as the plutocrats are part of the problem.] We have a new term for doing nothing: “learning to live with”. Learning to live with Covid means abandoning testing, isolation and wearing masks in public places. Living with it, dying from it, what’s the difference? The same applies to climate breakdown.

[With climate] our primary effort should still be to decarbonise our economies, to prevent even worse impacts. We also need to brace ourselves for the heating [and resultant weather] that’s now unavoidable.

[However,] government policy is to wish away these problems [and shift responsibility on to ordinary people] Doubtless we’ll soon be told we need to take “personal responsibility” for ensuring our homes are not flooded and our power lines are not destroyed by storms.

There is no learning involved in “learning to live with” [hence its easy and makes no demands personal or political]….

A few days ago, a senior executive at the Institute of Economic Affairs suggested that instead of preventing climate breakdown, we could simply “build sea walls”. It is not just denial we’re up against. It’s a belief in magic.

Confusion and Avoidance

[Magical Thinking encroaches everywhere, and often involves ignoring contradictions. Many government policies seem confused. While they want to be thought to be taking action, they don’t want to challenge the plutocrats or the fossil fuel companies]

MPs with no discernible record of concern for poor people, and a long record of voting against them, suddenly claim that climate action must be stymied to protect them. [Or that we must sell poorer countries our fossil fuels to reduce their poverty.]

An analysis by conservation charity WWF suggests that, while the last UK budget allocated £145m for environmental measures, it dedicated £40bn to policies that will increase emissions.

It is still government policy to “maximise economic recovery” of oil and gas from the UK’s continental shelf. According to the government’s energy white paper, promoting their extraction ensures that “the UK remains an attractive destination for global capital.”

Boris Johnson appears to be on the point of approving the development of a new oilfield – the Cambo – in the North Sea.

Since [Joe Biden] pledged to ban new drilling and fracking on federal lands, his administration has granted more than 2,000 new permits. His national security adviser has demanded that Opec+, the oil cartel, increase production, to reduce the cost of driving the monstrous cars that many Americans still buy.

[Laws and regulations are written to support this corporate death spiral.] A UK oil company is currently suing the Italian government for the loss of its “future anticipated profits” after Italy banned new oil drilling in coastal waters. Italy used to be a signatory to the Energy Charter Treaty, which allows companies to demand compensation if it stops future projects. The treaty’s sunset clause permits such lawsuits after nations are no longer party to it, so Italy can be sued even though it left the agreement in 2016.

There is no realistic prospect of preventing more than 1.5C of global heating unless all new fossil fuel development is stopped. In fact, existing projects need to be retired. Nor can we achieve the government’s official aim of net zero emissions by 2050. [But magically we can work against climate change and keep on with more fossil fuels. that way we don’t have to struggle against the plutocracy.]

Technology and Magic Avoidance

[Other than not facing up to the problem, stopping doing destructive things can be useful…]

Renewable power, for instance, is useful in preventing climate chaos only to the extent that it displaces fossil fuels.

[However, fossil fuel companies are rich] and fossil fuels will become stranded assets only when governments insist that they be left in the ground. [So that probably won’t happen for a while yet.]

[Again there is magic. A reasonably well known economist Oded] Galor claims, without providing the necessary evidence, that “the power of innovation accompanied by fertility decline” may allow us to avoid a difficult choice between economic growth and environmental protection. [We will also develop] “revolutionary technologies” that will one day rescue us from the climate crisis. [Just like that. No problem. Technology will always be found to solve every problem, when we need it.]

[People] appear to believe that the transformations necessary to prevent systemic collapse can happen without political pressure or political change. [So we don’t have to trouble THE Market or face up to the corporations who temporarily benefit from from not paying the cost of their pollution and destruction.]

[Magic innovations would be nice, but we still need to stop burning fossil fuels, just in case they don’t eventuate. If they do eventuate, we just have to deal with less pollution.]

Carbon Credits: Magic or Fraud

[Carbon credits are an idea which depends on] removing historic carbon from the air, and counteracting a small residue of unavoidable emissions once we have decarbonised the rest of the economy.

[However], they are being widely used as an alternative for effective action. Rather than committing to leave fossil fuels in the ground, oil and gas firms continue to prospect for new reserves while claiming that the credits they buy have turned them “carbon neutral”.

The French company Total is hoping to develop new oilfields in the Republic of the Congo and off the coast of Suriname. It has sought to justify these projects with nature-based solutions: in Suriname by providing money to the government for protecting existing forests, and in Congo by planting an area of savannah with fast-growing trees.

