Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century
"The catastrophic impacts of climate change are not only going to take place in the distant future. They are taking place now."
--Vandana Shiva, Soil not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis
Climate Stabilization Requires a Cultural and Political Revolution
The climate, energy, and political catastrophe we are facing is mind-boggling and frightening. Yet there is still time to save ourselves, to move beyond psychological denial, despair, or false optimism. There is still hope if we are willing to confront the hydra-headed monsters that block our path, and move ahead with a decisive plan of action. The inspirational message we need to deliver is that we're not just talking about drastically reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, but rebuilding society, creating in effect a New Woman and a New Man for the 21st Century. What we are witnessing are the early stages of a mass grassroots consciousness-raising and taking back of power from out-of-control corporations, banks, corporate-controlled media, and politicians. This cultural and political revolution will empower us to to carry out a deep and profound retrofitting of industry, government, education, health care, housing, neighborhoods, transportation, food and farming systems, as well as our diets and lifestyles.
The scale of human and physical resources needed to turn our current suicide economy into a green economy is daunting, but absolutely necessary and achievable. The only viable roadmap for survival-an 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050-means we must force a drastic reduction in military spending (current wars and military spending are costing us almost one trillion dollars a year). We must tax the rich and the greenhouse gas polluters, and bring our out-of-control politicians, banks, Federal Reserve System, and corporations to heel.
The good news, as Van Jones and others have pointed out, is that this 21st Century green economy will not only stabilize the climate, but enable us to retrain and reemploy the U.S. workforce, including low-income youth and 16-25 million unemployed workers, as building retrofitters, solar and wind installers, recyclers, organic gardeners, farmers, nutritionists, holistic health care providers, and other green economy workers.
Beyond Copenhagen: Civilization at the Crossroads
The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane) reduction, and little or no acknowledgement of the major role that industrial (non-organic) food and farming practices play in global warming. Unfortunately the statements and behavior of Copenhagen delegates, and the enormous divisions between the Global South and the industrialized nations, make it clear that galvanizing a legally binding international agreement to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution will be a protracted and difficult struggle.
China and the United States are equally and jointly responsible for more than 40% of the current global climate destabilizing GHGs. China's emissions arise from 20% of the world's population. U.S. emissions come from 5%. Although China, India, Mexico, Brazil and other developing nations are responsible for a growing discharge of GHGs, most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and oceans today are directly attributable to the United States and Europe's industrial and transportation emissions since the early 1900s.
From an ethical, legal, and survival perspective, North America, E.U. and Japan must lead the way. To avoid a disastrous rise in global temperature (a literal climate holocaust), the wealthy, highly industrialized nations must acknowledge the seriousness of the crisis, cut their emissions, and stop playing blame and denial games with China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and other developing nations. Major cuts by the developed nations need to start now, and they need to be deep, not 7% as President Obama proposed in Copenhagen, nor the 20% that the E.U. offered.
The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos, crop failures, endless wars, melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else survival for the present and future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario, billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation.
If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no" Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."
During the Bush years, scientific warnings and public demonstrations against global warming were ignored or trivialized, even though many of our protests were large and well organized. Now, in theory, we finally have a Congressional majority and a President who claim to be willing to listen and take action to stop global warming. But in order to get their attention, and move from small change to major change, we are going to have to turn up the volume. We have to stop thinking that things are going to get better because Obama is right-minded. Things are going to get better if and when we force Obama and our out-of-control politicians and corporations to bend to the people's will.
Beyond Copenhagen: Making Polluters Pay
Instead of the weak "cap and trade" bill supported by Wall Street speculators, and passed by the House, we need a real tax on GHG pollution. Yes, we can and must directly rebate working class and poor people for increased energy costs, but hundreds of billions of dollars in GHG and corporate taxes annually must be earmarked over the next decade for green infrastructure development, including a new electric grid, a mass transition to organic agriculture, mass transit upgrades, deep retrofitting of the nation's five million commercial and 83 million residential buildings, and a crash program of alternative energy research and development.
We must continue to expose the worst greenhouse gas polluters, such as utilities companies, petrochemical corporations, car manufacturers, coal and mining companies, the construction industry, and corporate agribusiness, and demand that they begin to retool their industries immediately. We must move beyond polite protest and scattered dissent and dramatically take our message to the streets and the corporate suites, Congress, state legislatures, and our local governments.
The Deadly Greenhouse Footprint of American Consumers
We all know in general that cars, trucks, coal and power plants, household heating and cooling, and manufacturing industries spew a majority of the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and the oceans. But did you know that U.S. household use of fossil fuels (housing, transportation, and food) accounts for 67% of total energy consumption and 67% of GHG's emitted? 1
Heating, lighting, and cooling our poorly insulated and designed 113 million homes and apartments and running our electrical and gas appliances consumes 26.6% of total U.S. fossil fuels.
Cruising in our gas guzzling (averaging 22 miles per gallon) and underutilized cars (average 1.4 passengers per journey) burns up another 23.4% of energy.
Eating highly processed and packaged foods and animal products, produced on chemical and energy-intensive factory-style farms, transported over long distances, and throwing our waste foods into the garbage (rather than composting them) eats up another 17.3% of the nation's energy.
The average U.S. citizen generates 19.6 tons of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases every year, more than twice as much as the European Union and Japan (9.3 tons per capita), and 7.3 times as much as the developing world (2.7 tons per capita).
The Tab for Saving the U.S. from Climate Chaos: $700 Billion a Year
The estimated costs over the next 40-50 years to replace coal and natural gas with solar and wind in electricity generation, at current levels of use, is $15 trillion (which is about the equivalent of U.S. GNP for one year). 2
We must reduce fossil fuel use by 80-90% in the nation's five million commercial and 83 million residential buildings (which currently use up 40% or 40 quadrillion BTUs of our total energy), including reducing building size, changing lighting and windows, making wall, ceilings and floors as thick and as airtight as possible (R-50 or R-60), and placing furnaces and ductwork inside the retrofitted space. The estimated costs for this in future decades will amount to another $10-15 trillion This figure is based upon deep retrofitting costs of $50,000 per residential unit, and $600,000-$2,000,000 per commercial building, with two million new more compact units per year replacing old housing and business stock and meeting new 90% fossil fuel reduction standards.
Converting from our current energy and chemical/GMO-intensive food and farming system (which currently accounts for 35% of our greenhouse gases and $800 billion in diet-related health care costs annually) to one which is organic, relocalized, energy-efficient, and carbon sequestering, will cost at least another $100 billion per year, or $5 trillion over 50 years.
Rebuilding our mass transit systems and reorganizing personal transportation (5-15 people in high-mileage "smart jitneys" and electric cars and vans instead of 1.4 passengers in gas guzzlers, along with a massive increase in bicycle use) will cost us at least another $100 billion a year, or $5 trillion over 50 years.
