Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030, comment 5
(grinding forward slowly, like – I fon dly hope – the admirable Ukrainian Army)
Fools rush in etc, but since the pros won’t model radical energy transition scenarios, let’s give it an amateur go.
Start with electricity, for two reasons. One: it’s typically the largest single chunk of GHG emissions. Two: electricity is the common thread linking the transitions in most other emitting sectors, including land transport with EVs, space and process heating with heat pumps, steelmaking with hydrogen DRI, and nitrogen fertiliser. It isn’t off the table for the problem children of shipping and aviation. Without electrification, and a renewable electricity supply for it, net zero is unattainable. With it, we stand a very good chance.
Globally, the IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) model is a good place to start. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/deebef5d-0c34-4539-9d0c-10b13d840027/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdf Some numbers:
World energy supply in exajoules – table A1, page 195
2020 587
2030 547
2050 (net zero) 543
Flat as near as dammit. Of which renewables:
2020 69
2030 167 (x 2.4)
2050 (net zero) 362 (x 5.2)
The NZE still includes substantial burning of fuels, including residual fossil oil and gas, plus an increase in nuclear power, which is not just unlikely by 2050 but impossible by my 2030. It is conservative, compared to other models (eg from Mark Jacobson) on the reductions in demand from the efficiency gains inherent to electrification.
World electricity production in petawatt-hours – table A3, page 198:
2020 27
2030 37 (x 1.4)
2050 (net zero) 71 (x 2.7)
of which renewables:
2020 8
2030 23 (x 3.0)
2050 (net zero) 62 (x 8.1)
Net zero by 2030, to a first approximation, requires reaching the same 2050 targets, but 20 years earlier. The annual effort required is between 2 and 3 times greater than the NZE, between 3 and 8 times current levels. For reference, US production of military aircraft in 1944 was 27 times the 1940 level in raw numbers, ignoring a substantial increase in average size and complexity as with the B29 heavy bomber, improvements in communications, navigation and targeting equipment, drop tanks, etc.
Now zoom in on Australia. Blakers, Lu and Stocks modelled an all-renewable NEM in 2017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568. The prices are out of date but the demand side still looks reasonable. Some numbers from their baseline scenario, which also includes a new HVDC transmission backbone:
Electricity demand (assumed flat): 205 Twh/yr, 22 GW average, 35 GW peak
Generation capacity: wind 45 GW/ 168 Twh/yr, solar 23 GW/ 36 Twh/yr, pumped hydro 16 GW for 31 hours
Several adjustments to this are needed. Western Australia and the Northern Territory are not reached by the NEM, so we add 16% for their population pro rata. There will be demand growth from electrification of new sectors. The IEA’s x2.7 is very generous as it includes faster growth in LDCs, especially Africa, so I will arbitrarily reduce this to x2 for Australia. (Improving this estimate is the first priority for any real model-builder.) Finally the cost of solar has dropped much faster than that of wind. We can reflect this crudely by positing that the future supply will come equally from the new technologies. This is not a major problem with the scenario as the government planners can simply pick whatever mix (counting transmission and storage) comes out cheapest at the time. The same holds for the mix between storage batteries and dams.
Total NEM demand, Blakers: 205 Twh-yr (flat)
Add WA, NT: 238 Twh-yr
Add new demand: 576 Twh-yr
Generation 2030 NZ: wind 77 GW / 288 Twh-yr
PV 184 GW / 288 Twh-yr
storage 44 GW / 31 hrs.
2022 capacity: wind 10 GW, PV 30 GW, storage 1 GW / ?? hrs.
Total new build to 2030: wind 67 GW (x 6.7 from 2022 = 10 GW)
PV 154 GW (x 5.1 from 2022 = 30 GW)
storage 43 GW / 31 hrs (x 43 from 2022 = 1 GW, but
several large PHUS projects are under construction).
In addition, the new build includes about 5,000 km of HVDC transmission – 8,000 if you hook up Perth. Some of this may already be in progress.
The average annual new build required is:
wind 9.6 GW (2022 = 1.34 GW, AEMO)
solar 22 GW (2022 = 3.12 GW AEMO utility, CEC rooftop)
storage 6.1 GW /31 hrs
HVDC 714 km
We won’t of course try to match this year-by-year but start smaller and build up, as with war production.
There are quite a few technical options not discussed here. The deliberately conservative Blakers 2017 paper only considered demand management as a variant, but not conversion of peaker gas turbines to burn hydrogen or biogas, grid batteries, or large-scale V2G. All four are now solved technically, available for our crash programme if they save money, and can be ignored if they don’t. These are opportunities not problems.
The new renewable fleet will be subject to depreciation. In the steady state, Australia would need each year to replace about 3 GW of wind, 6 GW of solar, and 200 km of HVDC. PUHS dams last forever, batteries 10 years or so. With 50-50, pencil in 2 GW a year. The crash programme will leave a much lumpier legacy and annual replacement will initially be much less. We can ignore this for now.
We now have a shopping list for our crash programme. Next instalment: How much will this cost Australians, and by what mechanism will they spend it?