If the drilling goes ahead it will help to break open a region of extremely rich forests and wetlands that sits on top of the biggest peat deposit in the tropics, potentially threatening a huge natural carbon store. The rare savannah habitat the company wants to convert into plantations to produce timber and biomass has scarcely been explored by ecologists. It’s likely to harbour a far greater range of life than the exotic trees the oil company wants to plant. It is also likely to belong to local people though their customary rights… In other words, the offset project, far from compensating for the damage caused by oil drilling, could compound it.

Last year, forests being used as corporate offsets were incinerated by the wildfires raging across North America [showing how precarious, this form of carbon store is, in the climate fossil fuels are producing.].

Oxfam estimates that [even if carbon credits worked] the land required to meet carbon removal plans by businesses could amount to five times the size of India – more than the entire area of farmland on the planet. And much of it rightfully belongs to indigenous and other local people, who in many cases have not given their consent. This process has a name: carbon colonialism.

A better strategy would be to spend money on strengthening the land rights of indigenous people, who tend to be the most effective guardians of ecosystems and the carbon they contain. {But that would prevent land from being alienated and purchased (or stolen) by corporations and other wealthy people for their own use.]

Food Crises

[On top of climate, we seem to be developing food problems through capitalism]

The number of undernourished people fell from 811 million in 2005 to 607 million in 2014. But in 2015, the trend began to turn. Hunger has been rising ever since: to 650 million in 2019, and back to 811 million in 2020. This year is likely to be much worse.

Last year, the global wheat harvest was bigger than ever. Astoundingly, the number of undernourished people began to rise just as world food prices began to fall. In 2014, when fewer people were hungry than at any time since, the global food price index stood at 115 points. In 2015, it fell to 93, and remained below 100 until 2021.

[Food forms a complex system, and as remarked above if nodes behave similarly there is a problem. In this case the] features that might impede systemic collapse (“redundancy”, “modularity”, “circuit breakers” and “backup systems”) have been stripped away, exposing the system to “globally contagious” shocks.

On one estimate, just four corporations control 90% of the global grain trade [and] just four crops – wheat, rice, maize and soy – account for almost 60% of the calories grown by farmers.

[Food companies nowadays can depend on just-in time supplies with no redundancy or stores, this is easily disrupted by collapse in supply through company problems, war, bad weather or eco-crises – all more likely in climate change.]

If so many can go hungry at a time of unprecedented bounty, the consequences of the major crop failure that environmental breakdown could cause defy imagination. The system has to change.

The world now is in a major food crisis. Climate breakdown has begun to bite. Heat domes and droughts in North America and storms and floods in Europe and China last year damaged harvests and drove up prices. By February, the cost of food was 20% higher than a year earlier.

Ukraine and Russia produce nearly 30% of the world’s wheat exports, 15% of the maize (corn) and 75% of the sunflower oil. Altogether, they generate about 12% of the calories traded internationally. [This obviously has effects given the current war in Ukraine]

Just as European countries allowed themselves to become hooked on Russian gas and oil, they are also highly reliant on Russian and Belarusian fertilisers. About one-third of the nitrogen and two-thirds of the potassium imported by the UK and western Europe come from Russia and Belarus, and we can expect them to use this dependency as another economic weapon.

The Middle East and north Africa are highly reliant on Ukrainian and Russian grain. Almost 40% of Yemen’s wheat is grown in Russia and Ukraine. Already, millions there are close to starvation. Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, relies on the warring countries for roughly 70% of its imports.

Biofuels add to the food problem

[Adding to the precariousness of food supplies we have agricultural land and crops being used to make biofuels, hence reducing the world’s food supplies again.]

Between 2019 and 2021, farmers in England raised the area of land used to make biogas by an astonishing 19%. Now 120,000 hectares (300,000 acres) is ploughed to grow maize and hybrid rye for biogas, which is marketed, misleadingly, as a green alternative to fossil gas. The reopening of a bioethanol plant in Hull that will turn wheat into fuel for cars is likely to take another 130,000 hectares out of food production.

About 450 hectares of land is needed to feed a biogas plant with a capacity of one megawatt. By contrast, a megawatt of wind turbine capacity requires only one-third of a hectare

The food used by the UK alone for biofuels could feed 3.5 million people. If biofuel production ceased worldwide, according to one estimate, the saved crops could feed 1.9 billion human beings.

