The Hames Report

The Next Dust Bowl

Which impact of anthropogenic global warming will harm the most people in the coming decades? I believe that the answer is extended or permanent drought over large parts of currently habitable or arable land — a drastic change in climate that will threaten food security and may be irreversible over centuries.

A basic prediction of climate science is that many parts of the world will experience longer and deeper droughts, thanks to the synergistic effects of drying, warming and the melting of snow and ice.

Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. What precipitation there is will probably come in extreme deluges, resulting in runoff rather than drought alleviation. Warming causes greater evaporation and, once the ground is dry, the Sun’s energy goes into baking the soil, leading to a further increase in air temperature. That is why, for instance, so many temperature records were set for the United States in the 1930s Dust Bowl and why, in 2011, drought-stricken Texas saw the hottest summer ever recorded for a US state. Finally, many regions are expected to see earlier snowmelt, so less water will be stored on mountain tops for the summer dry season. Added to natural climatic variation, such as the El Niño–La Niña cycle, these factors will intensify seasonal or decade-long droughts. Although the models don’t all agree on the specifics, the overall drying trends are clear.

I used to call the confluence of these processes ‘desertification’ on my blog, ClimateProgress.org, until some readers pointed out that many deserts are high in biodiversity, which isn’t where we’re heading. ‘Dust-bowlification’ is perhaps a more accurate and vivid term, particularly for Americans — many of whom still believe that climate change will only affect far-away places in far-distant times.

Prolonged drought will strike around the globe, but it is surprising to many that it would hit the US heartland so strongly and so soon.

The coming droughts ought to be a major driver — if not the major driver — of climate policies. Yet few policy-makers and journalists seem to be aware of dust-bowlification and its potentially devastating impact on food security. That’s partly understandable, because much of the key research cited in this article post-dates the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Raising public awareness of, and scientific focus on, the likelihood of severe effects of drought is the first step in prompting action.

I first heard of the risks in a 2005 talk by climatologist Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona in Tucson. He pointed to emerging evidence that temperature and annual precipitation were heading in opposite directions over many regions and raised the question of whether we are at the “dawn of the super-interglacial drought”.

The idea wasn’t new. As far back as 1990, scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York projected that severe to extreme drought in the United States, then occurring every 20 years or so, could become an every-other-year phenomenon by mid-century.

Events are starting to bear out these worrying predictions. Snowpack reduction, early snowmelt and a decrease in dry-season river flow in the American West, forecast more than two decades ago, have now been measured. In much of the northern Rockies, the peak of the annual stream runoff is up to three or four weeks earlier than it was half a century ago. Heat and drought — coupled with the greater impact of destructive species, such as bark beetles, aided by warming — have increased forest die-off and the risk of wildfire.

The palaeoclimate record dating back to the medieval period reveals droughts lasting many decades. But the extreme droughts that the United States faces this century will be far hotter than the worst of those: recent decades have been warmer than the driest decade of the worst drought in the past 1,200 years.

And much warmer conditions are projected. According to a 2009 report of the US Global Change Research Program, warming over mid-latitude land masses, such as the continental United States, is predicted to be higher than the forecast average global warming: much of the inland United States faces a rise of between 5 °C and 6 °C on the current emissions path (that is, ‘business as usual’) by the century’s end, with a substantial fraction of that warming occurring by mid-century.

A 2007 analysis of 19 climate projections estimated that levels of aridity comparable to those in the Dust Bowl could stretch from Kansas to California by mid-century. To make matters worse, the regions at risk of reduced water supply, such as Nevada, have seen a massive population boom in the past decade. Overuse of water in these areas has long been rife, depleting groundwater stores.

Of course, the United States is not alone in facing such problems. Since 1950, the global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% of global land area per decade. Recent studies have projected ‘extreme drought’ conditions by mid-century over some of the most populated areas on Earth—southern Europe, south-east Asia, Brazil, the US Southwest, and large parts of Australia and Africa. These dust-bowl conditions are projected to worsen for many decades and be “largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stopped.”

The concept of drought has not been ignored by the IPCC and other scientific groups; there is even a United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. But the cumulative risks don’t seem to have been fully recognized by the public and by policy-makers. And key questions remain to be answered, ideally in a dedicated report by an organization such as the US National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC.

Most pressingly, what will happen to global food security if dust-bowl conditions become the norm for both food-importing and food-exporting countries? Extreme, widespread droughts will be happening at the same time as sea level rise and salt-water intrusion threaten some of the richest agricultural deltas in the world, such as those of the Nile and the Ganges. Meanwhile, ocean acidification, warming and overfishing may severely deplete the food available from the sea.

What are the implications of dust-bowlification for energy generation? After agriculture, energy generation is responsible for the majority of freshwater withdrawals, and two key strategies for generating additional potable water — wastewater purification and desalinisation — are both energy intensive. Future energy systems will need to be low on greenhouse-gas emissions and on water use. In particular, thermal power plants, including nuclear, may need to switch from evaporative or ‘wet cooling’  systems to dry cooling techniques, which, unfortunately, tend to be less efficient.

From an ecological perspective, what will be the effects of dust-bowlification on the global carbon cycle? In the past six years, the Amazon has seen two droughts of the sort expected once in 100 years, each of which may have released as much carbon dioxide from vegetation die-off as the United States emits from fossil-fuel combustion in a year. More frequent wildfires also threaten to increase carbon emissions. And as habitats are made untenable, what will be the effect on biodiversity?

At the same time, drought models need to be improved. They successfully chart the hydrological changes seen in the US South-west and the drying seen at the global level, but regional predictions can be disturbingly variable. Some models forecast an increase in precipitation for East Africa, whereas others correctly predicted in 2010 that warming of the Indian Ocean would lead to drought in the region, such as this year’s devastating drought in Somalia. The models need higher resolution and a better understanding of precipitation, sea surface temperature and the effects of vegetation.

Human adaptation to prolonged, extreme drought is difficult or impossible. Historically, the primary adaptation to dust-bowlification has been abandonment; the very word ‘desert’ comes from the Latin desertum for ‘an abandoned place’. During the relatively short-lived US Dust-Bowl era, hundreds of thousands of families fled the region. We need to plan how the world will deal with drought-spurred migrations and steadily growing areas of non-arable land in the heart of densely populated countries and global bread-baskets. Feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.

These predictions are not worst-case scenarios: they assume business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions. We can hope that the models are too pessimistic, but some changes, such as the expansion of the subtropics, already seem to be occurring faster than models have projected. We clearly need to pursue the most aggressive greenhouse-gas mitigation policies promptly, and put dust-bowlification atop the world agenda. The time to act is now.

This piece was written by Joe Romm and first published in the journal Nature on 27th October 2011. It is reprinted here with the author's permission. Joe is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger." Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT.

 

 

The Third Industrial Revolution

Our industrial civilization is at a crossroads. Oil and the other fossil fuel energies that make up the industrial way of life are sunsetting, and the technologies made from and propelled by these energies are antiquated. The entire industrial infrastructure built off of fossil fuels is aging and in disrepair. The result is that unemployment is rising to dangerous levels all over the world. Governments, businesses and consumers are awash in debt and living standards are declining everywhere. A record one billion human beings - nearly one seventh of the human race - face hunger and starvation. Worse, climate change from fossil fuel-based industrial activity looms on the horizon, imperiling our own species’ very ability to survive.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in the summer of 2008, governments, the business community, and civil society have been embroiled in a fierce debate over how to restart the global economy. While austerity measures and fiscal, labor, and market reforms will all be necessary, they are not sufficient to re-grow the economy. Let me explain by way of an anecdote. Just months after arriving in office, the new Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, asked me to come to Berlin to help her administration address the question of how to create new jobs and grow the German economy in the twenty-first century. I began my remarks by asking the chancellor, “How do you grow the German economy, the EU economy, or, for that matter, the global economy, in the last stages of a great energy era and an industrial revolution built on it?”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Second Industrial Revolution is dying and that industrial induced CO2 emissions are threatening the viability of life on Earth. What we need now is a bold new economic narrative that can take us into a sustainable post-carbon future. Finding that new vision requires an understanding of the technological forces that precipitate the profound transformations in society.

A New Economic Narrative

The great economic revolutions in history occur when new communication technologies converge with new energy systems. New energy revolutions make possible more expansive and integrated trade. Accompanying communication revolutions manage the new complex commercial activities made possible by the new energy flows. In the 19th century, cheap steam powered print technology and the introduction of public schools gave rise to a print-literate work force with the communication skills to manage the increased flow of commercial activity made possible by coal and steam power technology, ushering in the First Industrial Revolution. In the 20th century, centralized electricity communication - the telephone, and later radio and television - became the communication medium to manage a more complex and dispersed oil, auto, and suburban era, and the mass consumer culture of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Today, Internet technology and renewable energies are beginning to merge to create a new infrastructure for a Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) that will change the way power is distributed in the 21st century. In the coming era, hundreds of millions of people will produce their own renewable energy in their homes, offices, and factories and share green electricity with each other in an “Energy Internet” just like we now generate and share information online.

The establishment of a Third Industrial Revolution [TIR] infrastructure will create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs and lay the basis for a sustainable global economy in the 21st century. However, let me add a cautionary note. Like every other communication and energy infrastructure in history, the various pillars of a Third Industrial Revolution must be laid down simultaneously or the foundation will not hold. That’s because each pillar can only function in relationship to the others.

The five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution are (1) shifting to renewable energy; (2) transforming the building stock of every continent into micro–power plants to collect renewable energies on-site; (3) deploying hydrogen and other storage technologies in every building and throughout the infrastructure to store intermittent energies; (4) using Internet technology to transform the power grid of every continent into an energy internet that acts just like the Internet (when millions of buildings are generating a small amount of renewable energy locally, on-site, they can sell surplus green electricity back to the grid and share it with their continental neighbors); and (5) transitioning the transport fleet to electric plug-in and fuel cell vehicles that can buy and sell green electricity on a smart, continental, interactive power grid.

The creation of a renewable energy regime, loaded by buildings, partially stored in the form of hydrogen, distributed via a green electricity Internet, and connected to plug-in, zero-emission transport, opens the door to a Third Industrial Revolution. The entire system is interactive, integrated, and seamless. When these five pillars come together, they make up an indivisible technological platform—an emergent system whose properties and functions are qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. In other words, the synergies between the pillars create a new economic paradigm that can transform the world.