**********************************
Previous comments in this series:
1. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/18/monday-message-board-running-late/#comment-261523
2. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/18/monday-message-board-running-late/#comment-261551
3. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/24/monday-message-board-607/#comment-262100
4. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/08/07/monday-message-board-608/#comment-263121
Only three more to come before I shut up.
Studies have been done by pros (professionals / professors) modelling radical energy transition scenarios. It’s simply that the capitalists in the oligarchic-corporate-government complex will not pay any attention. They refuse to countenance or participate in the necessary radical actions.
There was and is Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford. It’s hard now to even find links to his study and plans. Australia too had a “net zero by 2030” plan by an academic or academics. I can’t find this again either. All of these plans were ignored / suppressed by the powers that be. They weren’t interested. They still aren’t interested. If you do any searches now you find the governmental faux plans. Searches don’t easily find the genuine rapid transition plans. It’s almost as if all this is deliberate. (Note: last sentence is sarcastic.)
Our national Labor government continues to approve coal mines and gas wells. Our Prime Minister will attend a soccer game and praise young women who attempt to kick a round leather ball into a net. It’s the populist thing to do. He can’t spare one moment or any resources to prepare Australia for the next several summers of bush fire hell almost certainly headed Australia’s way with the El Niño.
Until if and when we radically change our political economy, we will be unable to radically change our energy system. James W. is correct that we need a command economy to do it. The political economy program to do that would require re-nationalization of all utilities and finance on a comprehensive scale and the divestment of billionaires and multi-billion corporation owners of their entire suites of wealth and power. That’s what it would take. And 2030 is impossible now. Maybe 2035 or 2040 would be feasible but I agree that it is doubtful that that timeline would save us.
I did a quick search re Ikon and Net Zero by 2020, and loathe to say it, everyone is scrambling to separately and individually, hanging a Net Zero by 2030 necklace to shiny up the organisation, leaving others behind, not provide a robust de-boil and de-firesrorm and de-flood etc for the planet.
Rabobank and PWC came up on first page search results. No more needed to be said.
So I’ll go with you Ikon; “They refuse to countenance or participate in the necessary radical actions.” with the added caveat “collectively”.
First hit “2030 net zero Australia”
Australian Publlic Service 2030 plan mentioned elsewhere indicating nobody else has an acceptable all encompassing plan! Go James.
“APS Net Zero Emissions by 2030
“Australian Public Service (APS) Net Zero 2030
“APS Net Zero 2030 is the Government’s policy for the Australian Public Service (APS) to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2030, and transparently report on its emissions from the latter half of 2023.
…
https://www.finance.gov.au/government/aps-net-zero-emissions-2030
*
“[PDF] Towards net zero: A practical plan for Australia’s governments
grattan dot edu.au › uploads › 2021/10
22 Oct 2021 · “Australia’s climate change commitment is net-zero emissions by 2050. … which has a net zero by 2030 goal: ACT Government (2019) and…”
3rd – carbon farming via Robobank as a means of getting subsidies and customers, imo, not net zero.
“Carbon Neutral Agriculture
Background
“Rabobank is the world’s leading food and agri-business bank. Its mission is to improve the prosperity of farmers and rural communities everywhere.”
…
unimelb dot edu.au/professional-development/success-stories/carbon-neutral-agriculture
4th
[PDF] AUSTRALIA’S NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION
unfccc dot int › default › files › NDC
“This submission communicates Australia’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) … to net zero by 2030 (excluding defence and security agencies).”
Next up – PWC!
“Committing to Net Zero by 2030
…
“Our global reach means we can play an important role in driving the transition to a net zero economy.
[Supporting links]
1 Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) 2022. Website
2 United Nations Race To Zero 2022. Website
3 Business Ambition for 1.5°C 2022. Website
Video
Please accept all cookies to view this video.
[Why do I need cookies I wonder to view?]
“Our Global Chairman Bob Moritz shares more on PwC’s net zero commitment and journey
“Our commitment to Net Zero by 2030
…
pwc dot com/gx/en/about/corporate-sustainability/environmental-stewardship/net-zero.html
Insurance (hint James) will be a major driver or choke point imo.
“[PDF] Climate Change Roadmap Towards a Net-Zero and Resilient Future
insurancecouncil dot com.au › 2022/11
“1 Nov 2022 · Insurance Council of Australia Climate Change Roadmap … set to bring operations to net-zero by 2030 include:.”
“REEF AUTHORITY ROADMAP TO NET ZERO BY 2030
“Our commitment
“The Reef Authority will implement new pollution prevention practices, waste minimisation measures, and incorporate more efficient use of resources. ”
….
www2.gbrmpa dot gov.au/about-us/reef-authority-roadmap-net-zero-2030
What of Saul Griffith?