The investigative group Transport & Environment shows, the land used to grow the biofuels consumed in Europe covers 14m hectares (35m acres): an area larger than Greece. Of the soy oil consumed in the European Union, 32% is eaten by cars and trucks. They devour 50% of all the palm oil used in the EU and 58% of the rapeseed oil. Altogether, 18% of the world’s vegetable oil is turned into biodiesel, and 10% of the world’s grains are transformed into ethanol, to mix with petrol.

Since 2000, 10m hectares of Africa’s land, often the best land, has been bought or seized by sovereign wealth funds, corporations and private investors.

[We might be told the biiofuel plants will run on waste, but] Invariably, as soon as the market develops, dedicated crops are grown to supply it.

The UK government, “responding to industry feedback”, increased its target for the amount of biofuel used in surface transport. Worse, it justifies continued airport expansion with the claim that planes will soon be able to use “sustainable” fuels. In practice this means biofuel [and more magic and fantasy]

There’s a limit to how much we can eat. There’s no limit to how much we can burn.

Changing the plutocracy

Society is a complex system, and complex systems can never be sensibly and benevolently controlled from the centre. A centralised, hierarchical system means concentrated power, and concentrated power favours concentrated wealth. [And concentration of power and contacts may favour system collapse.]

Politics is “the active engagement of free citizens” in their own affairs. [Politics is a normal part of everyday life as we organise ourselves to do things together].

Bookchin proposed a structured political system, built on majority voting. It begins with popular assemblies, convened in opposition to the state, open to anyone from the neighbourhood who wants to join. As more assemblies form, they create confederations whose powers are not devolved downwards but delegated upwards. The assemblies send delegates to represent them at confederal councils, but these people have no powers of their own: they may only convey, coordinate and administer the decisions handed up to them. [possible examples include Rojava in Syria and the now defunct participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil. This kind of proposal might end the problem that] we have no opportunity to engage creatively with each other in building better communities.

Until we change our political systems, making it impossible for the rich to buy the decisions they want, we will lose not only individual cases. We will lose everything.

Debt and solution

[There is a massive global debt crisis] Between 1990 and 2019, external debt in… the poorer nations rose on average from roughly 90% of their GDP to 170%. The pandemic has accelerated the crisis: 135 out of 148 nations in the poorer world are now classed as “critically indebted”.

An analysis in the journal Global Environmental Change suggests that $10tn of value is extracted from poorer countries by richer ones every year, in the form of raw materials, energy, land and labour. That’s 70 times as much money as would be needed to end extreme poverty worldwide….

A report from Green New Deal suggests that debt has been used by the World Bank as a means of obliging Senegal to allow US, Australian and British companies to exploit its oil and gas. In Argentina, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has reportedly pushed for the development of the giant Vaca Muerta shale gas basin, using similar leverage. Impoverished and coerced by debt, poorer nations have little choice but to allow destructive industries to exploit them. 

An analysis by Oxfam suggests that 85% of the Covid loans made by the IMF to poorer nations were connected to austerity programmes: the fund is using the power of debt to push nations into cutting wage bills and spending less on public services and support for poor people.

Rich nations owe a massive climate debt to poorer nations: for the devastating impacts of the fossil fuels we have burned. Yet they have no intention of paying for the loss and damage they have caused. Poor countries are deemed to owe massive financial debts to the rich nations, yet they cannot pay them without destroying their economies and their ecosystems.

The proposal is simultaneously to cancel both the climate and the financial debts, liberating the money poorer nations need to take climate action.

[This sounds good, but it would, like any other climate action which cuts energy, would probably produce some kind of degrowth. However, degrowth will undoubtedly happen when the cost of fixing climate damage starts becoming a significant fraction of the profit made from provoking that damage.]

[Needless to say, it is probable that the plutocracy will oppose this measure, as they or the wealth economy will suffer, and most people will never get to hear of it.]

Conclusion

There is hope. But we have to be prepared to take on the Plutocracy and their promotion of harmful magic and distraction. We have to slow emissions, and keep fossil fuels in the ground. We can’t phase them out immediately, but we can agitate for more democracy, degrowth, and debt reduction as part of a strategy to help poorer countries.

The Great Delay on Climate

June 22, 2022

We gave up on climate long ago. We have known since the 70s of last century what the result of burning fossil fuels would be, and…..