In other words we need to start redirecting $700 billion a year in federal expenditures away from war and corporate welfare, offer training and jobs in a giant green jobs program (similar to the Works Project Administration program of the New Deal era in the 1930s), and build a new green, full-employment economy. Where are we going to get this money? Not by raising taxes on working people and the poor, but by taxing the rich and the greenhouse gas polluting corporations, and guaranteeing loans from a new citizen-controlled Federal Reserve and banking system.
A major part of this transition to an organic and low-carbon economy will require innovative public and private financing for home, transportation, food and farming retrofitting along the lines of the recent PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program in California. 3 Under this "Slow Money" regime, homeowners, renters, businesses, and farmers can immediately start to reduce their energy bills and carbon footprints and get their homes, businesses, and farms retrofitted for no money down, with low-interest costs being added to their mortgages and tax bills over an extended 30-40 year period.
Can we afford $700 billion per year? Obviously we can, although shortsighted, unsustainable corporate profits will no doubt suffer. Keep in mind that the Pentagon budget, not including the wars for oil and strategic resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, will cost us over $700 billion dollars this year. And don't forget that Obama and his advisors recently handed over approximately $12 trillion in subsidies and grants to the Wall Street criminals and pathological kleptomaniacs who rule our out-of-control financial system. Clearly, what we are proposing is chump-change compared to our recent corporate giveaways.
Honest businesses, homeowners, consumers, farmers and industries that reduce their carbon footprint and help develop the green economy can and should receive substantial tax credits. Speculators, mercenaries, toxic polluters, and Masters of War can go to financial hell, where they belong.
The Hidden Greenhouse Gas Damage of Food Inc.
Although transportation, industry, and energy producers are significant polluters, few people understand that the worst U.S. greenhouse gas emitter is "Food Incorporated," industrial food and farming. Industrial farming accounts for at least 35% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA's ridiculously low estimates range from 7% to 12%, while some climate scientists feel the figure could be as high as 50% or more). Industrial agriculture, biofuels, and cattle grazing-including whacking down the last remaining tropical rainforests in Latin America and Asia for animal feed and biofuels-are also the main driving forces in global deforestation and wetlands destruction, which generate an additional 20% of all climate destabilizing GHGs. In other words the direct and indirect impacts of industrial agriculture and the food industry are the major cause of global warming.
Currently conventional (energy and chemical-intensive non-organic) farms emit at least 25% of the carbon dioxide (mostly from tractors, trucks, combines, transportation, cooling, freezing, and heating), 40% of the methane (mostly from animal gas, and manure ponds), and 96% of nitrous oxide (mostly from synthetic fertilizer manufacture and use, the millions of tons of animal manure from cattle herds, pig and poultry flocks, and millions of tons of sewage sludge spread on farms). Per ton, methane is 21 times more damaging, and nitrous oxide 310 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, when measured over a one hundred year period. Damage is even worse if you look at the impact on global warming over the next crucial 20-year period. Many climate scientists now admit that they have previously drastically underestimated the dangers of the non-CO2 GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, which are responsible for at least 20% of global warming. 4
A major portion of the CO2e (all GHGs not just CO2) emitted by industrial farming comes from long distance transportation, heating, freezing, and processing. So, the more you cook from scratch, buy locally, and eat raw vegetables and fruits, the less CO2e you produce. The bottom line is that we as a society are what we eat. In the oncoming era of climate chaos and peak oil, we must make the transition to energy efficient, climate adaptable, local and regional based organic farms, urban gardens, and primarily vegetarian diets, or we will likely not survive.
Almost all U.S. food and farm-derived methane comes from factory farms, huge herds of confined cows, hogs, poultry operations, as well as rotting food waste thrown into land-fills instead of being separated out of the solid waste stream and properly composted. To drastically reduce methane releases we need an immediate ban on factory farms, dairies, and feedlots. We also need mandatory separation and recycling of food wastes and green garbage at the municipal level, so that that we can produce large quantities of high quality organic compost to replace the billions of pounds of chemical fertilizer and sewage sludge which are releasing GHGs, destroying soil fertility, polluting our waters, and undermining public health.
Nearly all nitrous oxide pollution comes from dumping billions of pounds of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and sewage sludge on farmland (chemical fertilizers and sludge are banned on organic farms and ranches), mainly to grow animal feed. Since about 80% of U.S. agriculture is devoted to producing meat, dairy, and animal feed, reducing agriculture GHGs means eliminating the overproduction and over-consumption of meat and animal products.
Organic Farming and Ranching Can Drastically Reduce GHG Emissions
The currently catastrophic, but largely unrecognized, GHG damage from chemical farms and industrial food production and distribution must be reversed. This will involve wholesale changes in farming practices, government subsidies, food processing and handling. It will require the conversion of a million chemical farms and ranches to organic production. It will require the establishment of millions of urban backyard and community gardens.
If consumer pressure and grassroots mobilization geared toward changing public policies cannot force U.S. factory farmers to change the way they farm, process, and ship their products it will be almost impossible to deal with catastrophic U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 5 On a very hopeful note, however, if farmers do change, and make the transition to organic farming, farm and ranch land can become a significant sink or sequester pool for greenhouse gasses, literally sucking excess greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and the ozone layer and sequestering them safely in the soil, where they belong.
Our planet has five pools or repositories where greenhouse gases are absorbed and stored: the oceans, the atmosphere, the soils, the forests, and hydrocarbon deposits. 6 Because U.S farm and forest soils are so degraded from chemical-intensive, mono-crop farming practices and over-logging they are only able to absorb and store half (or less) of the carbon gases than they would be capable of if they were organically managed. As a result of this reckless mismanagement, the atmosphere and the oceans are absorbing the bulk of the greenhouse gases that normally would be absorbed by farmland and forests. This has led to a catastrophic excess of GHGs in both the oceans and the atmosphere. This excess has caused changes in climate and extreme fluctuations in weather; including droughts and torrential flooding. It also causes oceanic acidification, oceanic dead zones, and dramatic declines in fish and crustacean populations.
Unfortunately, when they evaluate agricultural pollutants, pro-agribusiness government bureaucrats in the EPA and USDA do not include many of the greenhouse gas emissions. They do not take into account the transportation, cooling, freezing, and heating of farm products as agricultural GHG emissions, even though our food travels an average of 1500 miles to our tables and is routinely frozen and cooled to ensure its deliverability. They don't count the CO2 and "black carbon" particle emissions from trucks, tractors, combines and other equipment used on farms. They don't count the emissions from fertilizer manufacture or use, wasteful packing, sewage sludge spread on farm and range land, or the methane emitted from factory farms and the billions of tons of rotting, non-composted food in our landfills and garbage dumps. Instead, they lump and thereby conceal all these farm and food related GHG emissions under the categories of industrial manufacture, transportation, or electrical use. As a result, the public spotlight never shines on mounting agricultural, food, garbage, and sludge pollution.
Because government officials deliberately fail to evaluate the real farm and food-derived greenhouse gas emissions, they are free to act as if the emissions coming from agriculture are not significant compared to the U.S. total, even though they represent more than one-third of the total pollutants. Consequently, most lawmakers and the public don't realize how urgent it is to regulate and drastically curtail factory farm and Food Inc.'s emissions.