The public/private financing of the Third Industrial Revolution infrastructure build-out across the world will be at the very top of the agenda for the international banking and financial community in the first half of the 21st century.

The Shift To Lateral Power

The Third Industrial Revolution is the last of the great Industrial Revolutions and will lay the foundational infrastructure for an emerging collaborative age. Its completion will signal the end of a two-hundred-year commercial saga characterized by industrious thinking, entrepreneurial markets, and mass labor workforces and the beginning of a new era marked by collaborative behavior, social networks and professional and technical workforces. In the coming half century, the conventional, centralized business operations of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions will increasingly be subsumed by the distributed business practices of the Third Industrial Revolution; and the traditional, hierarchical organization of economic and political power will give way to lateral power organized nodally across society.

Lateral power is a new force in the world. Steve Jobs and the other innovators of his generation took us from expensive centralized main-frame computers, owned and controlled by a handful of global companies, to cheap desktop computers and cell phones, allowing billions of people to connect up with one another in peer-to-peer networks in the social spaces of the internet. The democratization of communications has enabled nearly one third of the human population on earth to share music, knowledge, news and social life on an open playing field, marking one of the great evolutionary advances in the history of our species.

But as impressive as this accomplishment is, it is only half of the story. The new, green energy industries are improving performance and reducing costs at an ever accelerating rate. And just as the generation and distribution of information is becoming nearly free, renewable energies will also. The sun, wind, biomass, geothermal heat and hydropower are available to everyone and, like information, are never used up.

When Internet communications manage green energy, every human being on earth becomes his or her own source of power, both literally and figuratively. Billions of human beings sharing their renewable energy laterally on a continental green electricity internet creates the foundation for the democratization of the global economy and a more just society.

Distributed Capitalism

Energy regimes shape the nature of civilizations - how they are organized, how the fruits of commerce and trade are distributed, how political power is exercised, and how social relations are conducted. To understand how the new Third Industrial Revolution infrastructure is likely to dramatically change the distribution of economic power in the twenty-first century, it is helpful to step back and examine how the fossil fuel–based First and Second Industrial Revolutions reordered power relations over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Fossil fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - are elite energies for the simple reason that they are found only in select places. They require a significant military investment to secure their access and continual geopolitical management to assure their availability. They also require top down command and control systems and massive concentrations of capital to move them from underground to the end users. The ability to centralize production and distribution - the essence of modern capitalism - is critical to the effective performance of the system as a whole. The centralized energy infrastructure, in turn, sets the conditions for the rest of the economy, encouraging similar business models across every sector.

Virtually all of the other critical industries that emerged from the oil culture - modern finance, telecommunications, automotive, power and utilities, and commercial construction - and that feed off of the fossil fuel spigot were similarly predisposed to bigness in order to achieve their own economies of scale. And, like the oil industry, they require huge sums of capital to operate and are organized in a centralized fashion.

Three of the four largest companies in the world today are oil companies - Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, and BP. Underneath these giant energy companies are some five hundred global companies representing every sector and industry - with a combined revenue of $22.5 trillion, which is the equivalent of one-third of the world’s $62 trillion GDP - that are inseparably connected to and dependent on fossil fuels for their very survival.

The emerging Third Industrial Revolution, by contrast, is organized around distributed renewable energies that are found everywhere and are, for the most part, free - sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat, biomass, and ocean waves and tides. These dispersed energies will be collected at millions of local sites and then bundled and shared with others over a continental green electricity internet to achieve optimum energy levels and maintain a high-performing, sustainable economy. The distributed nature of renewable energies necessitates collaborative rather than hierarchical command and control mechanisms.

This new lateral energy regime establishes the organizational model for the countless economic activities that multiply from it. A more distributed and collaborative industrial revolution, in turn, invariably leads to a more distributed sharing of the wealth generated.

The extraordinary capital costs of owning and operating giant centralized telephone, radio, and television communications technology and fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in markets is giving way to the new “distributed capitalism,” in which the low entry costs in lateral networks make it possible for virtually everyone to become a potential entrepreneur and collaborator, creating and sharing information and energy in open commons. Witness twenty something young men creating Google, Facebook, and other global information networks, literally in their college dorm rooms and thousands of small businesses converting their buildings to green micro power plants and connecting with one another in regional electricity networks.

What I am describing is a fundamental change in the way capitalism functions that is now unfolding across the economy and reshaping how companies conduct business. The shrinking of transaction costs in the music business and publishing field with the emergence of file sharing of music, eBooks, and news blogs, is wreaking havoc on these traditional industries. We can expect similar disruptive impacts as the diminishing transaction costs of green energy allow manufacturers, service industries, and retailers to produce and share goods and services in vast economic networks with very little outlay of financial capital.

Democratizing Manufacturing

For example, consider manufacturing. Nothing is more suggestive of the industrial way of life than highly capitalized, giant, centralized factories equipped with heavy machines and attended by blue-collar workforces, churning out mass-produced products on assembly lines. But what if millions of people could manufacture batches or even single manufactured items in their own homes or businesses, cheaper, quicker, and with the same quality control as the most advanced state-of the-art factories on earth?

While the TIR economy allows millions of people to produce their own virtual information and energy, a new digital manufacturing revolution now opens up the possibility of following suit in the production of durable goods. In the new era, everyone can potentially be their own manufacturer as well as their own internet site and power company. The process is called 3-D printing; and although it sounds like science fiction, it is already coming online, and promises to change the entire way we think of industrial production. Think about pushing the print button on your computer and sending a digital file to an inkjet printer, except, with 3-D printing, the machine runs off a three-dimensional product. Using computer aided design, software directs the 3-D printer to build successive layers of the product using powder, molten plastic, or metals to create the material scaffolding. The 3-D printer can produce multiple copies just like a photocopy machine. All sorts of goods, from jewelry to mobile phones, auto and aircraft parts, medical implants, and batteries are being “printed out” in what is being termed “additive manufacturing,” distinguishing it from the “subtractive manufacturing,” which involves cutting down and pairing off materials and then attaching them together.

3-D entrepreneurs are particularly bullish about additive manufacturing, because the process requires as little as 10 percent of the raw material expended in traditional manufacturing and uses less energy than conventional factory production, thus greatly reducing the cost.

In the same way that the Internet radically reduced entry costs in generating and disseminating information, giving rise to new businesses like Google and Facebook, additive manufacturing has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of producing hard goods, making entry costs sufficiently lower to encourage hundreds of thousands of mini manufacturers—small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) - to challenge and potentially outcompete the giant manufacturing companies that were at the center of the First and Second Industrial Revolution economies.

Already, a spate of new start-up companies are entering the 3-D printing market with names like Within Technologies, Digital Forming, Shape Ways, Rapid Quality Manufacturing, Stratasys, Bespoke Innovations, 3D Systems, MakerBot Industries, Freedom of Creation, LGM, and Contour Crafting and are determined to reinvent the very idea of manufacturing in the Third Industrial era.

The energy saved at every step of the digital manufacturing process, from reduction in materials used, to less energy expended in making the product, when applied across the global economy, adds up to a qualitative increase in energy efficiency beyond anything imaginable in the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. When the energy used to power the production process is renewable and also generated on site, the full impact of a lateral Third Industrial Revolution becomes strikingly apparent. Since approximately 84 percent of the productivity gains in the manufacturing and service industries are attributable to increases in thermodynamic efficiencies - only 14 percent of productivity gains are the result of capital invested per worker - we begin to grasp the significance of the enormous surge in productivity that will accompany the Third Industrial Revolution and what it will mean for society.

Near Zero Cost Marketing and Logistics

The democratization of manufacturing is being accompanied by the tumbling costs of marketing. Because of the centralized nature of the communication technologies of the first and second industrial revolutions - newspapers, magazines, radio, and television - marketing costs were high and favored giant firms who could afford to devote substantial funds to market their products and services. The internet has transformed marketing from a significant expense to a negligible cost, allowing start ups and small and medium size enterprises to market their goods and services on internet sites that stretch over virtual space, enabling them to compete and even out compete many of the giant business enterprises of the 21st century.

Consider Etsy, a brash, web start-up company that has taken off in the past seven years. Etsy was founded by a young New York University graduate, Rob Kalin, who made furniture in his apartment. Frustrated that he had no way to connect with potential buyers interested in hand-crafted furniture, Kalin teamed up with a few friends and put up a website designed to bring individual craftsmen of all kinds, from around the world, together with prospective buyers. The site has become a global virtual showroom, where millions of buyers and thousands of sellers from more than fifty countries are connecting, breathing new life into craft production—an art that had largely disappeared with the advent of modern industrial capitalism.

Connecting multitudes of sellers and buyers in virtual space is almost free. By replacing all of the middlemen - from wholesalers to retailers - with a distributed virtual network of sellers and buyers and eliminating the transaction costs that are marked up at every stage in the marketing process, Etsy has created a new global craft bazaar that scales laterally rather than hierarchically, and markets goods collaboratively rather than top-down.

Etsy brings another dimension to the market - the personalization of relationships between seller and buyer. The website hosts chat rooms, coordinates online craft shows, and conducts seminars, allowing sellers and buyers to interact, exchange ideas, customize products, and create social bonds that can last a lifetime. Giant, global companies mass-producing standardized products on assembly lines operated by anonymous workforces can’t compete with the kind of intimate one-to-one relationship between artisan and patron.

Although still in its infancy, Etsy is a quickly growing enterprise. In 2011, Etsy’s sales topped nearly $500 million. In a recent conversation, Kalin told me that his mission is to help foster “empathic consciousness” in the global economic arena and lay the foundation for a more inclusive society. His vision of connecting up “millions of local living economies that will create a sense of community in the economy again” is the essence of the Third Industrial Revolution model. Etsy is only one of hundreds of global Internet companies that are bringing together producers and consumers in virtual marketing spaces and, in the process, democratizing marketing costs across the global economy.

As the new 3-D technology becomes more widespread, on site, just in time customized manufacturing of products will also reduce logistics costs with the possibility of huge energy savings. The cost of transporting products will plummet in the coming decades because an increasing array of goods will be produced locally in thousands of micro-manufacturing plants and transported regionally by trucks powered by green electricity and hydrogen generated on site.