“About Rewiring Australia”
…
“Saul is the author of 3 books including `Electrify’, and `The Big Switch’. Saul has recently turned his attention from Otherlab, his independent Research and Development lab, to policy work and writing, including founding Rewiring America and Rewiring Australia, non-partisan organizations dedicated to electrification and decarbonization and the associated policy and regulatory implications of meeting our climate goals.”
https://www.rewiringaustralia.org/about
And James, I really appreciate your efforts. Looking forward to $’s. Because: re insurance. Watching the last launch of the Space Shuttle, NASA’s ‘insurance man” had to give the launch approval. Munich Re is was first to provide long term climate insurance I think.
“Extreme weather risks: Re|store people’s lives
“Weather disasters destroy assets worth billions – Extreme insurance gap in large parts of Asia-Pacific
“In Asia-Pacific, weather-related natural disasters have caused losses of some US$ 1,500bn since 1980 and killed more than 600,000 people. The insurance gap is alarming: excluding the figures for Japan and Australia, less than 5% of the overall losses were borne by insurers”
[Research links]
“Here’s what we know from 50 years of research:
munichre dot com/en/risks/extreme-weather-apac.html
Ikonoclast: – “Studies have been done by pros (professionals / professors) modelling radical energy transition scenarios. It’s simply that the capitalists in the oligarchic-corporate-government complex will not pay any attention. They refuse to countenance or participate in the necessary radical actions.”
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted on Aug 14:
Published on 26 Apr 2022 in the Earth’s Future journal was an open access research article by Peter Kalmus et. al. titled Past the Precipice? Projected Coral Habitability Under Global Heating. The Key Points included:
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002608
Published on 7 Jun 2023 in The Conversation was a piece by Scott F. Heron, Jodie L. Rummer & Jon C. Day headlined Warm is the new norm for the Great Barrier Reef – and a likely El Niño raises red flags. It included:
Compelling evidence/data I see suggests the GBR could be almost entirely devoid of live coral in less than 30 years on our current GHG emissions trajectory. Not a good longer-term prospect for the reportedly “some 64,000 full-time jobs” and “A$6 billion to the Australian economy” contributions.
The capitalists in the oligarchic-corporate-government complex will soon see the consequences of their recalcitrance.
James, climate reparations too?
“Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages”
Marco Grasso
Richard Heede
MAY 19, 2023
…
“Based on a survey of 738 economists with demonstrated expertise in climate16 and using a 2025–2075 growth model, we calculate that the 2025–2050 cumulative cost of climate damages attributed to all anthropogenic sources based on a model of loss of GDP under a 3°C scenario is $99 trillion, of which $70 trillion is attributed to fossil fuels (see Note S1). We further argue that greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the behaviors of three groups of agents:
– those who provide the global economy with the products whose combustion generates fossil fuel emissions (producers);
– those who use their carbon fuels as intended (emitters); and
– those who, under the weight of scientific evidence and international agreements, should (or fail to) act to reduce emissions (political authorities).
…
Cell VOLUME 6, ISSUE 5, P459-463,
MAY 19, 2023
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.012
Some straight economics.
The Labor Party should support open skies and free competition over the welfare of Qantas. Its decision to reject additional capacity for Qatar benefits no-one in Australia other than, perhaps, Qantas shareholders. The downstream tourism sector loses – airports, restaurants, hotels and local travel services. The Australian travelling public lose because Qantas, by restricting access on outbound routes, raises prices for the Australian public who get to travel less. In addition the rents generated by air service agreements do not accrue to Qantas alone but are also shared (normally 50:50) by foreign carriers who operate on the same routes. It is a lousy deal for Australia and terrible policy-making.
The Labor Party has taken the side of Australian big business (namely Qantas) against the Australian consumer and the rest of the economy. Overall there are costs imposed on Australia by this daft Labor policy which continues years of equally daft policy by the LNP.
Eliot Jacobson: “One way or another net-zero is going to happen. But it takes some kind of hopium-soaked apocaloptimistic techno-utopian delusion to think that it’s going to happen because humanity has suddenly become enlightened.”
I suggested no such thing. But a shift in opinion of similar magnitude did occur in 1939-41 in the anglophone world. Frigidaire phoned the Pentagon to offer their services for war production not in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor, but in May 1940, a few days after Dunkirk, and signed their first military contract in October the same year. By the end of the war Frigidaire had produced inter alia 383,000 .50-cal machine guns. Panic and fear are great motivators. Ask the survivors of the wildfire in Maui. Ask them again when you have a plan.
The APS goal of net zero by 2030 only applies to government operations narrowly defined. The carbon emissions of civil servants sitting in or, if unusually energetic, walking round offices are low and can be cut quite easily by replacing gas heating with electric heat pumps. I couldn’t find on their website an estimate of the total emissions covered. Still, the existence of any genuine programme with a 2030 deadline is cause for modest celebration.