Chemical Fertilizer and Sewage Sludge: Silent Killers
The most damaging greenhouse gas poisons used by farmers and ranchers are synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and municipal/industrial sewage sludge. Obviously pesticide manufacture and use are also serious problems and generate their own large share of greenhouse gases during manufacture and use (more than 25 billion pounds per year). But, about six times more chemical fertilizer is used than toxic pesticides on U.S. farms, and an additional huge volume of sewage sludge is spread on farm and range land as well. 7
German chemical corporations developed the industrial processes for the two most widely used forms of synthetic nitrogen in the early 1900s. But, until World War II, U.S. use of synthetic nitrogen as a fertilizer was limited to about 5% of the total nitrogen applied. Up until that time most nitrogen inputs came from animal manures, composts and fertilizer (cover) crops, just as it does on organic farms today. 8
During the Second World War, all of the European powers and the U.S. greatly expanded their facilities for producing nitrogen for bombs, ammunition, and fertilizer for the war effort. Since then, the use of nitrogen fertilizer and bomb making capacity has soared. By the 1990s, more than 90% of nitrogen fertilizer used in the U.S. was synthetic. 9
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the average U.S. nitrogen fertilizer use per year from 1998 to 2007 was 24 billion 661 million pounds. To produce that nitrogen the manufacturers released at least 6.7 pounds of greenhouse gas for every pound produced. That's 165 billion, 228 million pounds of GHGs spewed into the atmosphere every year, just for the manufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. 10 And, most of those emissions are nitrous oxide, the most damaging emissions of U.S. agriculture.
Besides its greenhouse gas impacts, nitrogen fertilizer has other negative environmental consequences. Two-thirds of the U.S. drinking water supply is contaminated at high levels with carcinogenic nitrates or nitrites, almost all from excessive use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Some public wells have nitrogen at such a high level that it is dangerous and even deadly for children to drink the tap water. Nitrogen fertilizer is also the greatest contributor to the infamous "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, the coasts of California and Oregon, and 400 other spots around the world. Since very little synthetic nitrogen fertilizer was used before 1950, all of the damage we see today occurred in the last 60 years.
If we did an environmental impact statement on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer today, we would never give it a permit for agricultural use. Until it is banned for the production of food and fiber, we must impose a high carbon tax on its manufacture and use. Unfortunately, at this point, agriculture is excluded from even the weak cap and trade plan passed by the House. So, although factory farming is responsible for more greenhouse gases than any other U.S. industry, it will not be regulated under the proposed legislation designed to limit greenhouse gases, unless we demand it. We must demand that synthetic nitrogen fertilizer be highly taxed and regulated in the short term, and phased out, as soon as possible. 11
We must also demand an end to the giveaway or sales of hazardous sewage sludge in agriculture, gardening or forestry. Instead of sewage sludge-contaminated and chemical-intensive farms, organic agriculture produces safer, nutritionally superior, comparable crop yields during normal weather, as well as much greater yields under drought and heavy rain conditions, without the use of synthetic pesticides, sewage sludge, or chemical fertilizer.
The Good News on Organics and Climate Change
The heretofore unpublicized "good news" on climate change, according to the Rodale Institute 12 and other soil scientists, is that transitioning from chemical, water, and energy-intensive industrial agriculture practices to organic farming and ranching on the world's 3.5 billion acres of farmland and 8.2 billion acres of pasture or rangeland can sequester up to 7,000 pounds per acre of climate-destabilizing CO2 every year, while nurturing healthy soils, plants, grasses, and trees that are resistant to drought, heavy rain, pests, and disease. And as we have noted, organic farms and ranches provide us with food that is much more nutritious than industrial farms and ranches-food filled with vitamins, anti-oxidants, and essential trace minerals, free from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), pesticides, antibiotics, and sewage sludge.
In 2006, U.S. carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels (approximately 25% of the world's total) was estimated at nearly 6.5 billion tons. If a 7,000 lb/CO2/ac/year sequestration rate were achieved on all 434 million acres of cropland in the United States, nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide would be sequestered per year, mitigating close to one quarter of the country's total fossil fuel emissions. If pastures and rangelands were similarly converted to organic practices, we would be well on our way to reversing global warming.
Toxic Sludge from Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants
Besides synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, unhealthy foods, pesticides, GMOs, and climate and environmentally destructive factory farm meat, a serious problem in the U.S. is the increasing use of hazardous sludge from sewage treatment plants to fertilize farm and pasture land. Sixty percent of all the sludge produced in the U.S. is currently applied to farmland that grows food for cattle and people. Estimates range from eight billion to more than 100 billion pounds. 13
A critical mass of scientific studies indicate that municipal sewage sludge routinely contains hundreds of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants. Poisonous sludge is currently being spread on at least 70 million acres on 140,000 (non-organic) farms and ranches across the U.S. So-called EPA "regulation" of sludge is among the worst in the world. Unless we stop this dangerous practice, the sludge industry will destroy millions of acres of farmland as well as urban land we will need for future urban gardens. Sludge is also an increasingly worrisome greenhouse gas emitter.
The Organic Movement Must "Get Political" and Become a Major Player
We must advocate and agitate, as well as "walk our talk" in our daily lives. We must organize a U.S. and global mass movement for the conversion of the world's 3.5 billion acres of farmland and 8.2 billion acres of rangeland and pasture to organic production as soon as possible. Organic regulations prohibit the use of synthetic nitrogen, pesticides, sludge, antibiotics, artificial hormones, GMOs, and other environmentally destructive, health-threatening, greenhouse gas emitting practices. Organic must become the norm, not just the alternative. To facilitate a mass transition to organic we must force the U.S. Congress, as well as local and state governments, to fund a great "organic transition," including the creation of thousands of cadres of organically trained extension agents, and a million new urban, community, and school gardens. Thousands of U.S. farmers have already made the transition to organic. Now a million more need to do the same.
More and more farmers around the world are learning that they can significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution and produce substantial, high quality yields by switching to organic farming practices. While we develop our alternative marketplace and pressure legislators and the regulators to act, we must urge conscientious conventional farmers to use existing federal Conservation Reserve, Conservation Security, EQUIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program), and special practice programs to help them begin the switch to organic as soon as possible.
Restoring Climate Stability: Soil and More
U.S. farmers, as well as farmers all over the world, have known for at least 200 years that they should replace lost soil fertility. Over the last two centuries, numerous strategies were devised in the U.S. to replace soil nitrogen and soil organic matter, without the use of chemicals. Many of these strategies are widely used today by organic and biodynamic farmers.
As early as 1813, John Taylor lamented the loss of vegetable (organic) matter in the soil and felt that we were destroying our precious soil fertility by over cropping and sloppy farming practices. 14 Since the 1840s, fertilizer manufacturers and alchemists tried to convince farmers to replace fertility with store bought chemicals. But, farmers were wary of these products and the claims made by their salesmen.