  • We have had decades of avoidance.
  • Decades of pretending it is not a problem.
  • We’ve had fossil fuel companies and corporate networks pushing against action.
  • Corporately owned and controlled media has pretended that there is a major divergence of opinion about climate change, and promoted the fossil fuel company line.
  • Various pro-corporate think tanks have spread false information, to delay action and keep the system going.
  • We’ve had governments trying to make sure its always someone else who acts first.
  • We’ve had pro-corporate political parties refusing to act at all.
  • We’ve had pro-corporate political parties claiming that climate change was politicized, as they went about politicizing it.
  • We’ve had governments sponsor and encourage fossil fuels with taxpayers’ money.
  • We’ve had confusion as in Germany where they increased emissions from lignite and locked in diesel while they almost went renewable.
  • We have had a reduction in emissions, accidentally due to Covid, but (in the last 30 years) we have never reduced the trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
  • We’ve had pro-corporate think tanks, media and parties shouting out that it will be the end of the world if we act to reduce pollution and environmental destruction.

As a result, the world will almost certainly will not act to achieve the Paris goals, and those goals will probably not have been steep enough to change the trajectory in any case.

We are gaining truly bizarre temperature levels in various places including the poles. We are getting almost global extreme flood and fire events. We are having collapses in animal and insect populations, that will disrupt the ecologies we depend upon for food.

It is logical to assume that as we reach tipping points, and the tundras release vast clouds of methane and we keep increasing the mining and burning of fossil fuels, that things will get much worse. This is only now the beginning.

And still we keep refusing to act.

It gets more difficult to act the more we wait, and the worse the conditions get.

However, we are learning the truth. Many corporations do not care whether your life and livelihood is threatened or whether their civilization is likely to collapse etc, as long as they can keep making an easy profit. Governments will rarely act against established corporate interests. We have also learnt that there are lots of people who will go along with them rather than face up to significant problems – and that they will think they are virtuous for acting that way.

The main problem hindering action on climate change remains politics and power relations, and there is little sign it is changing in the large scale. Governments and business will not do it for us. If we want action, we have to act ourselves and organize and act together.

Borders in the global world

May 27, 2022

National borders

First thing that has to be grasped. Fixed borders between countries seem to be a relatively recent development. In ‘olden days’ people would cross from one country, or duchy or whatever, to another as part of daily life, even when the law confined residence to a village. People on the border shifted around and generally ignored it. The borders where whatever could be held by the troops at the time – or when under challenge by other troops. The Roman and Chinese Empires did not have fixed borders as far as I can tell. Borders were fluid although often based on rough geographical features. Borders may be argued over, if they exist at all. In Hunter and Gatherer societies ‘borders’ are matters of respect, and occasionally of what you can defend – other people may wander into your territory all the time. Central sacred sites may be more important than the borders around. Lack of firm borders may not be a problem with the proper requests, or if you don’t meet each other. Borders may be marked by myths or pronounced geographical features. The land owns you, not vice versa.

In the modern world Borders can be so arbitrary they can even be lines on maps drawn on a latitude line, which is purely conceptual and does not correspond to any geographical, or mythical, features at all. These borders are not real other than in the sense that social conventions are real.

Even Islands like Australia do not have clear borders. We have had long term people movement and small trade between Australia, Indonesia, Papua Niugini and the Pacific Islands and this has not stopped, and will probably will not stop without local disruption. In the USA, large sectors of the economy seem to depend on fluid borders, and large parts of Mexico depend on income being sent home from the USA. Cutting that flow off completely may have unintended consequences for both countries.

Taking borders as real and fixed leads to problems, especially in the modern world which, whether we want it to be or not, is global. However, this does not mean that a country has no right to enforce its borders, just that this may be more complex and have more side effects than the people imposing those borders think.

Borders and Climate

Climate change is not local. It does not respect human borders. Our country’s pollution affects people as far away as India or Iceland. We are helping to cause temperatures to rise in Pakistan to 50 degrees C. (122 degrees F). Chinese decisions likewise affect us.

We need to not only work within our borders but across borders. If we make emissions worse, we make it worse for all, including ourselves. We are not safe from the emissions of the coal, gas and oil that we export when they are burnt in other countries – even if these emissions are not counted as being our emissions. Everything we do affects others and ourselves as we live on an interlinked Planet not just in a bordered country. What we do influences how others behave. If we set a bad example, then other people will excuse themselves as well, and that will affect us.

If governments do not understand this, then they have no hope of understanding climate change, or dealing with it.

Borders and Economy

We now live in a global economy. We probably have done so for a long time. However, it is now clear, that economic events in one country affect economic events in other countries. If Russia blocks exports of Ukrainian wheat, that affects the world. If banks in China collapse because of bad local loans, that affects the world. When financial companies in the US tried to defraud home loan owners in large enough quantities – that did affect the world. Money lost in one part of the world effects operations in other parts of the world. If companies go to where the labor is cheapest, and the pollution costs smallest, that affects everyone, and likely puts downward pressure on wages and environmental regulation in other places. If companies can find no tax zones that affects everyone, and lessens money for social spending. Economic crashes may not be confined within borders, especially when companies are not so confined. Inflation and depression are often cross-border events. Neither Biden nor Trump could keep inflation outside the borders of the USA.