The diseconomies of scale for both the coal industry and the natural gas industry take a long time to correct. Coal mines have to be shutdown, natural gas operations wound down and environmental damage accessed. There is no silver bullet solution. It takes a determined political will to force energy companies to go to alternate energy solutions. But private companies are motivated by future profits. The only way any transitional period can be truncated is through government buy outs. Coal mining operations have to be acquired and closed down. Natural gas mining leases have to be terminated. No new old style mining leases must now be government policy and rigour-sly followed. Any new mining lease must have a termination clause that can be activated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Monetary penalties must be enforced. All this takes political will and the attention to enforcement of regulations severely limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Time is not running out, it is well and truly run out already. No further delays are acceptable. Energy industry job protection is not as important as the loss of life due to climate change. No more excuses and
no more delaying tactics can be tolerated. We are at one minute after midnight and have to claw our way back to have a liveable natural environment..
Very interesting. I will do a bit of online snooping to see if anyone is talking about 2030 net zero here. I don’t think this is politically impossible.
I’ve had 2 attempts to comment fail this morning…
Geoff and all,
Try limiting to one link per post. That’s the only idea I’ve got. You’re the best quick source of climate news I’ve got. Yeah I could search but… I am getting lazy and somewhat unmotivated to look for the news myself. It’s all so disturbingly bad.
On a positive action note, don’t forget to get rooftop solar panels cleaned every few years. I was slack and neglectful for ten years! I finally got them cleaned and generation increased in the range of 10% to 15%. Heavy rain doesn’t wash sticky, gummy gum-tree pollens and oils off your solar panels. Lichen will also grow on solar panels if you neglect them for too long. They do need proper washing. Don’t neglect them for ten years or even five. Don’t go on the roof yourself if you are over 50 or have any balance or vertigo problems. If you do go on the roof use a safety line and harness. If you don’t know how to set that up properly, don’t go on the roof. Shorter Iko; don’t ever go on a roof unless you are a pro with safety line and harness.
What I was trying to draw attention to was the latest communication from James Hansen & colleagues. See James Hansen’s tweet posted yesterday (Aug 15) with a link to their latest communication (dated 14 Aug 2023 titled Uh-Oh. Now What? Are We Acquiring the Data to Understand the Situation?):
Hydrogen & DAC. August 2023 action.
I’m with James Hansen et al in callng HOGWASH for both Hydrogen and Direct Air Capture (DAC) as well. Sad really. Perhaps feasible technologies, yet a distraction relative to rapidity of less carbon necessary. Maybe DAC will scale and fall to $100 a tonne. Maybe green hydrogen will be suitable for a niche. Still relative Hogwash as Hansen says in “”Uh-Oh. Now What?” below, and as The Verge article (^2.) notes: “others warn that companies are using the technology as a license to pollute.”
In the tweet posted by Geoff Miell abive, August 16, 2023 at 12:18 pm, https //t co /CEHNdFHpRO leads to:
“Uh-Oh. Now What? Are We Acquiring the Data to Understand the Situation?”
14 August 2023
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy
…
[Political leaders at the United Nations COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings give the impression that progress is being made and it is still feasible to limit global warming to as little as 1.5°C. That is pure, unadulterated, hogwash
James’ ‘fix the carbon by 2030 war’ stance, seems more appropriate than DAC & hydrogen as below.
And from The Verge article, The Verge (^2.) “Climate Justice Alliance Marion Gee, who represents a network of grassroots organizations across the US. “It’ll be Black folks, Indigenous communities and poor BIPOC neighbors — sacrificed, yet again in the name of protecting corporate interests.”.
We will way overshoot +2deg by 2050, so both (green or blue) Hydrogen & DAC, as described below, look set to be another “because we are capitalists” “new” jobs ‘n groath industries, as evidenced by:
“… The Hydrogen Council [Australia] shares extensive membership with the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. ANSTO, Chevron, Exxon, Air Liquide, BP, Woodside, Howden, Kawasaki, Linde, Man, Mitsu and co., Petronas, Shell and Woodside, along with a multitude of other heavy industry-based corporations, are members of both. “.
And as per usual, both the hydrogen and DAC initiatives boast massive job numbers. And subsidies. And no scale as yet.
Germany for example, has just decided to go to ditch hydrogen fuel cells in trains for batteries. But 2037 phase out.
1. Hydrogen – leaking more than 3%.
“Currently 99.9% of hydrogen is produced through chemical extraction. This amounts to approximately 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the same amount as the aviation industry,”
2. DAC seen as saviour.
“plan for a net-zero emissions economy will require that between 400 million and 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2 be removed from the atmosphere and captured from emissions sources annually by 2050.”
Is it 400t or 1.7bt???
I am grateful for the efforts to reduce carbon, yet regulatory capture, bau and culture seem override economics and precaution. Even when a Earh as we know it is at stake.
*
1.
This Michael West article contains links to all reports, papers & articles etc.
“Hydrogen: a “miracle solution”, or over-hyped stalking horse for fossil fuels lobby?
by Rosco Jones | Aug 15, 2023 |
“… European Commission issued a report saying the fuel was not a financially viable option.”