Other scientists argued over the years that soil with high-organic matter content was far more productive and fertile even in times of drought and excess moisture. 15 As a result, U.S. farmers traditionally replaced their organic matter with fertilizer crops, manure, and compost, and most did not buy store bought fertilizer until the 1950s.
In 2007 and 2009, results similar to these conclusions were reported from studies of the Morrow agricultural experiment plots at the University of Illinois, in Champaign-Urbana (the oldest continuously planted U.S. experimental farm plot). There, researchers found that continuous corn on a synthetic nitrogen fertilized plot since 1955 suffered significant carbon losses and soil nitrogen losses compared to pre-1955 when the plots were fertilized organically with manure, fertilizer crops, and compost. 16
A significant factor in the decline of these soils was the loss of organic matter, since soil organic matter both feeds soil microorganisms and the miccorhizal fungi-both vital components of a healthy soil. Since 1950, the soils of the major farming areas of the U.S. have been bombarded yearly with vast quantities of soil-killing pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, just as the Morrow plots were. The Morrow plot conclusions should be a wake-up call to farmers and synthetic fertilizer consultants. Those conclusions are that currently recommended fertilizer applications are from 40 to 190% excessive and that long-term fertility suffers when farmers depend on synthetic fertilizers and don't replace lost organic matter utilizing organic soil management.
On several chemically abused pieces of ground where we farmed, and with cotton, vegetable, and corn farmers we have advised, we were able to dramatically increase the soil organic matter in three or four years from 1.5% to 3 or 4%, effectively doubling the amount of GHG sequestration while eliminating nitrate fertilizer runoff and emissions. Using a small amount of compost and growing fertilizer crops in the fall and winter months and cash-fertility crops in the spring and summer accomplished these increases. Each percentage point increase in organic matter represents a major increase in soil nitrogen, i.e., nitrogen produced by microorganisms decomposing organic matter. Each percentage increase in organic matter also enables the soil to absorb and store more carbon.
Beyond Factory Farm Beef, Pork, and Poultry
Along with changing the way we farm, we must also alter what we farm, and what we eat. Our excessive dependence on meat is not sustainable over the long term since, as we have noted, 80% of our agriculture is devoted to producing animals, which is the least energy efficient food. To raise meat on factory farms takes too many input calories (primarily fossil fuel), too much acreage, too much nitrogen fertilizer, as well as hazardous pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones, not to mention millions of acres of genetically modified (GM) crops.
A few examples illustrate this point clearly. It takes 10 to 12 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, soy, cottonseed) to produce one pound of marketable feedlot beef (that is 5000 to 6000 pounds of grain to produce 500 pounds of meat). It takes one gallon of oil to grow and ship the feed for one pound of beef. It requires 78 calories of fossil fuel (mostly to grow the grain) to produce one calorie of protein from feedlot-produced beef. 2500 gallons of water are needed to produce a single pound of confinement beef.
We all need to eat less (or better yet none) of the non-organic fatty meats that are grown in abusive feedlots, hog hotels, and poultry prisons. Just reducing U.S. meat intake by a third would reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by one-third. And, if you replace the factory farm meat in your diet with range fed organic meat you will reduce your personal carbon footprint, strike a blow for humane treatment of farm animals, and improve your health. Meat eaters don't necessarily have to stop eating meat, they just need to understand which meat is safe and humanely raised (organic and grass-fed), and sustainable.
Ultimately, if we change our eating habits, and curtail our Madison Avenue and mass media-induced need to buy and consume so many clothes and consumer products, we can significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Whether or not government bureaucrats and corporations change their behavior in the short term will be determined by the strength of U.S. and global grassroots movements. But we will never be able to build, motivate, and lead these movements unless we first start walking our talk and create viable models of organic conversion and green economics in our individual lives and in our local communities.
On the other hand, changing our habits is not enough-we must demand that the Obama administration act and impose a carbon tax, including a tax on chemical agriculture. We need to demand much higher emission reduction commitments, along with an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nationalization of the big banks and financial institutions, and a restoration of democracy, starting with publicly funded elections. The remaining TARP bank rescue money should go to kick-start green energy, transportation, and sustainable agriculture projects, and to train and hire the jobless to retrofit and build the new green economy. These are strategic Main Street issues; communities want new green infrastructure, healthy food, new industries, and new quality jobs.
A New Works Project Administration
A modern day Works Project Administration could train and employ a massive green corps to create the green infrastructure and post-carbon economy. When FDR created the Works Project Administration in the 1930s there were about 60,000,000 workers in the labor market. Twenty-five percent, or 15,000,000 people were unemployed. Today, there are 154,400,000 workers in the labor market. The Labor Department estimates that 10.3% of the population is unemployed. Most analysts argue that the percentage is closer to 16.5%. Whoever is right, and whether it is 15.9 million or 24.7 million, more people are out of work now than during the Great Depression. And they desperately need jobs and training, just like people did during the Depression.
Environmentalist Bill McKibben is right, we need to mobilize a grassroots army to demand reductions in emissions and armies of workers to convert our infrastructure to a green economy. That means you must text, twitter, e-mail, and use FaceBook, Google, YouTube and other resources to get educated about climate change. Once you understand the gravity of the situation you will be able to change your habits, inform your friends, and participate in climate change demonstrations. Get organized at the local level and then coordinate your local efforts with nationwide networks such as the Organic Consumers Association and www.350.org.
Your children and grandchildren are depending on you to make their world livable. The hour is late.
Note: Contact these organizations or individuals for information and to meet others in your community who are participating in efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions:
Organic Consumers Association: www.organicconsumers.org
Center for Food Safety/Navdanya: www.coolfoodscountdown.org
References:
1. Plan C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change. Pat Murphy. New Society Publishers, pp. 120-127.
2.Ibid,, p. 85
3. "How innovative financing is changing energy in America" by Cisco Devries. Grist, January 27, 2010.
4. "Los otros contaminantes que cambian el clima" by Jessica Seddon Wallack and Veerabhadran Ramanathan. Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica. Vol. 9 Number 4, 2009. pp. 29-40 5.Nutrient Overload: Unbalancing the Global Nitrogen Cycle. Staff of World Resources Program. 1998-1999 6. Agriculture and Climate Change: Impacts and Opportunities at the Farm Level. A Policy Position Paper of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. 2008 7. Three times more phosphorous and potash fertilizer are used than pesticides, so farmers use about 8 times as many pounds of commercial fertilizer as toxic pesticides. 8. Allen, Will, 2008. The War on Bugs, Chelsea Green, pp. 93-96, 144 9. Ibid., pp. 146-147 10.United States Department of Agriculture Fertilizer Use Statistics, 1998-2007 11. Until we stop being a military country, we will continue to make synthetic nitrogen for bombs. 12. "The Organic Revolution, How We Can Stop Global Warming" by Ronnie Cummins, and Alexis Baden-Mayer from the Organic Consumers Association. October 19, 2009 http://www.organicconsumers. 13. The U.S. EPA estimates that 16 billion pounds of dry sludge are produced each year and that one-half of that is applied to farmland. Synagro (a division of the Carlyle Group), which is the largest distributor of sludge, contends that about 135 billion pounds of sludge are applied to farmland. 14. Taylor, John Arator, 1813, Reprint 1977, The Liberty Fund, Indianapolis 15. Wells, David, 1852. Comparison of the Organic Matter Content of Soils from Massachusetts and Ohio. Lawrence Scientific School, Harvard University.