The lateral scaling of the Third Industrial Revolution allows small and medium size enterprises to flourish. Still, global companies will not disappear. Rather, they will increasingly metamorphose from primary producers and distributers to aggregators. In the new economic era, their role will be to coordinate and manage the multiple networks that move commerce and trade across the value chain.

New Business Models and Jobs in the 21st Century

Germany is leading the way into the new economic era. The Federal Government has teamed up with six regions across Germany to test the introduction of an energy internet that will allow tens of thousands of German businesses and millions of home owners to collect renewable energies on site, store them in the form of hydrogen, and share green electricity across Germany in a smart energy internet. Entire communities are transforming their commercial and residential buildings into green micro-power plants. To date, more than 1 million buildings in Germany have been converted into partial green micro power plants. Companies like Siemens, Bosch and Daimler are creating sophisticated new IT software, hardware, appliances and vehicles, that will merge distributed Internet communication with distributed energy, to create smart buildings, infrastructure, and green mobility for the cities of the future.

The transition to the Third Industrial Revolution will require a wholesale reconfiguration of the entire economic infrastructure of each country, creating millions of jobs and countless new goods and services. Nations will need to invest in renewable energy technology on a massive scale; convert millions of buildings into green micro power plants; embed hydrogen and other storage technology throughout the national infrastructure; lay down a green energy internet; and transform the automobile from the internal combustion engine to electric plug-in and fuel cell cars.

The remaking of each nation’s infrastructure and the retooling of industries is going to require a massive retraining of workers on a scale matching the professional and vocational training at the onset of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. The new high tech workforce of the Third Industrial Revolution will need to be skilled in renewable energy technologies, green construction, IT and embedded computing, nanotechnology, sustainable chemistry, fuel-cell development, digital power grid management, hybrid electric and hydrogen-powered transport and hundreds of other technical fields.

Entrepreneurs and managers will need to be educated to take advantage of cutting edge business models, including distributed and collaborative research and development strategies, open source and networked commerce, performance contracting, shared savings agreements, and sustainable low-carbon logistics and supply chain management. The skill levels and managerial styles of the Third Industrial Revolution workforce will be qualitatively different from those of the workforce of the Second Industrial Revolution.

The lateral scaling of the Third Industrial Revolution shifts the fulcrum of power from centralized global companies to distributed small and medium size enterprise networks. The rapid decline in transaction costs brought on by The Third Industrial Revolution are leading to the democratization of information, energy, manufacturing, marketing, and logistics, and the ushering in of a new era of distributed capitalism that is likely to change the very way we think of commercial life. The Third Industrial Revolution offers the hope that we can arrive at a sustainable post-carbon era by mid-century. We have the science, the technology, and the game plan to make it happen. Now it is a question of whether we will recognize the economic possibilities that lie ahead and muster the will to get there in time.

This article was written by Jeremy Rifkin and is reprinted here with his permission. Jeremy is the author of The New York Times best selling book, The Third Industrial Revolution, How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. He is an adviser to the European Union and to heads of state around the world. He is a senior lecturer at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program at the University of Pennsylvania and the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C.

Economies of Scope

The competitive dynamics of industrial capitalism are well-known, and they are all about economies of scale. Producing more of a unit enables companies to drive the unit price down and thus outcompete the competition. Multinational corporations and global brands now have very complex value chains, in which various parts of a product are mass-produced in different parts of the world.

Nevertheless, the system has obvious weaknesses. One weakness is that it tends towards monocultures, both agricultural and industrial. An example is the dependence of the Chinese coastal economy on exports.

Because competition drives prices down the dominant western players changed their strategy in the 1980s. They abandoned costly western workers, moved low-profit industrial production to low-wage countries, and expanded the intellectual property (IP) regime using patents, copyrights and trademarks. As Thijs Markus has written, if you want to sell $5 shoes for $150 in the West, you'd better have one heck of a repressive IP regime in place. Hence the need for SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and other attempts to criminalise the right to share.

But there is, of course, a more fundamental problem: the whole system of globalising the advantages of scale fundamentally rests on cheap global transportation and, thus, the continuous availability of fossil fuels. Once the era of cheap oil ends it is more than likely that the whole regime will come tumbling down. Competing on the basis of scale, even if it is still effective today, ultimately can only be played by those who do not care about the destruction of our planet. What game can the others play? Rising fossil fuel prices mean that innovation and competition have to find another outlet.

Actually, it's about inventing another game altogether.

This type of economic transition has played out before. In the late fifth century, as the Roman Empire was coming to an end, Christian communities prefigured the values of a coming era of relocalisation based not on an economy of scale, but on an economy of scope - in which the cost of production becomes lower through shared infrastructure costs.

As the Roman Empire decayed and supplies of gold and slaves became gradually more problematic, the smarter landowners started to free their slaves, but bound them contractually to the land as "coloni", or serfs. Meanwhile, the increasingly taxed and bankrupted freeholders sought protection from the very same landowners. Thus, one side of the equation was localisation, since the system could no longer bear the global scale of the empire. But the new post-Roman system also invented a new system of innovation, based on the advantages of scope, not scale.

Indeed, as the cities were emptying out, the Christians invented monasteries as a new type of agrarian knowledge centre. The Christian Church actually functioned as a global open design community. Monks and manuscripts travelled, and with it the many innovations of the worker-monks. While Europe initially decayed as the remnants of the Roman empire crumbled, eventually, after the first European social revolution in the 10th century, this new system created the seeds for the first medieval industrial revolution.

Between the 10th and 13th centuries, Europe started blossoming once again, based on a unified culture of knowledge. Its population doubled and its beautiful cities, many of which were run democratically by the guild councils, grew again. Peer-to-peer universities were founded in Bologna in the 11th century. This first renaissance was based on economies of scope, a unified body of knowledge that European intellectuals and artisans could build on. The guilds may have had their secrets, but they took them with them wherever cathedrals were built.

The same experience happened in 1989 when isolated Cuba was no longer able to rely on the Soviet system's advantages of scale. The Cuban crisis of 1989 prefigured the current world situation: the country experienced its very own peak oil situation when the Soviets abruptly stopped delivering oil at below world market prices.

While the Cubans initially went back to using donkeys, its government launched several interesting initiatives. It allowed some entrepreneurship by granting more autonomy to local agricultural co-operatives, and mobilised the population's grassroots knowledge. But perhaps most importantly, Cuba created several agricultural institutes with the goal of spreading local innovations. Whatever the other faults of the country's totalitarian system, this open design experiment succeeded beyond all expectations. As documented by Bill McKibben and a number of documentaries, Cuba now produces more nutritious and organic food, using less fossil fuel, because sharing knowledge created economies of scope. Agricultural innovations could spread quickly across the country and be adopted by everyone.

Indeed, economies of scale work well in periods of energy ascent, when the supply of energy is plentiful and increasing, but work less well in periods of energy descent. In these circumstances, economies of scope are needed. These types of economies are exactly what peer production (which encompasses open knowledge, free culture, free software, open and shared designs, open hardware and distributed manufacturing) is all about.

Our current system is based on the belief of infinite growth and the endless availability of resources, despite the fact that we live on a finite planet. Let's call this pseudo-abundance. The system also holds that innovations should be privatised and only available by permission, or for a hefty price, making sharing of knowledge and culture a crime, Let's call this enforced artificial scarcity.

Peer production methodologies are based on the exact opposite tenets. Peer production communities believe that knowledge is a commons for all to share. Therefore no innovation can be withheld from the human population as a whole. In fact, withholding a life-saving or world-saving innovation is seen as distinctly unethical. Peer production designs for distribution, inclusion and small-scale fabrication. Planned obsolescence, which is a feature and not a bug of the current system, is totally alien to peer production logics. In other words, sustainability is a feature of open design communities, not a bug.

So what are the economies of scope of this new age? They come in two flavours: the mutualising of knowledge and the mutualising of tangible resources.

The first principle is easy to understand. When an individual doesn't know something, it's more likely that a community, whether local or virtual, does know. Hence, the mutualising of knowledge and crowd-accelerated innovation are now well-known features of the collaborative economy. But the advantage of scope is created when that knowledge is shared and can be used by others. With this social innovation the cost of production that depends on knowledge can be dramatically reduced.

Take the example of the Nutrient Dense Project. This global community of agrarian workers and citizen scientists experiments with better nutrients to obtain better quality food. They carry out joint research on nutrients in various soils and climate zones, which can benefit not just the participating community but, potentially, the whole of humankind. Strategies based on privatising intellectual property cannot obtain such advantages of scope - at least not at that level. Or take the example of the urban homestead of the Dervaes family in Los Angeles who managed to produce 6,000 pounds of food annually on a tiny city plot. Because they share their productivity innovations many other people have learned how to improve their own lots.

The second principle, of sharing physical resources, is exemplified by the trend towards collaborative consumption. The general idea is the same. I may lack a certain tool, skill or service, but it is likely that someone else in a community has it, and that other person could share, rent or barter it. There's no need to all possess the same tool if we can access it when we need it. Hence the proliferation of peer-to-peer marketplaces.

Let's take an illustrative example: car-sharing. Car-sharing projects can be mutualised through the intermediary of a private company which owns the cars (like ZipCar), through peer-to-peer marketplaces that link car users to one another (like RelayRides), or through public entities (like Autolib, in Paris). But they all achieve economies of scope. According to a study cited by ZipCar, for every rented car there are 15 fewer owned cars on the road. Furthermore, car-sharing members drove 31 per cent less than when they owned a vehicle. So, in 2009 alone, car-sharing diminished global carbon dioxide emissions by nearly half a million tonnes.

What will the new system look like if economies of scope become the norm, replacing economies of scale as the primary driver of the economy? Global open design communities could be accompanied by a global network of micro-factories producing locally, such as the ones that open-source car companies like Local Motors and Wikispeed are proposing.

This would require organisations to organise their material activities in order to minimise the common costs of the various networks and not just in terms of sharing knowledge. In other words, who will play the role that the Catholic Church and its roaming monks played in the Middle Ages? This was not just an open design community but an effective material organisation giving leadership to a whole continent-wide cultural sphere. Do we have a potential peer-to-peer version of this that can operate globally? The answer to this question will be for a future article.