[Report]
michaelwest sot com.au/hydrogen-a-miracle-solution-or-over-hyped-stalking-horse-for-fossil-fuels-lobby/
“EU Report Says Making Green Hydrogen in Germany Uneconomical, Questioning Government Plans”
August 10, 2023
https://hydrogen-central.com/eu-report-says-making-green-hydrogen-in-germany-uneconomical-questioning-government-plans/
2. DAC.
“Biden-Harris Administration Announces Up To $1.2 Billion For Nation’s First Direct Air Capture Demonstrations in Texas and Louisiana
AUGUST 11, 2023
“Together, these projects are expected to remove more than 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year from the atmosphere—an amount equivalent to the annual emissions from roughly 445,000 gasoline-powered cars—and create 4,800 good-paying jobs in Texas and Louisiana.
…
“DOE estimatesthat reaching President Biden’s ambitious plan for a net-zero emissions economy will require that between 400 million and 1.8 billion metric tons of CO2 be removed from the atmosphere and captured from emissions sources annually by 2050. The two DAC Hubs selected for award negotiations today will help further demonstrate the ability to capture and store atmospheric CO2 at scale.
…
“Carbon Negative Shot Pilots
“The Earthshot sets a goal to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it at meaningful scales for less than $100 per net metric ton of CO2-equivalent within the decade. Read the full NOI.”
…
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-12-billion-nations-first-direct-air-capture
DAC article re above DoE initiatives.
“Controversial carbon removal technology just got $1.2 billion from the Biden administration
“The Department of Energy is spending billions on ‘hubs’ for climate technologies that take CO2 out of the air, and fossil fuel companies are getting some of the money.
By Justine Calma.
Aug 14, 2023
“While proponents of direct air capture still say it shouldn’t replace efforts to transition to clean energy, others warn that companies are using the technology as a license to pollute. “We really see in these announcements, the moral hazard that DAC represents … Making money from the fossil fuel industry’s [carbon dioxide] waste streams rather than eliminating the generation of that waste — that to me, is deeply concerning,” says Nikki Reisch, climate and energy program director at the Center for International Environmental Law.
“This kind of technology is still prohibitively expensive at upward of $600 per ton of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The Biden administration has a goal of bringing that cost down to less than $100, and hubs are crucial for making that happen.
…
https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/14/23831268/carbon-removal-climate-change-biden-funding-energy-department
Bill McKibben has a problem with Florida as well.
“… it’s possible that the single most extreme might have been a 101.1 Fahrenheit [38.4 Celcius] temperature measured by an ocean buoy at Manatee Bay in Florida in July. That appears to be the hottest temperature ever measured in the ocean”
From his blog:
“Teachable Moments Require… Teaching
“Florida Buries its Head in the Water Instead
BILL MCKIBBEN
AUG 14, 2023
…
“There’s so many ways you could study it, from the youngest students to high school seniors, and it would bring everything from history to economics alive. Some of it might be sad—I was deeply moved by this Diana Nyad piece about swimming in the ocean she’d known since she was a girl now that it was a hundred degrees. But I was fascinated by her writing—read this one paragraph and think about the different directions a talented teacher could take it:
Diana Nyad “At age 9, after the Cuban Revolution, I searched the horizon to catch a glimpse of Cuba, this suddenly forbidden island. My mother pointed out across the ocean and said to me: “There. Havana is just across there. It’s so close that you, you little swimmer, you could actually swim there.” Later, after five attempts over 35 years, I finally did make that crossing. But I couldn’t have made that swim last month. In such hot water, the body heat I’d generate from the duress of the effort — a continuous 52 hours and 54 minutes — would quickly lead to overheating and failure. And danger. Hyperthermia would conquer even the strongest of wills.” End Diana Nyad
BMcK: “But that’s not what Florida students will necessarily be studying this year. Instead, the state’s “education” department has approved a series of right wing videos from Prager U, which draws much of its funding from some of the country’s biggest frackers.”
…
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/teachable-moments-require-teaching
BoM kept crashing on my phone.
27 deg C ocean off Darwin today.
“To find out what the water temperature was in Australia any day over a period of the last ten years, select the month”https://seatemperature.info/australia-water-temperature.html
When I am pessimistic I think only hyper-low cost clean energy, that is much cheaper and easier than fossil fuels even with all the industries’ Entrenched Insider with Essential Industry Status advantages is capable of taking us to net-zero. When I am optimistic I think we really can do it.
What is destroying us is the endless right wing propaganda as Bill McKibben essentially says. We do not lack adequate science and tech and we do not lack better aspects to our nature (altruism and eusociality).
But in our economic system the right wing propaganda is woven into everything. It is woven into:
(a) neoliberal economic theory simpliciter;
(b) growthism;
(c) techno-optimism;
(d) consumer indoctrination; and even
(e) identity politics.
Even many left wingers and liberals (small “l”) are sucked in by neoliberal praxis which is pretty precisely growthism, techno-optimism, consumer indoctrination and identity politics. If people think that endless growth is possible… If people think technology can solve everything… If people think consumer indoctrination via advertising and MSM disinformation is not an issue… If people think identity politics has not been promoted by neoliberal oligarchs to fracture and wedge the left…. then they are sadly mistaken.
Thus, we need to:
1. Destroy neoliberal economic theory.
2. Disavow growthism.
3. Disavow techno-optimism.
4. Disavow identity politics and re-affirm egalitarian, equalitarian and socialist policies which work towards the abolition of all class and wealth differences.