85 Comments so far
Show AllYes, the New Woman, the New Man, He of the gentle heart, She of the mother-hearted will.
"The climate, energy, and political catastrophe we are facing is mind-boggling and frightening."
Put an umbrella over all of this, and call it the Sixth Extinction. We hear about tipping points in climate disruption all the time. We no longer think about the tipping point passed long ago--the magnitude of the human population explosion.
I do not disagree with this call to action. It is as worthy as any call I've heard. Unfortunately, I don't think our psyches have the capacity to anticipate or respond to what is coming. The best of us (and I don't necessarily think I fit that category) will continue to insist on peace as we proceed. Good luck to all.
Thanks FastEddie75. I think "ecocide" is another term that fits as well. Such terms as the Sixth Extinction and ecocide deal with the scale of the problems (what I call the "global megacrisis") as well as the necessary corresponding scale of the solutions. The use of the phrase "cultural and political revolution" is also appropriate and helpful.
"Yet there is still time to save ourselves"
Increasingly doubtful. In fact, I sincerely hope not. The planet itself will survive and there are other species which would almost certainly evolve as much more worthy custodians. Whoever named this one homo sapiens (wise man) surely had a warped sense of humor.
I sincerely hope that we can save ourselves because the majority of us are good people and the reason we are in jeopardy is because of a few sociopaths (now called sufferers of Anti-Social Behavior Disorder). It's the structure of the barrel, not the quality of the apples inside that is the problem.
I'd hate to see most of humanity disappear because we didn't change the political structure of the barrel which now allows the Klingons to make the final decisions.
Great article. But I think people will always take things to the limit. If we don't cut down the last tree, catch the last Bluefin tuna, kill the last endangered species, someone else will.
Instead of addressing the symptoms, we could address the causes, overpopulation and extreme wealth/power concentration. That few still dare to speak out on these vital but taboo subjects shows the height of the mountain we have yet to climb to survive a climate catstrophe.
It's enough to make some of us give up and even wish the end would come as a lesson to denier cons.
Absolutely! Going green, vegetarian, and organic will not be enough unless we curb population growth.
The World Bank says that about 50% of the population lives on less than $2.50 per day. I'm wondering how much of an environmental footprint they're actually leaving behind them.
Maybe it would be a better idea to concentrate more on wealth distribution than population.
Also I have read that deforestation is responsible for more GHGs than all transportation and all manufacturing combined and would be the fastest cheapest way to combat gw.
I third that. No one seems to be willing to touch the population issue. Whenever I bring it up in conversation, people just go silent or immediately change the subject.
Yes, the neo-Malthusian rears its ugly head again, blame the victim!
----------------------
As John Bellamy Foster notes, “Where threats to the integrity of the biosphere as we know it are concerned, it is well to remember that it is not the areas of the world that have the highest rate of population growth but the areas of the world that have the highest accumulation of capital, and where economic and ecological waste has become a way of life, that constitute the greatest danger.”
The shibboleth of absolute overpopulation obscures the more immediate causes of suffering under capitalism, namely, unemployment. Yet unemployment is not a result of a shortage of means of subsistence (or even of means of production), but as a result of overproduction. The periodic crises that lead to mass layoffs are due not to too little, but too much being produced in terms of what can be sold profitably. Malthus, Marx argues, relates a specific quantity of people to a specific quantity of necessaries. Ricardo [a bourgeois economist of the time] immediately and correctly confronted him with the fact that the quantity of grain available is completely irrelevant to the worker if he has no employment; that it is therefore the means of employment and not of subsistence which put him in the category of surplus population. Those committed to fighting for a better world should focus their attention not on curbing population growth, but on the real cause of mass starvation and ecological crises: the capitalist system itself. Doing this necessitates a fight against inequality, exploitation, poverty, environmental degradation, racism, and the oppression of women.
Socially just, sustainable agriculture is not only far less destructive to the environment, but, contrary to common perception, produces higher yields than corporate monocultures. If we got rid of the warped priorities of capitalist accumulation with all its gargantuan waste of resources, the environmental “footprint” of humanity, even with nine billion of us, would be far less than it currently is with six. Accomplishing this would bring down population and reassert the integrity of the earth for the benefit of future generations while advancing rather than attacking the interests of workers and peasants from all countries.
Excerpted from: ISR Issue 68, November–December 2009
Thank you for reinforcing the idea that population, although important, does not have the ability to solve warming problems as thoroughly and quickly as concentrating on wealth distribution.
I believe that some of the people commenting are repeating what so many have said in the past and that is that population is the key. I no longer believe that. It is a big piece in the puzzle but it is not the biggest piece.
I encourage you to read the entire ISR article on population. It addresses all of your (unsubstantiated) points. It's worth noting that Malthus provided no data to support his claims on population increase, his argument was unscientific. Malthus developed his ideas in 18th century Europe. Obviously, he was wrong about overpopulation in Europe. Just because a concept makes intuitive sense, doesn't make it true. In his "Second Essay on the Principle of Population", "[r]ather than arguing for the eradication of poverty, Malthus argued against any and all social services to the poor". The main reason his ideas still attract adherents, is because they relieve the responsibility of the wealthy for the poverty and suffering they create.
Excellent points.
I will add R. Buckminster Fuller's description of the proletariat (and his subsequent slap on the wrist to Marx --- if Marxian ideals give over-population supporters the heebee-geebees) after pointing out that "undernourished babies are born with or quickly develop damaged brains."
"The 99 percent comprehensive dullness
Of the impoverished masses of humanity
Has been mistaken historically by both Marxians and kings
As demonstrating the coexistence of two genetic species or classes:
1) The clever king stock, and (2) The dull workers.
We now know* genetically
That there are neither different races
Nor different classes of humans."
*from "Soft Revolution" - 1972
Which goes nicely with the following W.C.Fields quote:
"A rich man is a poor man with money."
RE: "...Has been mistaken historically by both Marxians and kings
As demonstrating the coexistence of two genetic species or classes..."
Marxians would consider classes to refer to economic classes, not "genetic species", and would be the first to disabuse anyone of saying that the king is better than (or superior genetically) than the peasant. Since you have mentioned "elites" in other posts, you can't be arguing that classes don't exist?
Who are the "over-population supporters"? I haven't come across ANY - although I am aware of religious dogma that prohibits or discourages birth control. More specifically, have you seen *ANY* - I mean, a SINGLE person - on this forum who "supports" overpopulation, or rejects the need for reducing human population?
RE: I don't believe the poor are any more expendable than anyone else...
Well, that's odd 'cause your policy solutions would surely guarantee that they were treated as "more expendable."
Great article!
RE: Speculators, mercenaries, toxic polluters, and Masters of War can go to financial hell, where they belong.