Michel Bauwens is a theorist, writer and a founder of the Peer-to-Peer Foundation. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the Asian Foresight Institute. This essay was first published in the opinion pages of Al Jazeera on the 22^nd March 2012 and is reproduced here with the author’s permission.

 

Scuttlebutt - The Dirt on Brown Coal

Last week the state government of Victoria in Australia announced its intent to release more than 430 billion tonnes of brown coal for export to energy-hungry countries such as China, India and Japan. Located in the La Trobe valley, east of Melbourne, these reserves are some of the largest deposits of brown coal in the world.

At face value it makes sound economic sense for these reserves to be unlocked and used to bolster the local economy, especially at a time when other industries are in trouble or face a slow decline. But there are traps for the unwary. 

In the resources pecking order brown coal is regarded as little better than peat. It is a sludge-like substance containing about two-thirds water, one-third carbon, and some ash. Extracted from huge open-cut mines it is used primarily in steam-electric power generation. While none of Victoria’s brown coal is currently exported, around 65 million tonnes is mined each year. Over 90 per cent of Victoria’s electricity is fuelled by brown coal, making Victorians among the most greenhouse polluting people per capita on the planet.

Fifty years ago investing millions of dollars in mines, processing and infrastructure might have been applauded as a visionary way of boosting the local economy and creating new jobs. Today it seems like a sick joke. For this is not merely an economic question but a moral one.

Brown coal is roughly three times more greenhouse intensive per kilowatt hour of electricity than natural gas. Abundant it may be. Clean it is not. In any sane society we would agree to leave it where it is. In the ground.

Let us agree then that we are not sane and move on! If additional brown coal is going to be mined for export there are inherent difficulties that cannot be ignored. The most obvious is its transportation over long distances. This has primarily to do with the high moisture content of the coal, requiring it to be dried or turned into diesel oil or gas prior to export. Setting aside for a moment the fairly crude centrifuge technologies currently used to extract moisture and to compress the coal into briquettes, the technologies needed to convert brown coal into a commercially viable and environmentally-friendly product at scale still need to be developed.

Any corporate investors would need to take this into account. Of course it is feasible that a commercially viable method of transforming one of the world's dirtiest energy sources into a clean form will eventually be found. But I would not bet on it. Clean coal is still a myth. But there are other, far more disquieting factors, which also need to be considered.

Firstly we need to think through the impact on local farmers and landowners. The viability and security of the current food system in Australia is increasingly under threat as the effects of climate change are felt. The Gippsland basin in eastern Victoria happens to be one of the richest dairy farming areas in the whole of Australia.

Even so there are many farms on the eastern and western side of the Latrobe Valley which have a mining licence hanging over them. Freehold titles are not exempt from acquisition should the state demand access to minerals underground. This creates massive uncertainty in the minds of the farming community, compromising planning and contributing to the exodus of farmers from badly needed agricultural production.

Secondly it is misleading to believe that many new jobs will be created by such a move. As mining technologies become more sophisticated fewer jobs are needed in the sector in absolute terms. Out of a total population of around 23 million people less than 200,000 work in mining.

Thirdly Australia cannot continue to be complacent about the role resources will play in future economic wealth. Not that overseas demand for coal, gas and minerals is likely to collapse in the near future. In my opinion such claims are merely a distraction. When mapping strategic paths to future prosperity the underlying economic complexity of our industries – or rather the lack of it – is of far greater consequence.

Economic complexity refers to the amount of knowledge embedded in the productive structure of an economy. It is amplified by the social connectivity inherent in markets, networks and business ecosystems that makes us collectively intelligent.

Recent research points to economic complexity as a key factor in the development of nations. Countries whose economic complexity is greater than what we would expect, given their level of income, tend to grow faster than those that are “too rich” for their current level of economic complexity. In this sense, economic complexity is not just a symptom or an expression of prosperity. It is a driver.

In the first Economic Complexity Index [ECI] published this year, Australia ranked 79 out of 124 nations; behind Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia and Vietnam and just ahead of  Pakistan, Cuba and Uganda. In other words the apparent wealth of our nation (as measured in GDP per capita) is too dependent on the export of minerals than on tangible productive knowledge. At a time when the Australian currency is strong and many industries, particularly manufacturing, are struggling to survive, greater efforts need to be channelled into investments and policies that (i) augment and diversify embedded knowledge and (ii) expand tradeable activities in that knowledge.

Countries with a large natural resource assets like Australia can be relatively wealthy without being economically complex. But that wealth can only be sustained as long as those natural resources are there. Something else needs to take up the slack in the long term.

ECI research demonstrates countries tend to move towards an income level that is compatible with their overall level of embedded knowledge. Australia may well have a smart workforce but it is of little value if it is not being continually diversified and used to provoke and sustain industrial renewal.

Logically it is strategic innovation, the invention of new industries and markets, and the deliberate expansion of  diversity in Australia’s export product space, that are ultimately far more critical in creating a robust and enduring economy than short-term windfalls from mining.

It stands to reason that policies aimed at inceasing economic complexity must point to a far greater emphasis on, for example, distributed and open-source manufacturing; e-commerce; micro-engineering; healthcare; bio-agriculture; professional, employment and child care services; clean energy such as solar and wind; management, scientific and environmental consulting; digital arts and broadcasting; gaming; biotechnology; and higher learning, than on the export of mineral resources that add little economic complexity to that which currently exists.

So much for the economic factors. Most conversations instigated by politicians and specialist business interests would end right there, as if the economics of any situation (i.e. investment, productivity, employment and wealth creation) is the only thing that really matters.

Unfortunately this is not unusual. At least since the industrial revolution our society has tended to value only those assets we can see, grow, construct, assemble and measure. Indeed the Western cultural mindset currently driving the majority of global production and consumption as well as international trade, has systematically cheapened and eroded most other aspects of a unique and sacred gift: what it really means to be human.

In all economic debates there remain unspoken, complex, yet usually unresolved issues hiding in the shadows. Topics of consequence that go to the heart of the crises facing a human family of seven billion people. Such is the case with the issue of mining brown coal in Victoria for it is not just, nor even primarily, a simple economic issue.

I have briefly mentioned one of my concerns, namely the sense of profound insecurity being generated by mining leases on struggling farming communities. Such uncertainty is viewed by governments as an adverse yet unavoidable side effect resulting from legal distinctions between private property ownership relative to the assumed superior authority of the state. But it also relates to the sacred duty of any elected government to foster community wellbeing by conserving and protecting the wealth of the commons rather than kowtowing to the whims of sectoral interests.

Such duties are arduous in this day and age for there are many conflicting needs, and at many levels, expressed by the citizenry of any state. Yet it is vital to grasp this particular obligation in the longer term: ensuring the health and prosperity of future generations is as critical to humanity as safeguarding today’s wealth. Perhaps more so. As scientists and economists gather overwhelming evidence that we must combat the toxic impacts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as soon as possible in order to avoid what could become an unavoidable collapse in our quality of life, the ethical question of how long we can go on subsidizing dirty industries fuelled by coal becomes ever more acute.

Naturally this dilemma is excruciating for governments caught in a limbo between the exploitation of resources for commercial gain and their environmental responsibilities. Options seem predetermined when the former tactic allows an incumbent government to appear less reckless than the opposition and thus stay in power longer. It is a delusion of course. But such has become the paucity of political vision, aspiration and integrity in much of the developed world, regardless of political persuasion or explicit cultural legacy.

Another concern relates to ecocide – a reference to any large-scale destruction of the natural envioronment, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment of that territory by the inhabitants is severely diminished.

Because previous generations supposed the planet’s resources to be infinite, that growth was unlimited, ecocide routinely occurs on a massive scale and is getting worse by the day. Proposals to mine the extensive brown coal reserves in Victoria are only one example of ecological devastation occurring around the world; from Canada to the Antarctic and from Bolivia to China. It can be stopped by making ecocide a crime against humanity. Even now serious proposals are being considered by individuals in the UN seeking to create an international law of ecocide that would make CEOs and Heads of State legally responsible for the Earth.

Even if a universal law of this kind is some years off, an assumption I would personally be reluctant to adopt, intensifying public sentiment that environmental conservation is essential to our future health and wellbeing implies an awakening to the blind ecological destruction currently being undertaken by some governments and corporations on our behalf. It would be a courageous government indeed (or an act of sheer stupidity) to ignore such early warning signs of shifting societal values.

But even that should not be the end of the debate. Putting environmental concerns to one side, we should also consider the Victorian government’s proposals for industrial development in the La Trobe valley in the light of our values and culture. In this case public compliance with the case for industrial development as put by government (which has become the agent for big business) amounts to collusion to defraud future generations of their rightful legacy. Effectively we are giving our consent to people who have never been on the land and who have no history or connection to the countryside, legally securing the right to come in and by the very nature of their enterprises leave in their wake a cultural and physical landscape utterly devastated and transformed.

Furthermore, by placing no cultural or market value on the landscape itself we help to destroy a natural asset without comprehending its inherent worth if left intact. As long as there is a promise of money and employment it merely requires permission to proceed. Usually we give this not a second thought. We take it as a given. It is, after all, the foundation of a system in which commerce extracts value and profit in a resource-driven economy. From an indigenous perspective, moved and inspired by quite different visions of life and an orientation utterly removed from the Western tradition in terms of ecological space, any behaviour in which natural beauty can be reduced to a commodity at whim appears to be anomalous in the extreme.

When British explorers landed on the shores of Australia they were totally unprepared for the sophistication of the place - unable to fathom the subtle philosophy and profound intellectual, cultural and spiritual achievements of those early inhabitants. Two hundred years later and we are still unprepared, still utterly incapable of embracing our country’s timeless wonder, ignorant of its songlines and blind to its cosmological resonance as potential future wisdom.

Mining brown coal in Gippsland is an ill-informed folly dreamed up by deluded advocates of an industry that is in decline for more than one reason. But that is not what should really concern us here. My disquiet has much more to do with the inherent lethargy and lack of ingenious alternatives being expressed.

