Order your own copy now of “A Planet to Win”

From the Reviews of Eric Klinenberg, New York Review of Books, March 26, 2020

The Great Green Hope, Review of Books on the Green New Deal

A Planet to Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal is a collective endeavor, written by four young intellectuals (a journalist, a sociologist, and two political scientists) who are part of the climate movement they’re studying, and the tone of this short book is urgent and pragmatic.

It’s also refreshingly optimistic and future-oriented, filled with specific ideas for how to decarbonize the energy system, build affordable housing and public transportation, expand parks and public recreation facilities, and renegotiate global trade regimes so that human rights and public health are properly valued.

“Fighting for a new world starts with imagining it viscerally,” the authors write. Their portrait of a planet transformed by a GND is designed to spark that effort.

Aronoff, Battistoni, Cohen, and Riofrancos are motivated by the troublesome fact that we have very little time — roughly the ten years spanning the 2020s — to decarbonize the economy, lest we pump so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere that catastrophic warming becomes irreversible.

Following Bill McKibben, they note that the only way to do this is by burying fossil fuels, including those that are already primed for distribution. Taxing carbon to increase its price may help a little, but “a carbon price low enough to be politically viable won’t be high enough to transform global energy markets.”

What do we need in order to transform the energy system?

First, the authors say, we need to pressure market analysts to factor the runaway costs of climate collapse into their valuations of fossil fuel companies. (This is already beginning to happen, thanks to the warnings of climate scientists and the fossil fuel divestment movement.)

Second, we need the government to buy up majority shares of (devalued) energy company shares and quickly cut gas, oil, and coal production. (This seems far-fetched, given American political culture.)

Third, we need a managed transition to renewable energy, so that current workers in the industry, and the communities that depend on them, gain security instead of losing ground.

All of this, they concede, conflicts with the current direction of US energy policy. But they believe most Americans are eager for a radical break from our dirty sources of power, provided that the transition does not compromise reliable service or significantly increase prices.

“We need to directly take on the fossil fuel companies and private utilities whose business models rest on making the planet uninhabitable,” they write. “We can’t avoid a confrontation.”

Industrial policy, not energy policy, is the key to making a politically appealing GND, and the most exciting parts of A Planet to Win describe what we can build in the name of sustainability, not what we need to bury. The authors worry about the fate of those who labor in the coal, oil, and gas sectors, and about the potent Republican political strategy of pitting workers against environmentalists.

Their response is a rousing call for public works projects that would employ millions of people while also remaking more sustainable systems for electricity and transit. They propose building “10 million beautiful, public, no-carbon homes over the next 10 years, in cities, suburbs, reservations, and towns, in the most transit-rich and walkable areas.” Ambitious, yes. Realistic? Only if progressive states like California and New York change their retrograde zoning policies and eliminate the “Not in My Backyard” building restrictions that limit density in desirable areas.

During the New Deal, the authors recall, “workers hired under the Works Progress Administration constructed 651,000 miles of highway and 124,000 bridges…. They built 125,000 public buildings, including 41,300 schools, and 469 airports. They built 8,000 parks, and 18,000 playgrounds and athletic fields.” Most Americans still rely on these aging resources.

Like Klein and Purdy, the authors of A Planet to Win champion a guaranteed jobs program. They also advocate restoring workers’ right to unionize. They see enormous needs for work in construction, maintenance, education, recreation, health care, child care, and ecological care. “The economic question is whether this work can be done profitably,” they proclaim. “Much of it, we submit, cannot.” As they see it, though, the current mode of production, based on extraction, exclusion, and exploitation, is even more ruinous.

“For better and for worse,” they argue, “our choice now is between eco-socialism or eco-apartheid.” If we only have one decade to fix things, it’s time to chart a course. “We need to pose a simple question,” they conclude. “Which side are you on?”

These are expensive proposals, and it’s not clear how much support they will get in a post-pandemic political climate. But already, social policies in all domains are up for grabs, and big investments in long-term public health and ecological sustainability may soon become very popular.

Now, at least, we can more easily see the cost of inaction. We are fighting to survive one preventable emergency (COVID-19), and no matter what happens, the climate crisis awaits.