What the above specializes in (and we should include the capitalist economic system at the top of the list) is sending the world and all of us to hell. Sending them to hell is the challenge, and this goes beyond reform. Organizing to do that is where our efforts should go.
At least 10,000 inventors are out here (I didn't say out there, I said out here!). We each expect or hope, in the near future, to transform building heating, transit, electricity production, electricity storage, ecologically friendly biofuel production, massive carbon sequestration and other key fields, if we can ever, EVER, make the nut, come up with the needed cash.
I can even come up with one good use for a lump of coal.
We may also be able to inhibit and reverse the melting of the Arctic Ocean's ice pack. My own target numbers are $1 billion per year, with quite low environmental impacts, for this task.
The necessary change to a green economy will not happen as long as American corporations are running the show. They stand to lose, especially oil companies if petroleum products are restricted. You have to reform your political system before you can reform your pollution creating economy. In the meantime Americans are going to bear the brunt of climate change and it isn't going to be pretty.
Green means a green lawn to most 'Mericans. If it means giving up the Hummer forget about it.
I feel like a pig for disagreeing with the author, but I have to do so anyway.
First, all easily extracted oil will be burned, no matter what policies are enacted. The reason is simple: If some countries reduce their burning of petroleum, demand for it drops, and prices go down. Lower prices mean more of the stuff will be burned. It doesn't matter if the US burns it, China, or developing countries--it will be burned. The only way to discourage burning oil is to make alternative energy cheaper than petroleum and to make it available to all. Political, humanitarian, and ecological arguments simply will not work in changing human behavior when it comes to fossil fuel. Only economic arguments will convince people to stop what they are doing.
The condemnation of the United States and China for carbon emissions will have exactly zero effect on their behavior. Both countries will continue to pollute unless lower prices for alternative energy outweigh the need to pump more oil out of the ground. The five percent of Americans that take global climate change seriously will not expand to fifty percent.
Given that economic arguments are most important, the best course of action is to develop alternative energy sources such that they will outcompete fossil fuels. Furthermore, this technology must be imported into developing nations. The two nations best suited to create this technology are the United States and China. By exporting windmills and solar panels they will gain economically from re-making the world's energy supply. At the same time, developing countries will pass directly to a green economy without first passing through a dirty energy phase.
So... let the technology come about first--technology for growing things without the use of fossil fuels, heating houses without burning gas and oil, developing mass transit and the efficient transport of goods using the wind and solar power. But let's not waste our time trying to convince people to trade in their SUV for a Prius or plow their fields with horses or any of the other feel-good prescriptive nonsense that is out there. It's a heck of a lot easier to point out that you save money by upgrading to green.
It's not clear to me that alternative energy CAN be made cheaper than fossil fuels. Certainly not cheaper than coal, which is just digging stored solar energy out of the ground and burning it. It doesn't get any cheaper than that: the entire hassle of capturing the solar energy was solved a million years ago by obliging trees.
If a few powerful, enlightened countries, like China, EU, and America, could decide 1) to tax their fossil fuels at the source and 2) to tax anything they buy from countries that DON'T impose this tax on themselves, in such a way as to account for their products fossil fuel content, then you could change the behavior of the entire world.
In a similar way, once California imposes environmental standards on automobiles, the rest of America is somewhat guaranteed to fall in line.
I'm all for alternatives, researching them, and getting them less expensive, but there is SOMETHING to the counter argument that alternatives are trying to concentrate extremely diffuse sources of energy, which imposes a constraint on how cost effective they can be made.
As a household energy source, solar and wind are already better than coal/oil as far as cost goes. Have you seen the pictures of Mongolians in isolated places using their windmills to generate power? Solar cookers work well in some climates. Maybe that is the way we should think about energy consumption--we should look at consumption at the family level rather than consumption at the city, state, and community levels. We need energy for factories, of course, but let's solve the problem at the lowest level first, moving to transportation and finally to the toughest level, energy for manufacturing.
Alternative energy is only problematic if it is expected to REPLACE our current use of fossil fuel consumption. At this alternative energy will fail. But we should not be attempting that. As the article above indicates, we should reduce our consumption drastically. With much reduced consumption, and therefore - need - alternative energy can be a viable and sustainable energy source.
Tom Larsen, I agree that reducing consumption should be at the top of the agenda, and that's the intelligent approach. Also, have you noticed how many of us call renewable energy technologies as "alternative energy" - as if they are some kind of futuristic technology? They should in fact be mainstream in any intelligent society.
Wind is better than fossils. Solar 'could be'. I agree with a stages approach. But we should make fossils more expensive, and tax imports from those countries that refuse to: is all I'm saying.
RE: Given that economic arguments are most important, the best course of action is to develop alternative energy sources such that they will out-compete fossil fuels.
I agree that "economic" issues are paramount. However, your arguments are based on the continuation of the very same economic system that the author rails against. If we move away from a system based on continuous exploitation for continuously growing profits, i.e. capitalism, the problems are very solvable. If you are a champion of capitalism or a believer in "there-is-no-alternative", then yeah, go ahead and feel like a pig.
>>>drosera wrote: First, all easily extracted oil will be burned, no matter what policies are enacted. The reason is simple: If some countries reduce their burning of petroleum, demand for it drops, and prices go down. Lower prices mean more of the stuff will be burned. It doesn't matter if the US burns it, China, or developing countries--it will be burned. The only way to discourage burning oil is to make alternative energy cheaper than petroleum and to make it available to all.
drosera, you made the *same* point on a different article, and I replied to you - but since you didn't respond, let me post my reply here again:
*******************************************************************
That is *NOT* true. There *is* such a thing as an international treaty. For example, most countries with a basic level of industrialization can produce chemical weapons if they want to. But they are prevented from doing so if they have signed the chemical weapons treaty (CWC: Chemical Weapons Convention). Some country may try to cheat - but there is a system in place to monitor compliance. Even the oil producing nations belonging to OPEC regularly meet and decide on their production quotas - and member states cannot produce more even if they need the cash. Once again, some country may try to cheat - but it can be found out.
This was the rationale behind the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - that led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. USA signed it, but US Congress never ratified it - essentially giving the finger to the rest of the world. Other countries that signed, ratified, but will fail to meet their emission reduction targets are Canada and Japan. The European Union as a whole will meet its targets, but 3 countries individually will not meet theirs. The targets under the Kyoto treaty were modest: reducing emission levels by 5-6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. Initially only rich countries were required to reduce their emissions. Copenhagen was supposed to produce a successor treaty to Kyoto, but the outcome was completely sabotaged by certain countries (the USA was not alone on this).
Meeting international treaty obligations is not a particularly strong quality of the US. Now, THAT is a problem that science cannot address.
P.S. You are right, in a way about alternative energy sources. But the international treaties such as Kyoto Protocol are supposed to pave the way for these sources by putting a limit on emissions, as well as through other measures that put a price on carbon - which would make it easier for the other, cleaner technologies to gain a foothold in the market.
Transportation, and unnecessary electricity usage are the largest source of GHG emissions that individuals have some control over. This article doesn't even mention the solutions.