If Victoria is to prosper in a manner that is strategically relevant and enduring, all future pathways must provide a greater degree of economic complexity in our productive capacity than currently exists. Innovation in terms of rural development is important. But the constant digging of holes in the ground is equivalent to playground games.

Australia’s current wealth came from the exploitation of natural resources. Our future prosperity is reliant on a paradigm shift enabled by strategically sophisticated innovation, creativity, diversity and, above all, industrial renewal.

I would like to thank Alain Ruche of the EU for alerting me to the work of Ricardo Hausmann and his team who have been researching the economic complexity of nations for several years. Their work can be found in the Atlas of Economic Complexity at http://atlas.media.mit.edu/book/

Food Security on the Menu

A world with 7 billion people, threats from a changing climate and unsustainable resource use are intensifying pressure on humanity and world governments to transform the way food is produced, distributed and consumed. This global issue brings both responsibility and opportunity for Australia.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates 75 million to 130 million people were pushed into malnutrition and poverty when food prices spiked in 2008, and another 40 million joined them after this year's price spikes. There are many regions where large gaps exist between actual and potential production, and an estimated 12 million hectares of agricultural land is degraded each year.

Up to a third of all food harvested is lost or wasted as it is processed, distributed or consumed in our homes. Climate change is expected to exacerbate the problem: increasing temperatures, altered rainfall patterns and more severe weather will lead to dire social, economic and ecological consequences. Vietnam's fertile, low-lying Mekong Delta is already experiencing ingress of seawater.

The global challenge is to increase agricultural productivity and decrease our environmental footprint while adapting to changing climate patterns. We must increase global food production by 2050 by between 30 and 80 per cent while halving our greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.

This is the task facing the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. The commission, chaired by Britain's chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, is calling for urgent action by governments, international institutions, investors, agricultural producers, consumers, food companies and researchers. It wants food security on the agenda at the next round of international climate change talks in Durban, South Africa, in recognition of its inextricable link with climate change. The commission's blueprint urges seven key steps:

• Integrate food security and sustainable agriculture into global and national policies.
• Significantly raise the level of investment in sustainable agriculture and food systems.
• Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental effects.
• Target populations and sectors globally that are the most vulnerable to climate and food insecurity.
• Reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure basic needs are met and foster sustainable eating habits worldwide.
• Reduce loss and waste in food systems.
• Create comprehensive, shared information systems that encompass human and ecological dimensions.

I believe Australia will play a unique role in this transformation. Despite our highly variable and challenging climate, many sectors of Australian agriculture have achieved an extraordinary annual productivity increase of 2 per cent or more for the past 30 years. We feed 60 million people each year and we are one of only 15 countries that export more food than we import. The rapid growth of mega-cities in our region will mean growing markets for the food we produce.

Future climate change brings new challenges to lifting agricultural production, but Australia is well placed.

We hold the world record for the lowest proportion of rainfall ending up in river systems, with a staggering 89 per cent evaporating. Our temperate areas have the world's highest year-to-year variability of run-off. By 2030, climate change is likely to cut average river flows by 10 to 25 per cent in some areas of southern Australia. A key driver for achieving rapid adoption of new technologies and practices is partnership between researchers and farmers. Australian agricultural research has a long history of innovation and collaboration with farming industries and communities that can be harnessed to deal with the challenges of food security and climate change.

Across Western Australia grain growers have lifted production through better practices, such as conservation agriculture, despite lower rainfall. In Vietnam, where saltwater is intruding, some farmers have turned rice paddies into shrimp ponds. Our irrigators can now use precision satellite data, soil moisture and evaporation rates to determine precise irrigation times sent via SMS to their phones. Every one of these efforts can be scaled globally.

Real changes are necessary across the global food system if we are to achieve true food security for all. It will mean a shared commitment across society and around the globe.

This article was written by Dr Megan Clark who is CSIRO chief executive and a commissioner for the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. The article first appeared in the Melbourne Age on 23rd November 2011 and is reproduced here with the author's permission.

 

Old King Coal: A letter to my grandchildren

Dear Eglantine, Addie, Bodhi, Rafael, Roman and little Mia (who is still preparing for her entrance into the world)...

I am sitting at home in my study in inner Bangkok looking out over Sukhumvit. Most of the central plains of Thailand are inundated with flood waters. It is raining heavily and the run-off from the north is fast encroaching on the city’s canals. The death toll currently stands at 289 and the economic cost is already running into billions of baht. At this stage 187 districts in 26 provinces are still under water, causing untold misery to more than 2.2 million people. Many citizens have been hording goods and supermarket shelves are now emptied of bottled water, rice, meat, fish and other staples. Watching the unfolding drama over the past few days it is so evident that officials are powerless to do much against the forces of nature. Parts of this city are sinking at a rate of 3 centimetres annually. It is no longer difficult to imagine a time when Bangkok becomes the Venice of the East once again!

Meanwhile my thoughts are with you, my grandchildren. In our sun-burnt country the government has been congratulating itself on passing legislation that puts a price on carbon. The bill is intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is crucial if we are to combat global warming. It has been a struggle to get this far. But don’t be fooled. The legislation is all but meaningless - full of exceptions and loopholes that encourage the maintenance of the status quo in those very industries that should be at the forefront of the transition to a carbon-constrained economy. The new law cannot possibly wean us off our irrational dependence on oil, gas and coal. It does not promote investment in the adoption of cleaner energy. In fact it does quite the opposite.

Like Thailand, Australia is in the front-line of global warming. Yet most politicians, their staffers and economic advisers do not really comprehend what is happening to the climate system on our planet. Indeed there are still those in parliaments around the world who remain convinced that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy or possibly a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community. Special interest groups and corporate money have hijacked the agenda, finding one excuse after another to keep polluting Earth while profiting from their activities.

Which is why I want to say sorry. I am sorry because my generation has failed you miserably. We have not been courageous enough to acknowledge our failure nor humble enough to take urgent corrective action. I am deeply ashamed to admit this to you and I realise I cannot expect your forgiveness. At the same time I want you to know that I did my personal best to draw attention to the reckless stupidity of my generation’s imprudent and arrogant intransigence.

Occasionally I have glimpsed hope. In far away places like China, Brazil, Africa and South East Asia my words have had significant impact. Prominent community and business leaders, government officials and parliamentarians have been gracious enough to listen, to reflect and to act on the basis that, even without complete knowledge, it is wise to take precautions when it comes to a complex issue like climate change.

In our country of Australia these same words have fallen on deaf ears – mainly it seems (ironically) from those who have been charged with the responsibility to lead. I have been branded an outlier. An alarmist. Even a heretic. Such labels are not personal, you must understand. People are simply afraid. When all is said and done there is nothing more terrifying for a leader than the imperative to act without any certainty about what to do. My powers of persuasion have been inadequate to overcome addiction to a system in which considerably more value is put on immediate economic benefit than on your future health and well-being. No other case can be put to those who value money more than human life. They remain oblivious to their ignorance and selfishness and we should not expect that to change. This means you must take matters into your own hands. You cannot wait for governments to act or for business to change.

So the legacy I pass on to you, my beloved grandchildren, is far from the abundant, promising one I inherited. It has been poisoned by rampant materialism, in-built obsolesence, and a culture of declining frugality. To make matters worse our thirst for material goods is aided and abetted by a vast public relations machine inciting us to buy more and more stuff we do not really need.

In 1945, the year of my birth, there were barely 2 billion people inhabiting our planet. The future for humanity was one of hope and optimism. Later this month, somewhere on the planet, a child will be born. He or she will become the 7th billion citizen of planet Earth. Yes the six billionth child is only 11 years old. By the time you leave university there will be 8 billion of us, all struggling to achieve a better quality of life, a dream that has become all but impossible to achieve - even in the world's most developed countries. The huge demographic shift in the human population since the end of World War II has had a devastating impact on the environment. A tidal wave of humanity is migrating into the cities. Crushing poverty is everywhere. We are locked-in to human-induced atmospheric pollution (from carbon dioxide, methane and aerosols) that will trigger more frequent and extreme weather events. Nutritious food, potable water and energy are becoming more scarce. Sovereign indebtedness and social inequalities put entire nations at risk. And if all of that wasn’t terrifying enough we are beginning to witness the collapse of life-critical ecosystems necessary to provide for our future well-being.

Yet amongst all this chaos the most affluent of us tenaciously aspire to even greater wealth and greater power. If this situation persists the demand on Earth’s finite resources will be excessive, conflict will increase and climate refugees will be counted in the millions!

I hope you will appreciate that, like many others, I did not realise how much damage I was doing. But now, having lived what many of my friends in Soweto, Belo Horizonte, Chennai and even Shanghai would term a profligate lifestyle, squandering so many of the vital resources you will need to ensure a healthy, stable and secure existence without so much as a second thought, I see that my extravagant ways have made things very problematic for you. It is not just me you understand. All of us with knowledge are culpable. Politicians and their advisers, industry leaders, courts, the media...

Politicians are paid to protect us but also to safeguard your future well-being. Instead, they repeatedly lie to us, cheating you of a secure future by advocating phoney carbon offset schemes, spinning fairy tales about “clean coal”, setting ineffective targets and legislating in ways that allow the dirtiest, most toxic, industries to continue polluting the atmosphere. Why? Because far too many people are profiting financially from our addiction to fossil fuels.

With leadership in abeyance, any pretence of a moral imperative quickly fades. In a situation where there is such a dearth of honest leadership from those in power there is no question that many corporations will feel free to continue plundering and scarring the environment, driving species to the point of extinction, ignoring grievances from local communities and writing off the destruction of nature as inconsequential to their mission. Driven purely by profits I have no doubt their intention is to extract every last drop of oil and gas from tar sands, shale and tundra. Unless, that is, the community rises up as one and demands that they stop committing ecocide.

The media is even more guilty of intergenerational crime. Instead of advocating the truth they routinely wheel out a few of the usual cranks and crackpots to cast doubt on the integrity and validity of scientific knowledge. As a consequence our most eminent scientists have become wary of giving policy advice to governments for fear of being labelled impractical idealists, dishonest or incompetent.

And even as the science community struggles to find better ways of communicating the urgency to those who have their heads stuck in the sand, we are racing towards an impending catastrophe that is not of your making and can still be avoided. This is my generation’s bitter legacy to you. You are now left with the problems we have knowingly created.