—March 26, 2020

Catastrophic conditions will prevail on Earth

Humanity has 100 years to save itself from doom, says Stephen Hawking

From an Article by Mike Wehner, BGR Blog, New York Post, May 5, 2017

While much of humanity concerns itself with saving the planet from the ravages mankind has inflicted upon it, one of the world’s brightest minds is already warning that we should actually be spending our time planning our ultimate escape. Stephen Hawking — the cosmologist, author, and physicist who holds more awards and honorary titles than should even be allowed — says that we have about 100 years until Earth is a big old pile of gross, and that if we don’t focus our efforts on colonizing other planets, namely Mars, humanity faces complete and total extinction.

Hawking’s warning that humans should start packing their bags comes as a result of the scientist’s belief that endless peril lies ahead thanks to overpopulation, climate change as a result of pollution, and even the threat of mankind building an AI or even a manmade virus capable of destroying us outright. Hawking has said before that mankind is done for, but his latest prediction is his most dire prediction yet.

In a new BBC documentary entitled “Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth,” the 75-year-old Hawking will attempt to prove that his theory isn’t as crazy as it seems. “Professor Stephen Hawking thinks the human species will have to populate a new planet within 100 years if it is to survive,” the BBC says. “With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious.” The documentary will be split into two 60-minute programs and will air on BBC Two before presumably finding its way to American television.

Note:  If we destroy planet Earth in the coming 100 years, there is no point of populating another planet because mankind would mess it over just as fast, if not faster.  DGN

• >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

How long do we have left on Earth?

Comments by Stephen Baxter, British Interplanetary Society, May 9, 2017

We have 100 years to move beyond the Earth or face extinction according to renowned physicist, Professor Stephen Hawking. He thinks humanity needs to become a multi-planetary species within the next century, revising his hopes for our species down from an earlier warning which gave us 1000 years. So why does he feel our time is running out even quicker?

>>> Stephen Baxter, the British science fiction author, is a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. Amongst his many books is the 2009 novel, Ark, about a desperate evacuation from an Earth in the grip of an environmental catastrophe. What does he make of Professor Hawking’s warnings? Hear the BBC Audio Tape here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052d6g1

Official 2015 NASA Photo of EARTH

President Obama Releases First Blue Marble Earth Photo in 43 Years

From an Article by Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch.com, July 21, 2015

NASA’s new Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite has released a stunning, new Blue Marble photo for the first time in four decades, prompting President Obama to tweet a gentle reminder “that we need to protect the only planet we have.”

The image above was taken on July 6 literally one million miles away and is the first Blue Marble photo of our planet since 1972, when the now-iconic photo of our glistening world was snapped by the American crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft.

“Turns out,” as NASA astronaut Scott Kelly wrote on the White House’s Medium page, “It’s quite tricky to take a good photo of the entire Earth.” Other images you’ve seen of Earth are composites assembled from multiple different shots.

EcoWatch readers know that it’s more important than ever to preserve our environment from the dire effects of climate change, and President Obama has spoken out on this issue many times before.

At his Earth Day speech delivered at the Everglades National Park this past April, the commander-in-chief emphasized this message clearly: “This is a problem now. It has serious implications for the way we live right now. Stronger storms. Deeper droughts. Longer wildfire seasons. The world’s top climate scientists are warning that a changing climate already affects the air that our children are breathing.”

At the end of his speech, Obama concluded that we must all be planetary stewards to ensure the safety of future generations:

“We are blessed with the most beautiful God-given landscape in the world. It’s an incredible bounty that’s been given to us. But we’ve got to be good stewards for it. We have to take care of it. We only get to enjoy things like our amazing national parks because great Americans like Teddy Roosevelt and Marjory Douglas and a whole bunch of ordinary folks whose name aren’t in the history books, they fought to protect our national inheritance.

And now it’s our turn to ensure that this remains the birthright of all Americans for generations to come. So many people here are active in your communities, doing what’s needed. The young people who are here, the next generation, they’re way ahead of us in understanding how important this is. Let’s make sure we don’t disappoint them. Let’s stand up and do what’s right before it’s too late.”