Large corporations are commonly cross border institutions. They export something from one country and sell it in another. They make some parts in one country and use them in another. They may generally not be self-supporting in one country – they require many countries, and they ignore borders, except for the advantage that local regulation can give them. Exports and imports between countries can exist within the one company.

Companies have the wealth of small (and sometimes quite large) States, and push States around rather than vice versa. Corporations have the advantage of mobility, which States do not have. They can move from one place to another leaving destruction behind. Consequently, no country has complete control over its economy, and its economy depends on other economies. Economies do not respect borders. If you are going to understand and deal with economies you have to understand this.

Borders and the Military

Military threats also don’t respect borders. Never have. Civil wars are always destructive. It is now easy to smuggle incredibly destructive weapons into countries. The US is probably in as much, or more, danger from internal threats than from external threats. An Atom bomb set off by an internal terrorist is as physically dangerous as a bomb launched by a foreign power, and it is probably more psychologically dangerous. Putin’s Russia is facing a problem, not just because Ukraine is resisting far better than they expected, but also because the economy and resistance to the war is international, and does not respect the borders of the two warring countries. It is also forcing Russia to become dependent on China, and it seems unlikely the Chinese will be long term allies, or do not have some objective here that may not be in Russia’s interest. Ukraine used to be inside Russia’s borders, but it is not anymore. Powerful Russians seem to have thought Ukrainians thought of themselves as Russians, and as living within the Russian border, or within Russian influence, but it seems to have been wrong.

No country is immune to war because of its borders.

Borders and Fences

Borders are long and fragile. It is impossible to entirely fence off the USA from the rest of the world and stop people from crossing the fence, or to stop weather, ecology and climate from knocking the fence down. As plenty of other people have shown this is what has happened with Trump’s famous border wall/fence. It was easy to climb. It collapsed; blown over or swept away by rivers and floods. It stole private land. It was a waste of money and resources, and did not serve to protect the USA from climate problems, economic collapse, migration, or modern military challenges. At best it seems a distraction from the real problems…

Social Categories and Borders

It is generally assumed that social categories have firm borders, and people act as if this is correct, but it is often not correct. A few examples:

‘Racial’ categories, blend into each other. People breed with each other, sometimes by violence, but nevertheless they breed across cultural and racial groups People often seem to have ancestors from all over the world. People breed across borders and then inland from the borders, so the whole group is affected. It is unlikely that any country has ever been pure in ‘race’. Attempts to reinforce racial boundaries attack the reality of the mixtures.

Cultures borrow from each other, and separate from each other. They innovate and change – people are good at having new ideas. Attempts to reinforce cultural boundaries attack reality and creativity.

Class and caste borders are permeable – not only because we breed with each other, but because people do go up and down, people marry in – even in caste societies – wealth gets shared (although people can try and stop this). Attempts to reinforce class and caste borders attack reality and the distributions of talent and ability.

Male and female categories flow into each other, no matter how hard people try to police the boundaries, and punish ‘masculine’ women and ‘feminine’ men. Again, people have different abilities and it seems best if these competencies are recognised and allowed to flourish, so we can adapt to changes in reality.

More obviously, there is a tendency to treat people who identify with political parties, or positions, as if they are all the same, or at best, similar. Even a moments discussion should show people this is not true. Not all ‘right wingers’ think gays or lesbians should be exterminated or excluded. Not many ‘left wingers’ , think that people should be forced to be gay. Not all Conservatives are fans of free markets, or corporate power. Not all left wingers think capitalism and private property should be destroyed. The idea that people who support one thing, will support another is rarely correct. There is far more movement and room for alliance, than many influential people would be prepared to admit. The borders between parties are not as distant as is made out by people in power, and as was shown by the recent Australian election in which right wing candidates who firmly stated that they would promote action on climate change overthrew the established right wing who pretended that they were opposed to climate change. They attracted votes from all sides of politics (possible in the Australian voting system). The category borders appear to stop discussion, stop us from seeing what other people really think and stop the resolution of problems.

Borders

While they can be useful to mark differences, borders of all kinds are largely conceptual and conventional. They do not always solve real problems and may even make the problems worse. We need to avoid being distracted by them, or waste energy trying trying to enforce them, and reach across borders, to solve the world’s problems and to involve people in the process.