Many of the solutions are easy. Chose a home location where you can walk to routine shopping and entertainment, and can take public transit to work. Barring that (and with my new job I'm in that category), at least consider moving closer to work and either bicycling or using a low, carbon form of transit like a 50cc motor scooter for personal transportation. Even in my lousy-climate area, I can use my scooter about 8 months out of the year. Plug-in electric versions are increasingly available. I get 220 carbon-equivalent miles per gallon from my e-scooters.
If the above isn't possible where you live (such as needing to drive a car on a freeway for commuting or errands), you picked the wrong place to live.
I wondered why no one else commented on this but how did "holistic health care providers" become part of the Green Revolution?
Gary
"There's lots of people in this world who spend so much time watching their health that they haven't the time to enjoy it."
~- Josh Billings
Big Pharma is an incredibly wasteful industry, and produces some of the most toxic chemical and biological wastes known. Moving to a healthful and holistic health regime will reduce our dependence on artificial remedies, and hence the impact of waste disposal on the environment.
The facts are, most pharmaceuticals are useful, that they may be produced by private, for-profit entities doesn't change that. If that is the problem, the pharmaceutical industry should be nationalized.
"Holistic" health - whatever that might mean, has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, most "holistic" types are usually rather rich, see their chiropractor, acupuncturist, traditional Chinese alternate practitioners, etc. quite frequently, and drive a lot of miles seeing them, I'd say holistic health has a negative impact on the environment.
While western pharmaceuticals may not be an obvious large source of GHGs, they and the waste used in their production are considered hazardous toxic waste by state and federal regulatory bodies. This is one nasty industry in terms of long-term pollution.
Whether we agree or not, man can survive radical climate change even though the rest of the garden will suffer. Key to this survival is fresh water. We will be fighting wars over fresh water long before we fight wars over any of the other manifestations of climate change. The pharmaceutical industry is a major polluter of the water table.
We should not divorce combating climate change from combating environmental degradation. A holistic approach is required.
. . . creating in effect a New Woman and a New Man for the 21st Century.
Here is one of the greatest and most pernicious fantasies of all time, the basis of many revolutions, the last one being in Cambodia. THERE HASN'T BEEN A NEW MAN SINCE ADAM! You don't have to create a New Man or a New Woman, even if it were possible. The current rundown model has, somehow, to be made to come to his/her senses. But who knows how you do that in this country.
""Yet there is still time to save ourselves, to move beyond psychological denial, despair, or false optimism.""
**********************************************
Really? Save all 7,000,000,000 of us or no, wait, make that 10,000,000,000 by the time 2020 comes around, if not sooner.
This is all to unrealistic because with the current political, economic, military, religious, governmental and other systems that are not just working, but actually contributing to the crises all around us, just how do you propose to straighten all of them out so they would function to 'save' us all from 'ourselves'.
The 'elite' have had this planet hijacked for so long that trying to organize the people to 'straighten' out the crooked systems that are so prevalent would take more than what I see is capable in reality.
And then we are not even given the consideration of what the climate will be doing sooner or later and that will happen no matter what could be done to bring a saving moment for everyone, nature will take a hand 'sooner or later'.
I think you're way too pessimistic.
If you read Chomsky he gives examples of revolutions (French, Russian) that no one anticipated. They just seem to happen and no one can point to a single catalyst. I think we are living in such a time period and it is a matter of time, more accurately a matter of enviromental or financial stress (food, jobs, housing, health, weather issues) that will push back against the spin artists, the elite, and the government and it will be at that time that the elite and the people will know that the game is over and the slate has been wiped clean and will be re-written by the people.
Remember, we are living in times that are caused by systems that are not sustainable and cannot last and things that cannot last, don't. Be ready.
I would strongly advise you not to hold your breath.
I do appreciate your reference to Herb Stein's comment about things that won't last, don't, or something like that.
Sorry you think I am way too pessimistic here but I haven't a jot or inkling of anyone trying to bring into action something that will stop this aristocratical dominance of this country much less fixing the biggest problem of the already overpopulation of humans on this planet which I reference through what were systems and institutions to help and provide for everyone but since the aristocracy sees fit to distance themselves from the peons, and they have set the stage to combat the long awaited uprising from the people's whose rights and money they have stolen and at the seemingly approval of those very people who have had them stolen from, it is a big blank of 'just what in the hell to do'.
And there are many people who do believe that losing touch with nature is a major point of losing any kind of rational sense of respect for having and maintaining a planet for a home and overcrowding is for ants and rats, not humans.
What do you think about the flippant way we just throw things away to such a point there is supposed to be an pile of plastic garbage floating in the pacific that is as big as the state of texas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://www.physorg.com/news112248742.html
If it is 'out of sight then it is out of mind'?
As much as I admire Noam Chomsky, I have read Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man' which is all about the French and American revolution and the promise that was held for the people from those revolutions.
And I have read the Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson wrote 'that when the government becomes the threat to the security of our republic, it is the citizen's duty to rise up and take the republic back and reinstate the democracy of the people', no where did he mention the democracy of the aristocracy, and yet the people don't heed or are abdicating their 'call to duty'.
And you can write rupert murdoch and thank him and the msm for the great work they have done to make the people feel and act this way.
I believe you're right that the elite have things pretty well buttoned up. They've had a lot of practice keeping the unwashed masses away from the levers of power, but. Things are changing.
The environment will force change upon the elites. Compare the system called environment and the system called capitalism and ask yourself one question. Which one can survive without the other. That will tell you which is the stronger system, the one that must be catered to.
The internet. This system will eventually circumvent the elites grandiose plans. We will simply ignore them. We will develop a social structure/organization/website using the internet that will unite all those "left out" citizens and we will be the new independent swing voters that will turn the country toward the rational, progressive side of the political spectrum.
In between the environment, the majority who are fed up with the R and D twins, and the internet, I see huge changes for the better. Stay strong.
If the 1776 citizens could win their freedom with quill pen and candles and militia we can win our freedom with computers and cell phones and massive demonstrations.
I can hope what you say will be, but there will be very dire times ahead as those elite will not just give up their hold on their status.
Relying on the internet is a tenuous thing because it is based on electricity which at any moment can be turned off or the lines of communication be disrupted at a whim.
Environmentally, I say the 7,000,000,000 people trying to just exist will have a lot to do here along with the slow move into the next ice age which more people than I can count still think it just a part of global warming or the other name for an ice age, climate change.
I do hope for a 1776 movement.
One of the best articles ever. Print and save it for mass distribution.
Unlikely that change will come from top down. The top resists change. By the time they see that "business-as-usual-but-tweaked-a-little" will ruin the game, it will be too late.
Save yourselves and like-minded people.
"The Prime Directive has failed here. Beam me up Scottie."
-30-
This article is fantastic. I agree in spirit with the authors on almost all points, with one exception. There's not one mention of the words capitalism, imperialism, militarism, or violence.