>>>>> See the following recent articles:

7 Climate Records Broken in 2014 Indicates Earth Is ‘Gravely Ill’

Exxon Exposed for Spending Millions on Climate Change Denial

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security

Review by S. Tom Bond, Ph.D., Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV, August 20, 2013

FrackCheckWV has referred its readers to the recent issue of Science which has over 50 pages of articles on the changes in natural systems in changing climates.  Being both a farmer and someone who enjoys a good meal encourages me to think about what future possibilities would be.  Food security, the ability of individuals to secure enough of the right kinds of food to sustain them, is also a very important political consideration.  This article is a condensation of “Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security, appearing on page 508 of the August 2, 2013 issue of Science.

Food security has four factors.  The first is production of sufficient quantities of the right kinds of food.  Each human needs not only energy, but protein and other nutrients.  The second is access.  There must be transportation and distribution to reach the individual, and in some cases this doesn’t exist.  In urban settings it has to be paid for, so the individual must have sufficient  steady income. Third, there must be adequate utilization – facilities to prepare the food, including cooking and clean water for sanitation that are needed so physiological needs can be met.  The fourth is stability of supply, so that an individual can have adequate food at all times. 

Production, access, facilities to prepare and year-round supply.  All are needed by every individual if they are to survive.

It is estimated that  the undernourished in terms of calories has been reduced from 980 million to 850 million in the two decades from 1992 to 2010-12, but judging from under-weight, stunted-growth and health surveys, 2 billion people still suffer from micro-nutrients today.  Moreever, this seems to have been getting worse since 2007 due to pressures from food prices, extreme climate events and forced changes in diet.

Such pressures ae expected to build in the future.  Demand for food is expected to increase by 50% by 2030, as the global population increases.  Climate change could dramatically influence the progress toward reduction of hunger.

Present studies usually think in terms of production only, ignoring the other factors  mentioned above.  Even with sufficient calories, physical and mental factors can be influenced by nutrients, ability to prepare, and daily availability.  Remember the phrase “give us this day our daily bread?” It is very serious business for someone on the edge of starvation.  Data about food availability taken from aggregate reckoning is not adequate to completely understanding of the situation.   Surprisingly, the first analysis even from this limited perspective was not published until 1994.

This study was by Rozenzweig, Parry and others. It showed there is great variation in yields, highest yields the developed North of Europe and America, decreasing across Africa and South America.  Further work has shown that crops are more negatively affected by stress in the tropics, and so coincides with countries that presently have high burden of hunger.  It seems likely that food effects of climate change will be more severe in areas which already have a problem.

Food access is better understood.  For individuals it is largely a mater of income and rights.  Findings in this area show clear linkages between economic development and resilience to climate change.   In other words, if you have to buy food, you are better able to get it when you have more income.  On the other hand, if one’s assets are drawn down, if one must change jobs,  if migrating, etc., one is more vulnerable. 

If global warming changes location of production of biomass, which includes not only food, but also fiber and timber, trade in these commodities will change and consequently prices.  The resources of production , such as land and water access, will increase in value.  Such structural problems will lead to more appropriation of the assets of the poor, such as “land grabs” by external and foreign interests.  (Such is going on now at the fringes of tropical forests, in Africa, Madagascar  and Southeast Asia by Middle East oil potentates, and European, American and Chinese investors.  – Author’s note).

Utilization will be effected by less water in some areas, droughts and floods.  Higher temperatures will increase water-born disease, particularly diarrheal disease, and uptake of microneutrients may decrease.  Pesticides may come into even greater use due to increased abundance of pests.

Global urbanization results in changes in lifestyle, including higher caloric intake, poorer quality diet and relatively low physical activity, leading to obesity and chronic disease, even among the poor.  How this will link with effects of climate change is not known.

However it is clear that small shocks in supply or demand will have great effect on prices, and thus on food supply of the poor. Aggressive bioenergy projects, when applied by the political economy, can have great effect on food supplies.   Ethanol for fuel in the U. S. caused food riots in other countries, because the global price went up.

Finally, “This complex system of risks can assume a variety of of patterns that could potentially collide in catastrophic combinations.”  This author’s conclusion is that food supply can be handled as large scale management concern, or simply left to see who can make the most money from it, the latter being the most likely outcome at this point.