Identity politics will resolve once class is abolished. Class inequality is the basis of identity oppression. We see that now. Identity politics becomes ever more shrill, bitter and divisive, the more that inequality and class differences increase. The obvious remedy is to abolish wealth and class differences and let identity differences multiply and flourish, as they naturally will.
Getting back to the climate crisis, the only way to be “all in this together” and to ensure co-operative action is for all to be of the same class with the same effective wealth and resources and thus facing the same effective risks and dangers.
That’s the path but I give it a low chance of being achieved. If it is not achieved civilization collapses and we most likely go extinct.
Iko: “James W. is correct that we need a command economy to do it”.
We will indeed need a command economy in some sense, with much more government involvement in meeting key targets. But that does not mean Stalin’s USSR. Among the WW2 combatants, the Soviet Union was the only one that did not need to change its economic model: Gosplan simply changed the orders to state enterprises. The capitalist ones, both Axis and Allies, added a layer of state control to a capitalist infrastructure.
Vickers, General Motors, and Krupp had no more control over their war production mix than Uralmash – in some ways perhaps less, as the Pentagon had much more effective quality controls than Gosplan. But SFIK no changes were made to ownership and management, and key workers stayed in place, protected from conscription. It was understood that peace would mean a return to the capitalist status quo ante. This even happened in destroyed postwar Germany and Japan.
I don’t know the details of the schemes, which must have been many, for example on ownership of capital equipment and IP acquired during the war with public money. You could read up in Milward to find out. Overall, there is no reason to think it was an oppressive deal for the capitalists. I think you overrate the grip of neoliberal ideology, a temporary fad, on their age-old sense of self-preservation. Capitalism is infinitely protean and adaptable. In its heyday, the British East India Company had an army bigger than that of most European kingdoms.
James Wimberley,
These are some half-formed thoughts. You give an interesting historical sketch which is almost like a set of propositions:
1. “Among the WW2 combatants, the Soviet Union was the only one that did not need to change its economic model.”
2. “The capitalist ones, both Axis and Allies, added a layer of state control to a capitalist infrastructure.”
3. “Capitalism is infinitely protean and adaptable.”
Not quite a syllogism but it has something of the flavor of one. On the face of it, the Soviet system met the crisis without command change or ownership change. The capitalist system met the crisis with command change but not ownership change. It is interesting that command of production could be severed from ownership like that, in that era. The conjoined were separated for a time and neither died. This fits the third “proposition”. It is equally interesting that a clear compact existed to end this level of state command at the cessation of hostilities. We can see an order of priorities:
(1) Survival.
(2) Ownership as a right.
(3) All other rights as rights of non-owners.
Without (1) no (2). With unimpeded (2) diminished (3) for a majority of the population. Briefly, it’s probably best to see capitalism – socialism as existing on a single spectrum rather than as opposite binary states. Now, leaving that aside.
“Capitalism is infinitely protean and adaptable.” If something is infinitely protean how can it retain an identity so that the statement does not become self-contradictory?
If A may become B may become C may become D, does A remain A?
It seems that the unchallengeable premise of neoliberalism capitalism and thus its true and essential nature is that elite and concentrated command and ownership must continue conjoined, unobstructed and uninterrupted. THIS is the true nature of neoliberal capitalism, I contend. While the system remains Neoliberal capitalism it IS different from New Deal capitalism, War Capitalism and Keynesian Capitalism. This new conjoined twin, neoliberal capitalism, no longer consents to temporary or interim separation even for survival purposes. It is in total denial that survival, or at least elite survival, is in peril at all. The masses on the other hand are regarded as expendable. The natural world is also regarded as expendable.
James said “In its heyday, the British East India Company had an army bigger than that of most European kingdoms.”
“We will indeed need a command economy in some sense, with much more government involvement in meeting key targets.”
… to prevent …
Heyday becoming Today or TooLate:
“at the moment there’s 155,000 licensed personnel in Australia,” …
“a greater number than if you add up all the law enforcement and military officers in Australia.”
~ Bryan de Caires Australian Security Industry Association
Lucky our command and control people are on top of this – not.
I can imagine, particularly when climate refugees beome overwhelming, or if the Mango Mussollini gets back, a Wagner like group will have no trouble forming an ‘army’ (drones at 40 paces- is that an army? )
Such an ‘army’ will become real and make the state dubious. From “State Sovereignty and Private Military and Security Companies in Australia” by Natalie McLean, 22 May 2023:
“the dubious position states come into when the use-of-force is wielded by actors for distinct material incentives.”.
And put us back to the real road to serfdom.
I do NOT want to live in a dubiously positioned state.
Dubiously positioned states seem to be on the rise.
Note the dates below. Current.
*
“Bryan de Caires, who heads the Australian Security Industry Association, says demand is growing every year.
“Over the last 10 to 15 years we’ve seen significant growth, and at the moment there’s 155,000 licensed personnel in Australia,” Mr de Caires says.