The fact is, the ruling class in this country and others are not about to move away from their power and control without a fight. The U.S. military is one of the largest single users of petroleum in the world, which they will use to project their force worldwide for as long as possible. They will not simply concede their power to the wonderful (in fact necessary for survival) ideas listed above.
Unless we are willing to fight and die for a revolutionary transformation, the earth will die (well, at least us and thousands of other species we destroy). What forms this will take is hard to see, but the spirit and determination of our willingness to confront the death culture will determine whether or not the outline above is even possible.
Lastly, I don't like the word/mantra of "jobs". Jobs is a code word for wage-slavery, and the organization of human culture along corporate and hierarchical lines. Why continue this sick and demeaning way of organizing our labor?
We need to talk about community work and the distribution of labor that is not designed to extract surplus value for profit, but designed to create value for the community. I for one never want to work again for any corporation or hierarchical institution. I'd rather hang my boss before kissing his/her ass for survival. I am sick of the language of "teams", "partners" and "our success" when I have no stake in the profits of the owners.
And this my friends, is the nightmare of the ruling class. They will not sit idly by while we build our utopia. We have to be willing to fight and die for it, sadly. Our rulers are violent psychopaths willing to destroy millions of human lives (Iraq / Afghanistan) for their own profits and the control of energy reserves (oil). What makes you think they will just let us build another economy and energy infrastructure? They won't. I can guarantee that.
It's time to start preparing all of us for this confrontation. It is inevitable.
The JFK American University speech quotation comes to mind:
"If we make peaceful revolution possible we make violent revolution unnecessary."
My version for this occasion of national collapse and global ecocide is this:
By making a peaceful revolution happen we make a violent revolution unnecessary.
A peaceful revolution must be constitutional. And this is much preferred to Civil War II.
We are obligated as progressives and citizens to do all we can to bring forth a peaceful revolution. We've not done enough.
For example, if we worked for, demanded and got a constitutional amendment to replace Article V with its absurd supermajorities that would change everything. (Thirteen small states representing less than five percent of the population can veto any amendment proposed alone or by a convention.)
A new amending article FORCED by non-violent actions along the lines of the Montana State amending article XIV would open up the US system for change based on the promise of the Preamble, and the spirit of Jefferson.
That is one of many examples that would constitute part of a true political revolution.
Larry Sabato called for a new constitution in 2007:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/10/news/OE-SABATO10
Sanford Levinson called for a convention in a recent book: Our Undemocratic Constitution.
Dan Lazare, Doug Amy, Robert Dahl, Steven Hill and others have written similar brilliant books.
There are great ideas waiting in the wings right now that we could use to make Civil War II unnecessary.
It is up to us to exhaust such options before a single violent act.
I like the idea of studying the Constitution for any undemocratic statements. I'm leery of changing the Constitution per se for these reasons. It is too important to "tinker" with. I would be more in favor of a thorough study which would give us insights into the Constitution's weaknesses and possible solutions. Only then would I like to see a national debate led by dozens of Constitutional lawyers as to possible remedies and changes in the Constitution and then only one change at a time.
Thinking of the Constitution as a holy document gets in the way of seeing for what it really is. It was a document written to enshrine the interests of a elite class: wealthy merchants, landowners and slaveholders, that is, our "Founding Fathers". Nowhere in the Constitution is written the word "democracy" or "democratic". We should not amend the Constitution, we should start anew. Richard Grossman has written about this. The Constitution actually protects corporate power over democratic power.
I'm sure it does protect corporate power. Even more so recently. What I fear is a complete abandonment of the Bill of Rights.
A peaceful revolution must be constitutional...
A "constitutional" revolution??? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Many nations have thrown away their old orders and constitutions and instituted new a republic. Recall many eastern European countries, the former soviet union, and Venezuela did it peacefully. The republic called the USA has had a good 224 year run, time for change.
If you can think of something between a peaceful, constitutional revolution and Civil War II, please describe it.
By "constitutional revolution" I mean a process consistent with the Preamble and with the will of the majority of US voting age citizens.
The current Constitution is our second one. Those who wrote it in 1787 (read Madison's notes) referred to the then-operating Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, adopted 1781, as "the Constitution." But they had a convention, proposed a new Constitution, and sold it. Seventy-five percent of the states adopted it, even though its adoption article, Article VII, was technically illegal, for the then-current Articles of Confederation required consensus of the 13 states to make any change.
My first choice for the constitutional part of a peaceful, constitutional revolution would be a convention that led to a long national debate and a new constitution. That was Jefferson's wish—a new constitution every 20 years, a policy that the Montana Constitution adopted in 1972.
I'd also be in favor of good amendments to fix the many problems in the current Constitution via amendment, especially making the amending article, Amendment V, more like Montana's Article XIV. See this link:
http://www.montanahistory.net/state/constitution1972XIV.htm
Arguments can be made for creating a new constitution without using Article V:
- The precedent of the second Constitution when Madison said "I dismiss it" in reply to complaints that the new one was illegal.
- The Preamble
- The section in the Declaration of Independence that said: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
- Amendments 9 and 10
But it would be a harder sell and could lead to civil war.
So I'd prefer to begin with a series of good amendments or a convention, guided by our nation's finest constitutional scholars.
New Zealand went though such a process with their government in the 1990s and are better off for it.
We can do it too.
The article begins well enough:
“Climate Stabilization Requires a Cultural and Political Revolution”
OK. Let’s hear about your “Cultural and Political Revolution”.
From the article:
“The inspirational message we need to deliver is that we're not just talking about drastically reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, but rebuilding society, creating in effect a New Woman and a New Man for the 21st Century.”
Sure is inspirational. Right up there with World Peace. It’s also pretty short on specifics, which is what you need for a political revolution. It’s also short on force, which is what you need for a Cultural Revolution.
From the article:
“What we are witnessing are the early stages of a mass grassroots consciousness-raising and taking back of power from out-of-control corporations, banks, corporate-controlled media, and politicians.”
Really? How do you square that with what you said next?
From the article:
“The negotiators and heads of state at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate negotiations abandoned the summit with literally no agreement on meaningful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane) reduction...”
Is this total failure at Copenhagen the same as the “mass grassroots consciousness-raising” or is it the “taking back of power from out-of-control corporations, banks, corporate-controlled media, and politicians”?
If this is your idea of a take-back of power, then you had better quit now, while you’re ahead.
From the article:
“If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, other countries will follow.“
Yes! Leading the world by setting a good example. The USA is great at that.
And, by the way, if all the world’s frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their asses hopping on the ground!
From the article:
“Now, in theory, we finally have a Congressional majority and a President who claim to be willing to listen and take action...”
Yes! Just look at what the Congressional majority (with Obama's bold leadership) has done for health care! Nothing like theories and claims to get things done!
From the article:
“A New Works Project Administration”
“A modern day Works Project Administration could train and employ a massive green corps to create the green infrastructure and post-carbon economy.”
No shit Sherlock! What else do you want that you’re not going to get?
Although I am somewhat critical of the authors’ lack of realism, I have to admit that they do have a keen grasp of the obvious.
Can we all please get past this drivel and begin thinking the unthinkable?