The real tragedy is we already know what must be done. Furthermore we have the technology to turn things around. The coal, oil and gas industries argue their continuing relevance based upon cost and availability. As far as the latter is concerned they are correct. There are vast amounts of coal still in the ground. But if we factor in the incalculable damage done by coal to people and their health, in addition to the various subsidies and licences granted the coal industry, it is patently clear that half-truths, subterfuge, vested interests and apathy on our part are the only things keeping “Old King Coal” a merry old soul.

Preventing runaway climate change and thus avoiding ecosystem collapse is avoidable if you act quickly. But you will need political will and huge amounts of investment capital. You must also be prepared to fight for your future. Peaceful civil resistance may yet be needed to overcome organised opposition from the fossil fuel lobby.

Here is what you must do. Stop mining coal as quickly as possible. Recent estimates point to around 170,000 deaths annually world-wide from coal burning-based electricity generation. It is by far the most dangerous fossil fuel in use. Phasing-out coal emissions and moving to solar, wind, thermal as well as 4^th generation nuclear energy (together with greater energy efficiency) is the safest and least costly route to a sustainable planet. But you cannot stop there. You must also outlaw hydrofracking, strip mining, mountaintop removal and similar ecologically-devastating practices. Find ways to limit or extend the use of conventional oil and gas. Restore the world’s forests and oceans. Impose strict mining constraints on unconventional fossil fuels such as methane hydrates and tar sands. Finally, but most importantly, reject the loophole-ridden “cap and trade” game in favour of a comprehensive “fee and dividend” system. No exceptions and no trade-offs. Only by these means can each citizen choose how to change their living habits so as to become more sustainable.

Alas there are many people with special interests who will try to stop you, stall progress and create other distractions. Possibly they do not have grandchildren. Or perhaps they are so selfish that any integrity they once had was sacrificed on the altar of money long ago. Be prepared for a huge outcry from the fossil fuel lobby. But do not be deceived by their crocodile tears. Eradicating fossil fuels as rapidly as possible will create more jobs, generate a far healthier economy, restore a safe climate and evolve a sustainable planet for you and for your children.

Massive change of this kind is your last chance. I am sorry it has come to this.

With love to you all

Grandpa.

Forget the Facts

The sea hare is a gelatinous lump ordinarily found grazing on coral reefs, home to many far more eye-catching creatures. Nonetheless, the one captive in the aquarium at Heron Island Research Station, on the Great Barrier Reef, provides a mesmerising spectacle as it chomps through great bouquets of red algae plucked from the reef flat and delivered fresh each morning by a young marine scientist.

''We used to have two hares in the tank,'' she explained, ''but when there are two, they just shag continuously, fail to eat, then they die.'' We conclude that herein lies a powerful warning about the risk unrelenting pleasure-seeking poses to any species aspiring to long-term survival.

I've been thinking a bit about the sea hare this week while observing the fallout from the Climate Commission's report, The Critical Decade. Wondering, too, about primitive human biology, about what factors interfere with our survival instinct - fear, fun, greed, legacy, even good old distracting lust.

The report is a powerful enunciation of what science now knows about climate change and the risks it poses. That the atmosphere and the oceans are warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps, sea levels are rising and the biological world is changing. ''We know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary causes.''

In the nuanced language of science, it doesn't get much stronger. As the American scientist Naomi Oreskes has observed, ''History shows us clearly that science does not provide certainty. It does not provide proof. It only provides the consensus of experts, based on the organised accumulation and scrutiny of evidence.'' And here we have it.

So how do you respond to such confronting news? Do you weigh the credentials of the speakers, study the evidence? Or do you switch it off, turn the page, scream and shout? According to psychological research by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale University, your reaction either way will have little to do with the strength of the arguments or the calibre of the science. It will have everything to do with whether it gels with, or offends, your deep-seated views about morality and how the world ought to work.

Yale law professor Dan Kahan's ''cultural cognition of risk'' theory attempts to explain public disagreement about the significance of empirical evidence by plotting individuals on two scales of cultural belief: individualists versus communitarians, based on the importance people attach to the public good when balanced against individual rights; and hierarchists versus egalitarians, based on their views of the stratification of society. Simply explaining the science to these audiences, he finds, will only serve to wedge the two sides.

The sliding scales are not unfamiliar. Think Tony Abbott as the archetypal suit-and-tie individual hierarchical - values clustered around free-market enterprise, personal achievement, industry, regard for authority (though not, it seems, scientific authority), traditional family, personal freedom; and Bob Brown is out there as your sandal-wearing communitarian egalitarian, protesting that pretty much everything Abbott cherishes damages all he holds dear.

Put a scientist in front of an audience of individual hierarchicals saying that global warming is high risk, and only 23 per cent of the audience will buy the speaker as trustworthy and knowledgeable. Same message, same scientist, and 88 per cent of egalitarian communitarians nod their heads.

Have the same author change tack to argue that warming is no great drama, and the Abbotts now lap it up (86 per cent), and the Browns wander off (46 per cent). The well-oiled machinery of manufactured denial knows how to push all these buttons.

Yale's audience testing finds the only factor likely to interfere with our psychological gatekeeping is if someone within our ''camp'' - someone we perceive as sharing our world view - says something unexpected. (Hence the reverberations in industry and markets when BHP chief Marius Kloppers last year urged rapid action to put a price on carbon emissions.) In short, evidence from someone you identify with will sway your view; science - facts - won't.

Same as it ever was, maybe. But new media helps us contrive a self-affirming information bubble, an echo chamber in which only our own beliefs are broadcast back to us. Debate in the US on the Yale findings prompted the reflection that our instincts in this regard mean - as one political scientist observed - ''we are not well-adapted to our information age''.

The findings also confirm that for all our modernity, tribal leaders remain critical. Leaders of all persuasions - political, religious, industrial, social - have immense power in influencing responses to the most diabolical of problems.

In the foreword to a new book debunking scepticism of science - Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand - Oreskes argues that fear is the major driver of denial. ''Fear that our current way of life is unsustainable. Fear that addressing the issue will limit economic growth. Fear that if we accept government interventions in the market place … it will lead to a loss of personal freedom. Or maybe just plain old fear of change.''

As economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed, all great leaders share one common characteristic - ''the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time''.

This guest blog was written by Jo Chandler. It was first published in the Melbourne Age on Saturday 28th May 2011 and is re-printed here with the author's permission. Jo Chandler is a senior writer for the Age and the author of Feeling The Heat, which tracks climate field scientists.

 

Middle East Protests & Oil Addiction

Gasoline prices have been rising this winter in the US even though we are well outside the summer driving season with its traditionally highest price level. Among the reasons for today's higher gasoline and crude oil prices is the high demand for heating oil during this extra cold winter, as heating oil in some northern parts of the world is a life-and-death commodity. This can put some pressure on gasoline supplies as refineries might attempt to maximize heating oil output, although refining requires producing a constant balance of light, medium and heavy products, at fairly high utilization of capacity.

Crude oil prices have been moving toward the $100 per barrel mark. The actual price for crude and petroleum products is much higher in some nations due to subsidies (direct and hidden), keeping prices artificially low. But the official price of oil seems on the way to break the $147 / bbl record from July 2008.

Whether the emerging economic powerhouses China and India are the main reason for higher oil prices is academic, when the whole world is affected by developments in price and supply anywhere. The stability of countries such as Egypt and other Arab states has been proven illusory. When the right geopolitical event in the Persian Gulf (perhaps connected to the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni trends now in play) interrupts oil supplies by as much as 10% or more of global demand, the effect on the oil market may well be as if Hubbert's peak oil bell curve became a cliff that we have already jumped off.

A revolution in Saudi Arabia has been my favorite example for years, in terms of illustrating what can spark a return to the 1970s' skyrocketing oil prices, panic buying and hoarding. As grocery shelves will be emptied in a few days when a major oil supply crunch hits, as the late Matt Simmons reminded us, what difference does it make how many billions of barrels of crude are really off Brazil's coast?

Now, when people didn't expect it but should have, we see that Arab peoples have indeed been chafing under dictatorship for decades. Arabs, as in most places, have been biding their time for liberation. Whether certain regions can soon attain it is another matter, when many have far outstripped their besieged ecosystems' carrying capacities. In Middle Eastern countries the water and soil situations are generally poor and getting worse. Food shortage and food riots can flow from ecological deterioration, especially as new weather patterns (or non-patterns) have been increasingly disruptive for agriculture.

This is one argument for activists in Arab lands to remember there is no liberation or equality on a dead planet. Although the Egyptian uprising or revolution is hundreds of miles removed from the Persian Gulf, where 18% of the world's total trade in crude its shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, a common spirit of rebellion has spread in the region. It can take a sharp anti-American or anti-corporate turn and thus affect oil exports to the U.S.

In Saudi Arabia where the monarchy is extremely repressive, demonstrators have dared come out of the woodwork after Tunisians sent their dictator packing. International emphasis on military security in the region has been on huge ships and the Persian Gulf itself, but numerous facilities on land in Arab countries and nearby nations are vulnerable to attack and closure. Also, the Suez Canal sees one million barrels of oil pass through each day from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.

The number of separate but linked oil facilities, extent of damage, or days of closure do not have to conform to some arithmetic model for there to be a massive reaction in the world oil market. The perception of supply shortage, with real instances affecting deliveries, is what drives oil prices on the world market, much as the stock market sometimes has a herd mentality. So far we are talking about what most observers would consider a temporary oil supply disruption resulting in a price spike. However, if the disruption and spike are strong enough, severe effects can shut down much of the global economy and simultaneously stop much local activity.

Petrocollapse - the exacerbated and lasting failure of the world oil market to meet demand, and the paralysis and collapse of most of the economy's infrastructure relying on petroleum - does not need to follow a formula or specific pattern of oil industry breakdown or a certain depletion schedule of oil reserves. We will only be sure when petrocollapse hits. Because peak oil has been attained, we can say that the petrocollapse process has begun and just needs a catalyst to tip the whole economy and trigger famine on a scale as large as some future climate disaster.