“That’s a greater number than if you add up all the law enforcement and military officers in Australia.
“It’s a real growth spike and it’s expected to continue to grow.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-20/private-security-numbers-increase-in-australia/102496574
And no one has mentioned the elephant in the room:
“State Sovereignty and Private Military and Security Companies in Australia”
Natalie McLean
22 May 2023
“Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) as active participants within global security environments has increased in the last two decades exponentially.
…
“Thus, the Australian government’s ability to provide control over the actions of PMSCs is diminished, affecting its sovereign legitimacy and ability to monopolise violence. The article overall conveys the dubious position states come into when the use-of-force is wielded by actors for distinct material incentives.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajph.12893
Heyday to Today #02.
Oops. Forgot digial surveillance, particularly NSO and it’s Pegasus software.
And G4S.
“Number of employees
533,000 (2021)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S
NSO
“The Insecurity Industry”
“The greatest danger to national security has become the companies that claim to protect it”
…
“If hacking is not illegal when we do it, then it will not be illegal when they do it—and “they” is increasingly becoming the private sector. It’s a basic principle of capitalism: it’s just business. If everyone else is doing it, why not me?”
…
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/ns-oh-god-how-is-this-legal
Amnesty.
“NSO Group’s spyware has been used to facilitate human rights violations around the world on a massive scale, according to a major investigation into the leak of 50,000 phone numbers of potential surveillance targets. These include heads of state, activists and journalists, including Jamal Khashoggi’s family.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/07/the-pegasus-project/
At the moment there are 155,000 licensed *security* personnel in Australia. That is bad because (to some extent) only those persons and businesses who can afford security can get (certain kinds of) protection. That does not feel entirely egalitarian to me.
On the other hand, I am sure most are not licensed in Australia to use police-grade or military grade weapons. Only a criminal state, failed state or state at risk of failing licenses security, militias or mercenaries to use such weapons domestically or abroad. Invasion of the nation would be an exception. Then armed home militias, security and even mercenaries can become partisans.
The East India Company was an arm of the British state – just one of the many not managed directly (the directors were appointed by the state, as were the governors and judicial officials in India, and Army officers in India had precedence over EIC officers – eg Wellington commanded at Assaye as a regular officer).
The USSR did change its methods in wartime – there was a lot more leeway for local variation and more direct contact between the ‘customer’ (the armed forces) and the producers. It was a period of often frantic improvisation, sometimes with remarkable results.
IIRC the plant built at government expense in the US was ‘sold’ to corporations at nominal prices.
“IIRC the plant built at government expense in the US was ‘sold’ to corporations at nominal prices.”
Just like today when the government paid for much COVID-19 vaccine research and then gave the IP to the corporation(s). As always, capitalist corporations are free-riders.
“The USSR did change its methods in wartime…”
It changed its “methods” not its fundamentals perhaps. The change in method would be the change to which government functionary is delegated to to make “more direct contact” between armed forces and the producers: an issue of adding or removing layers of bureaucrats.
Overall, ownership without limit is a strange fetish. I don’t mean ownership of what one uses directly for personal and family use as “necessary, justifiable and equitable use”. I mean personal ownership of vast amounts of land, resources and production capacity and the income streams thereof. There is no good, fair or even economically efficient reason for such concentrated ownership. There is no good reason for the amounts of government largess lavished upon corporations and rich individuals.
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted on Aug 19:
Some parts of the ocean are starting to exceed thermal tolerance thresholds for present aquatic lifeforms.
James said “Ask the survivors of the wildfire in Maui. Ask them again when you have a plan.”
Planned Regulatory Capture (allegedly) strikes Maui fires… again.
“Every member of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Hawaiian Electric, has financial or previous professional ties to the company.”
…
“The company even sponsored a documentary this year on Hawaiian television devoted to mitigating the impact of climate change.
“After a series of Mauii wildfires in 2019, Hawaiian Electric, state records show,spent only $245,000 on wildfire-specific upgrades and mitigation efforts on the island through 2022. That amount pales in comparison to the tens of millions of dollars paid out in dividends and executive compensation over the last four years.
“Put another way, ethics records show Hawaiian Electric spent $437,252 on lobbying state officials, including utility regulators, since 2019, far more than it spent addressing the Maui wildfire threat.
“While the cause of the deadly fire last week is still under investigation, mounting evidence suggests that HEC’s equipment was at fault. On the morning of the fires on August 8th, Shane Treu, a Maui resident, was awakened by howling winds, stepped outside and took a livestream video of downed power lines igniting dry grass on a road in Lahaina.
“Critics have noted that the burn progression, witness accounts, and other videos point to downed power lines as the most likely cause of the fire. Whisker Labs Inc., which monitors electrical grid activity, reported that power outages from Hawaiian Electric coincide with the first reports of the Maui fire.”
…
https://www.leefang.com/p/hawaii-electric-while-failing-to
*
James Wimberley also says:August 15, 2023 at 12:31 am “Some numbers from their baseline scenario, which also includes a new HVDC transmission backbone:” … ”
“the future supply will come equally from the new technologies.”