I don't believe the "Transition Town" or less-known "Stair-case slow collapse/catabolic" viewpoints take into account adequately the extreme vulnerability of and to the oil market. The Transition Town and Stair-case adherents' views, hopes, dreams and assumptions may actually refer to social change from civilization collapse, when they may think they are referring to the post-peak oil downslope, or vice versa. But this may make no difference as events may accelerate, and collapse and die-off throw theory and wishes out the window.

In my oil analysis career at Lundberg Survey, we accurately predicted the Second Oil Shock based on our finding that in March 1979 there would be a 9% shortfall of gasoline for U.S. demand. It was a time of billions fewer humans and rising oil production (extraction). The world also seemed poised to follow through with stringent conservation and development of alternative fuels. After Jimmy Carter's failure to catch fire with those strategies, energy efficiency actually reversed direction with the SUV phenomenon. But any slight per capita gains, had they been consistently in the right direction for conservation, are offset anyway by growth, while efficiencies paradoxically end up adding to more consumption.

Since 1979, aggregate energy demand has not been tamed in the least, and growth of the global oil infrastructure has dangerously proliferated. Peak oil extraction happened worldwide around 2006, according to the International Energy Agency, although "peak" is not a single year due to the advent of nonconventional crudes and biofuels over time. Peak oil is the main reason we are living in very different "oil times" since 1979: growth of crude supply has turned a corner, starting downward. Compared to past years, even conventional crude (light, sweet, easily extracted) - besides unconventional and expensive, extra-polluting oil replacements - is far more expensive to exploit, with lower net energy obtained for newer fields.

Petrocollapse will not be limited to the U.S., as we shall see when dominoes fall. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. The popular faith in renewable and other alternative fuels to "save us" from dwindling oil reserves or from a loss of Middle Eastern or OPEC oil ought to be shattered prior to the rude and crude awakening from a significant supply crunch. The alternatives are not ready on a large scale, and generally only provide electricity rather than liquid fuels or petrochemicals or other materials. We will only wake up en masse when chaos starts to rapidly unfold - as if it hasn't already.

One is constantly cautioned to never conclude on a sour note. So I will point to the silver lining of collapse as a liberator far more fundamental than regime change. This is because basic relationships in society will be radically altered by extreme lifestyle change brought about by the loss of petroleum and by having to painfully face the recent separation from natural cycles that modern technological societies have achieved.

The U.S. is still thought to be the richest country in the world, but increasingly this fact requires the caveat of a greater and greater gap between the rich and poor. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the US is ranked as the 42nd most unequal country in the world. In contrast, Tunisia is far better off, ranked the 62nd most unequal country. Yemen is ranked 76th most unequal. And Egypt is ranked as the 90th most unequal country! And inequality in the U.S. has soared in the last couple of years.

The New York Times published on 31 January that in Egypt "long-simmering resentments have burst into open class warfare." As poor as the Arab peoples are who are rioting and replacing regimes, and as important as this is for Arabs and all people under oppression, it is even more urgent for US citizens to focus on questioning their own circumstances vis-a-vis petroleum dependence.

Fossil fuels do not make us safer or healthier. Besides getting soft from sitting in our cars, before the TV and under the influence of many pharmaceutical drugs made from fossil fuels, US citizens seem to still want to believe all is more or less well. As to energy, many still believe "they will think of something." But some of us would rather "Imagine" and create now a radically more liberating and equitable world and way of living, as John Lennon did with his song of that name.

This article was written by Jan Lundberg and was first published in Alternet on 1st January 2011. It is reprinted here with Jan's permission. Jan is founder of Culture Change and was an oil industry analyst at Lundberg Survey before joining the grassroots environmental movement in 1988.

Climate Cranks: Time to Fight Back

I didn't realize it at the time, but my daughter was born at a momentous turning point in history. She arrived on a sunny San Francisco afternoon in April 2005. All the nurses kept remarking on how alert this baby was, so her mother and I decided to name her Chiara, which means "clear and bright" in Italian.

I had been covering the climate story for fifteen years by then, and when Chiara was almost six months old, I went to London to interview Sir David King, then the British government's chief science adviser. The interview changed my life. King, who had done as much as anyone except Al Gore to awaken the world to the dangers of climate change, helped me understand that the climate problem had undergone a profound, largely unexpected paradigm shift that carried the gravest of implications for little Chiara and all the world's children. No longer was climate change a preventable future threat; it was now a punishing current reality, one that was guaranteed to get worse, perhaps a lot worse, before it got better.

My interview with King led me to write HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth  which has just been published. My hope was to find a way for my daughter and her peers around the world to cope with all that lies in store for them. After four years of investigation that took me across the United States and around the world, I'm heartened to report that there are many practical steps we all can take—as individuals, as communities, as countries—to protect our societies and our young people from the changes in our climate that are unavoidable over the coming decades.

Still, I am saddened and angry that we find ourselves in this position in the first place. After all, humanity's failure to take action in time against global warming was a conscious decision, a result of countless official debates where the case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions was exhaustively considered and deliberately rejected. Much of the blame for this unfortunate outcome belongs to people I have come to refer to as climate cranks—the corporate lobbyists and right-wing ideologues who for twenty years have done all in their power to keep this country, especially the government, from seriously addressing the problem.

In my journalism I have frequently pointed out the nefarious role the climate cranks have played in our national politics, but I confess I have often wondered how much good this did. I revere the profession of journalism and have long believed that it is best kept separate from activism; each of these callings has its own role to play in the endless struggle to make a better world. But I am not only a journalist. I am also a father. And as a father who during all of my now 5-year-old daughter's life has been watching governments, especially my own, do next to nothing about the climate catastrophe hurtling toward us, I have come to feel obligated to reach beyond the tools of journalism, vital as they are. Like my colleagues Bill McKibben and Mike Tidwell, two journalists and fathers who have also come to embrace climate activism, I now feel compelled to take more direct action. If Chiara and her peers around the world are to have a decent chance of inheriting a livable planet, the status quo cannot stand. We need transformative change, above all in Washington, and we need it quickly.

Which is why I will go to Washington the week of February 15 to confront the climate cranks—in Congress, in the media and in the corporate sector—and try to stop them from further sabotaging our response to the climate crisis. My partners in this effort will include the group Kids vs Global Warming, whose iMatter march aims to put a million kids in the streets on Mother's Day to demand that our leaders address climate change as if our children's future matters; Grist, America's leading environmental news website; The Nation; and other organizations still to be determined.

On the ground in Washington I will be joined by local young people—activist members of Generation Hot. Our plan is to confront the climate cranks face to face, on camera, and call them to account for the dangers they have set in motion. We will highlight the ludicrousness of their antiscientific views, which alone should discredit them from further influence over US climate policies. And we will show how our nation could still change course—for example, if the federal government were to use its vast purchasing power to kick-start a green energy revolution that would create jobs and prosperity across the land. We welcome your help and constructive suggestions for how to achieve these goals and invite you to join us.

But now let me turn to the question of why such direct action has become necessary. From the time global warming emerged on the public agenda in the late 1980s, it was regarded as a grave but distant future threat and, crucially, one that could be neutralized if humanity acted quickly enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I shared these assumptions until my October 2005 interview with David King shattered them. The science adviser told me that in fact global warming had already triggered outright climate change, and had done so a hundred years sooner than even the most concerned scientists had expected. One early manifestation, according to three British scientists writing in Nature, was the record heat wave that brutalized Europe in the summer of 2003. King cited government statistics indicating that the heat had killed 31,000 people, making it "the deadliest disaster in modern European history." Yet this turned out to be an underestimate. An epidemiological study conducted in 2008 for the European Union—reported here for the first time—concluded that the 2003 heat wave had caused at least 71,449 excess deaths, a toll considerably higher than the United States suffered during the Vietnam War.

As a new father, most alarming to me was King's next point: this newly triggered climate change is bound to intensify for the rest of my daughter's life. The inertia of the climate system—that is, the laws of physics and chemistry—guarantee that average global temperatures will keep rising for decades to come, no matter how fervently humanity might embrace solar energy, electric vehicles and other options for reducing emissions. And as temperatures rise, this global warming will unleash still more climate change: deeper droughts, stronger storms, wilder wildfires and so on, as well as faster sea level rise.

"No, no, it's not too late," King hurried to reply when I asked if this paradigm shift means all is lost. But the early arrival of climate change does transform the nature of the problem, as paradigm shifts tend to do. To wit, humanity now faces a double imperative. The traditional goal of climate policy—to reduce global warming—has now become more urgent than ever, for if global temperature rise isn't halted soon, it could gain too much momentum ever to reverse. Yet at the same time, humanity has no choice but "to adapt to the impacts that are in the pipeline" over the coming decades, said King. In short, we have to live through global warming even as we try to reverse it.

All of this makes my daughter an involuntary member of what I call Generation Hot. In fact, every child on earth born after June 23, 1988, belongs to Generation Hot, roughly 2 billion young people in total. I choose that date because it was the day humanity was put on notice that human activities were unwittingly raising temperatures on this planet. The warning was in NASA scientist James Hansen's testimony to the Senate, boosted by the decision of the New York Times to publish the story on the front page, thus making "global warming" a common phrase in newsrooms, government offices and households the world over. But Hansen's and countless subsequent warnings have gone unheeded, largely because of stiff resistance from the carbon lobby, to borrow author Jeremy Leggett's term—the energy and auto companies that profit from carbon dioxide emissions, the politicians and propagandists these companies sponsor and the right-wing ideologues who share their antigovernment sympathies.

My daughter and the rest of Generation Hot are fated to pay the price for this foot-dragging. One of the most unpleasant facts about climate change is that, once triggered, it cannot be turned off anytime soon. Even if humanity somehow stopped emitting carbon dioxide overnight, King told me, "temperatures will keep rising and all the impacts will keep changing for about twenty-five years." Since it is likely to take us at least a quarter-century to leave fossil fuels behind, the reality is that we're locked in to at least fifty more years of rising temperatures and the harsher climate impacts they bring. Thus the young people of Generation Hot are condemned to spend the rest of their lives coping with a climate that will be hotter and more volatile than ever before in our civilization's history.

You want specifics? By the time she is my age, Chiara may well not have enough water to drink here in California, because much of the Sierra Nevada snowpack will have melted. Children in today's Washington, DC, are likely to witness in the course of their lifetimes sea level rise combine with stronger storm surges to regularly ring the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials with moats and submerge half of the National Mall. By 2050 the record heat that made the summer of 2010 so wicked will become the new normal in New York City and much of the East Coast. Overseas, the impacts will be punishing as well, especially for the poor. In Bangladesh, sea level rise is already making the soil and water in southern coastal regions too salty to produce decent yields of rice, the staple crop for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, the inexorability of sea level rise ensures that many such low-lying areas worldwide will have to be evacuated, unleashing vast streams of climate change refugees. Military experts warn that this will pose not only humanitarian challenges but recurring threats to peace if the refugees attempt to cross national borders.

Precisely how much blame the carbon lobby and climate cranks deserve for the fate of Generation Hot cannot yet be scientifically determined. In theory, it's possible that global warming would have prematurely given rise to outright climate change even if the United States and other countries had scaled back their emissions beginning in the late 1980s. After all, it is the historic accumulation of greenhouse gases, not the annual emissions, that drives global warming. Scientists are still debating exactly when global warming sparked climate change, as well as the related question of how much responsibility global warming bears for any particular climate impact. (In their Nature study of the 2003 heat wave, for example, the three British scientists estimated that global warming was responsible for about 75 percent of the excessive heat Europe experienced that summer.)

But these are scientific nuances. As a practical matter, there is no denying that the large amount of greenhouse gases emitted since June 23, 1988—about 40 percent of humanity's total emissions since the Industrial Revolution—made global warming worse. That, in turn, increased the likelihood of unleashing climate change. Viewed in this context, the obstructionism of the carbon lobby and climate cranks played a decisive role.

Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century, the climate cranks blocked our government from taking serious action against emissions. By doing so, they also stalled international action (since other countries were understandably reluctant to reduce their emissions when the world's biggest polluter was unwilling to do so). Thus limits on global warming were avoided at the very time they would have mattered most. "Had some individual countries, especially the US, begun to act in the early to mid-1990s, we might have [avoided dangerous climate change]," Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton who ranks among the world's most eminent climate scientists, told me. "But we didn't, and now the impacts are here."

"This was a crime," Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Germany's former chief government adviser on climate told me. But the wrong people are being punished. My daughter and the rest of Generation Hot have been given a life sentence for a crime they didn't commit. Meanwhile, the perpetrators are reaping record profits, enjoying prominent media coverage (and not only on Fox) and even gaining control of the House of Representatives, where they plan to launch an inquisition against climate scientists who don't share their loony ideas.

It is outrageous that these climate cranks have the upper hand in Washington. The plain truth is that they have no more scientific credibility than the Flat Earth Society, and that should discredit them from exercising any influence over our climate policy, much less holding it hostage to their ideological and economic agendas. But someone has to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Don't rely on our media to rise to the occasion. The protocol of mainstream news coverage leads Washington journalists to refer to these people as climate skeptics. They're not skeptics. They're cranks. True skepticism is invaluable to the scientific method, but an honest skeptic can be persuaded by facts, if they are sound. The cranks are impervious to facts, at least facts that contradict their wacky worldview. When virtually every national science academy in the developed world, including our own, and every major scientific organization (e.g., the American Geophysical Union, the American Physics Society) has affirmed that climate change is real and extremely dangerous, only a crank continues to insist that it's all a left-wing plot.

One crank recently took me to task for supposedly having no respect for science. In my reply, I assured him I respected science as much as anyone who lives in the modern world, where we take for granted air travel, Wi-Fi Internet, modern medicine and a host of other blessings. Then I asked, "If you respect science so much, how do you explain the fact that virtually every major scientific body on earth disagrees with you about climate science? Are they all in on the conspiracy?" He never replied, but of course that is the logical implication of his camp's insistence that they do too have science on their side. The scientists who say otherwise are all part of a conspiracy to—well, take your pick: to keep the research dollars flowing, to expand government control of the economy, to dismantle modern society and return us to hunter-gatherer primitivism. As I said, these are the ravings of cranks.

You can hear much the same from Congressional Republicans, starting with Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the vice chair of the House Science Committee, who will be leading the charge to debunk mainstream climate science. "I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything human beings do," Sensenbrenner has opined, repeating a talking point favored by many climate cranks but definitively refuted by many peer-reviewed scientific studies. For his part, the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is so scientifically illiterate that he apparently thinks the environmental complaint about carbon dioxide is that it's a carcinogen. Uh, no, Mr. Speaker, that's actually the rap against those cigarettes you like smoking (and whose manufacturers you've defended all these years).

Newly emboldened by the midterm elections, the Republicans are gearing up to put environmentalists and climate scientists on the defensive and block progress against global warming for the rest of Obama's presidency. It's time to turn the tables on them. The first step is to connect the cranks to the terrible consequences they have set in motion, and thereby discredit them from further influence over the nation's climate policies.

How? Our initiative, Confront the Climate Cranks, will do just that: confront the cranks on camera and accompanied by some of the children they have put in danger. We will video all of our confrontations and then quickly make them available to the public—by posting them on YouTube and sharing them with mainstream and alternative media and the social networks of our partner organizations. (In the run-up to these confrontations, we will invite the participation of the members or readers of The Nation, Grist, Kids vs Global Warming and the other partnering organizations, polling them on which cranks to target, what questions to ask and so on. Thus we hope to build momentum before arriving in Washington, as well as generate continuing attention and activism after the confrontations.)

By no means is our initiative alone sufficient to turn the tide in the climate fight, but we believe it can make a valuable contribution, especially if others lend a hand. By naming and shaming the climate cranks, we hope to shift the political terrain of the climate fight. By highlighting the specific climate impacts that have already begun and will intensify in the coming years, we aim to shift the debate away from abstract ideology toward the actual consequences the cranks have wrought for Generation Hot. And by conveying our message through children and parents, we can reach the ordinary Americans whose support is essential to overcoming the power of money and insider status in Washington. We hope you'll join us.

This blog was written by Mark Hertsgaard, the environment correspondent for The Nation. Mark is the author of six books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future." This article is adapted from Mark's latest book HOT: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, published in January by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. You can get involved in Mark's work by visiting the Generation Hot Facebook page)

 

Eradicating Ecocide

Until we have a law to prosecute those who destroy the planet, corporations will never be called to account for their crimes

Sophie Scholl, a Munich University student, was executed for revealing the truth about the activities of the Nazi authorities. This week 20 brave Ratcliffe whistleblowers have been sentenced at Nottingham crown court for plotting to draw attention to the truth of the activities of another German entity. This time, replace the tyranny of the Nazis with the tyranny of the energy giant E.ON.

Scholl and 20 others stood up and took direct non-violent action. Their crime was the dissemination of leaflets highlighting and decrying the tyranny of the Nazi dictatorship. It was a decision to undertake something unlawful – an act that they believed was a necessity – to halt a greater but unnamed crime, a crime that cost many lives. That crime did not, at the time, have a name. But it soon did: genocide.

The Ratcliffe 20 did the same in April 2009. They too were prepared to stand up and take action. Their crime was planning to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Sour, a coal-powered station that is one of Britain's largest greenhouse gas emitters. The state was failing to prevent a greater injury from taking place; the loss of life. This time it is not only human life, but all life.

Like Scholl and her fellow activists, the Ratcliffe 20 were motivated to take non-violent direct action. They, along with 124 others, decided to undertake something unlawful: conspiring to close down the offending emitter. It was an act that they believed was a necessity; to halt a greater but unnamed crime, a crime that is already costing many lives.

Their defence was that they were acting to prevent a greater crime, of death and serious injury caused by climate change. We do not currently have a legal crime in place that fits this description but there is one fast looming on the horizon and that crime is ecocide.

Currently there is no law to prosecute those who are destroying the planet. Instead, climate campaigners do not have the support of the judiciary in preventing the corporate ecocide that is daily occurring under our very noses. Ecocide is permitted (as genocide was in Nazi Germany) by the government and, by dint of the global reach of modern-day transnational business, every government in the world. Corporate ecocide has now reached a point where we stand on the brink of collapse of our ecosystems, triggering the death of many millions in the face of human-aggravated cataclysmic tragedies.

Over the passage of time, tyranny revisits. Tyranny is the cruel, unacceptable, or arbitrary use of power that is oblivious to consequence. While the use of coal stations may not be deemed an intentional cruelty, it is certainly an unacceptable use of corporate power. Our governments collude by encouraging excess emissions, contrary to their UN commitment to stabilise "greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

Sixty years ago the tyranny was Nazism. Today it is pursuit of profit without moral compass or responsibility. Despite the planned Ratcliffe protests, it is one that the majority of humanity accepts regardless of the known consequences. We look the other way from the daily reports of destruction of our world by those who are in a position of superior responsibility; the master controllers of our fates are those who determine how we live our lives. It is the heads of the top corporations who gamble with the fate of our planet; those who produce and supply our energy are the most culpable of all.

The failure rests with our governments who are unwilling to intervene to make the destruction of our world a crime. Our police are disempowered and our justice system is unable to protect our greater interests when faced with the superior silent right of corporations to cause injury to persons and planet. Those who stand up and speak out are thereby treated as criminals.

Prior to the Ratcliffe trial, the judge ruled: "the defendants must have the opportunity of putting that contention (that the emissions from the power station do pose an immediate threat) before the jury, no doubt backed by expert evidence." Expert evidence was heard, from James Hansen, the former head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute, on the immediacy of the threat to life caused by escalation of emissions, to MPs who confirmed government inertia. All of which the jury failed to accept. What will it take for that dense sea fog to dissipate and for the truth to be revealed?

Unlike the Ratcliffe 20, Scholl and her co-conspirators were denied the right to defend themselves in their trial. They too were convicted for resorting to unlawful acts, which they believed to be necessary to expose the truth. At the very end of her trial, she spoke out. It is just matter of time, she said, before the true destroyers are put in the dock. The very same can be said today.

This article was written by Polly Higgins and published in The Guardian on Monday 5^th January 2011. Polly Higgins is a barrister, international environmental lawyer and the author of Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet, published by Shepherd-Walwyn. Further information on Polly’s work is available from Polly’s websites: http://www.facebook.com/ecocide and http://www.thisisecocide.com