New Technolgy to me – to the rescue, is a two edged sword.. Good tech, able to alter investments and optimise existing transmission infrastructure. Depends if you have the save the planet hammer, or save shareholder returns hammer.
“Why lasers could help utilities make the electrical grids greener
…
“SIMON: This kind of tech has been growing in popularity in Europe. Denmark’s transmission operator says by using measurements and algorithms, they can increase power flow up to 30% in the windy spring and fall. And there’s other tech – software to avoid congestion, new wires that carry more electricity.”…
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1193393765/why-lasers-could-help-utilities-make-the-electrical-grids-greener
Protean capital.
Bastardising everything.
Cory Doctorow backs James statement: “Capitalism is infinitely protean and adaptable.”, which I actually agree with, as to make capital real, capitalists elide almost everything but the deal itself.
Ikon said “If something is infinitely protean how can it retain an identity so that the statement does not become self-contradictory?”
We dumb humans keep being self contradictory, by allowing changes in capital to become the norm, instead of voting with our feet and hip pocket. Thus the contradiction becomes today’s diction. New language for old (t)ropes.
Here is an example of Open Source being bastardised to bend to the wishes of OpenAI;
“openwashing” … “all the ways capital cloaks itself in liberatory, progressive values, while still serving as a force for extraction, exploitation, and political corruption.”
From:
“Open” “AI” isn’t”
“The crybabies who freak out about The Communist Manifesto appearing on university curriculum clearly never read it – chapter one is basically a long hymn to capitalism’s flexibility and inventiveness, its ability to change form and adapt itself to everything the world throws at it and come out on top:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
“Today, leftists signal this protean capacity of capital with the -washing suffix: greenwashing, genderwashing, queerwashing, wokewashing – all the ways capital cloaks itself in liberatory, progressive values, while still serving as a force for extraction, exploitation, and political corruption.
…
“In “Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI,” a new working paper, Meredith Whittaker, David Gray Widder and Sarah B Myers document a new kind of -washing: openwashing:
[Links.]
“Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI
27 Pages
18 Aug 2023
David Gray Widder
Carnegie Mellon University – School of Computer Science
Sarah West
AI Now Institute
Meredith Whittaker
Signal Foundation
Abstract
. ..
“We find that while a handful of maximally open AI systems exist, which offer intentional and extensive transparency, reusability, and extensibility– the resources needed to build AI from scratch, and to deploy large AI systems at scale, remain ‘closed’—available only to those with significant (almost always corporate) resources. From here, we zoom out and examine the history of open source, its cleave from free software in the mid 1990s, and the contested processes by which open source has been incorporated into, and instrumented by, large tech corporations.”
…
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4543807
KT2,
Good points and good links. A couple of points:
1. “Infinitely Protean”
To be precise, it is the “infinitely” I take issue with. Capitalism is certainly protean but it is not “infinitely” protean. Over a times series, otherwise called history, capitalism will reach the limits of its protean nature. As you allude to and link to, it is capital/finance and its derivatives that are or appear protean but the real economy in the real environment has all sorts of real limits. The formal superstructure always rests on the real base. When the real base cannot sustain the energy and complexity requirements of the formal, the formal will collapse or simplify as the real collapses or simplifies. It takes a lot of resources and energy to keep our formal systems up and running in the cultural-structural-technological superstructure.
2. Regulatory Capture, Institution Capture, Governance Capture
The Maui fires and the regulatory problems illustrate perfectly the problems of late stage neoliberal capitalism. It has structurally changed our society, through and through, by infiltrating and capturing all levels of government and governance. Corporations now rule and run governments. Some economists have proclaimed that neoliberalism is over in the sense that it is now proven, in theory and empirically, that neoliberalism does not work in terms of maintaining or improving equality outcomes. Society has seen increasing inequality. Nor does neoliberalism work in terms of saving environment and climate. By all physical and biological measures, environment and climate are deteriorating and indeed being actively destroyed.
However, despite being refuted in the above manner, neoliberalism is still in complete charge. Neoliberal operators are at the controls. It’s sort of like Snowpiercer (original movie or series). The navigators have modeled speed and trajectory and said we have to slow the train down and divert it on to a different track to survive. Part of this would involve sharing resources more evenly to all passengers. The engineers or drivers at the controls say “No way, our pay and perquisites are far higher in the system as it is. We are not diverting and the guards still answer to us.” Neoliberalism is not defeated until it is defeated on the ground. The moral or theoretical victory is useless. It most be converted on the ground, in the governments and on the boards. So far, we have made zero progress in that direction. Where it counts, the power of neoliberalism is still intensifying, not waning. This is why we are in worse and worse trouble every year with no effective steps whatsoever being taken, even at one minute to midnight, to arrest the approaching catastrophe.
It seems Hurricane Hilary could dump more than 5 inches (127 mm) of rain and perhaps isolated totals of up to 10 inches (254 mm) falling in Southern California and southern Nevada in the next few days, according to officials at the National Hurricane Center.
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted Aug 19: