When We Transform the Economy to Respond to Climate Change, What Should We Transform It To?

Sometimes you can't have everything. Sometimes you have to choose. (Source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

I want to put two ideas into your head and ask you to hold them there for a while. Later I'm going to write a deeper piece on this subject. But for now, just notice these two ideas and how they're linked. They form an either-or, a one-or-the-other way to respond to climate change, assuming we do.

After all, perhaps we will respond effectively to climate change, and that response may be in time to lessen the disaster. It could happen that people wake up — or more likely, that some catastrophic event grips the nation hard enough — so that changing the present course becomes actually possible, even widely perceived as necessary.

Consider this: It's certainly true that most voters — not just Democrats, but even and especially Republicans — are full-time worshipers at the Church of Daddy Do Something when a real crisis hits. "Daddy" in this case is the government, and it better act ... and now ... if my house is likely to burn, my property is likely to flood, my child is likely to die of some disease or in the next attack. If that realization does hit before it's really too late — the realization that "we're in deep trouble and 'daddy' better do something" — there's great reason for optimism.

And it's not like we're not sitting on a powder keg of potential disasters. For example, imagine a Haiyan-size hurricane sweeping across Florida — no lives are lost, but all property values brought instantly to zero — followed by a summer of torrential torrential rains throughout the East, South and Midwest, causing thousands of dollars of damage and bankrupting insurance companies throughout the country. What do you think the national response would be? I think the nation, with one voice (minus most of the unaffected rich) might easily say, "OK, time to really do something. This time we mean it."

If We Decide to Do Something, What Should It Be?

So the question is, what is that something? Which is where the two thoughts I mentioned above come in. Obviously we get off of carbon as fast as we can, which completely transforms the economy. But it's not obvious what we should transform the economy to. Right now the economy is built around rapid economic growth — meaning, rapid growth of profits for the very very wealthy. Do we want to simply power the current wealth-enabling economy with renewable energy sources and call it done?

Would powering the current wealth-enabling economy even be effective in mitigating climate change? (The argument below says no.)

Or do we want to transform our broader economy at the same time to something more ... sustainable? Constant growth may well be ineffective in stopping climate change, and it's frankly unsustainable on its own. The "build more stuff, then throw it away" world has its own a natural end as well; we're getting pretty close to it; and the end if that world is no prettier than the end of the climate chaos world.

Put more simply, why would be want to avoid the climate collapse, just to collapse a few years later anyway on the rock of unsustainable economic growth for the very very few?

I'm not asking you to agree with this just yet. Simply hold these thoughts in mind as alternatives, and read the following, by Elliot Sperber writing in Counterpunch. The piece is framed as a response to Bill McKibben's (appropriate) call for a WWII-style "war on climate change." The following paragraphs illustrate the kind of choices I'm trying to put before you now.

Again, the question is, if we're going to have to transform the economy, what do we transform it to? If we're going to embark on a WWII-style restructuring of the economy, including some rationing during the transition, everything new is possible, including each of the choices I'm presenting.

Benefits of a Sustainability Economy, Even to the Climate

In the section below, Sperber starts with meat production (my emphasis):

Perhaps most relevant to the issue of climate change and rationing, commodities such as nylon, oil, and meat were rationed during World War II. And since by some measures meat production is responsible for even more greenhouse gas than fossil fuels, rationing (or, better yet, banning the commercial production of meat altogether) would reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly than McKibben’s building plan. Beyond the ethical imperative to not torture animals, curtailing meat production would not only eliminate the production of greenhouse gases; it would allow the rain forests and other ecosystems destroyed in the creation of pasture and feed for livestock to regenerate, simultaneously halting CO2 and methane proliferation and absorbing it. And it’s a hardly incidental benefit that the tons of water used to raise and process meat could be used to ameliorate climate change-exacerbated drought the world over.

That's a pretty decent list of benefits, simply on the climate front, not to mention alleviating health issues caused by mass consumption of highly processed, hormone-injected, expensive-to-produce animal protein — your next McDonald's burger, for example.

On the effectiveness of a climate solution in stopping those storms that come "one in 500 years," which have been happening with great frequency in the U.S. lately, Sperber writes:

​Furthermore, though it’s less well-known than either CO2 or the notoriously potent greenhouse gas methane, water vapor is also a tremendously important greenhouse gas, one with a powerful feedback loop that amplifies global warming. That is, as the climate heats up and ice melts, and soil dries out, and water evaporates (spreading deserts and extending droughts), more and more vapor enters the atmosphere, heating the planet further still – melting more ice, producing more vapor, ad infinitum. The one trillion tons of ice that disappeared from the Greenland ice sheet between 2011 and 2014, for example, didn’t simply vanish; they transmogrified into hundreds of trillions of gallons of liquid water and water vapor that, by further heating the planet, has added to the power – as well as to the mass – of hurricanes, typhoons, storms, floods, and other extreme weather events. And this is only accelerating. But while this vapor heats the planet and, when concentrated, creates catastrophic floods, this vapor can also be absorbed by, and stored in, marine and terrestrial plants.

If a change in meat production and consumption increases the likelihood of a real climate solution, do we need to hold onto our current McDonald's lifestyle?

Which takes us to land use and transportation:

In addition to the fact that plants convert CO2 into oxygen, because plants absorb and store water, conserving and restoring plant life is arguably just as crucial as building excessive energy capacity. And because forests and other ecosystems regenerate independently, when they’re simply left alone, this requires far less work than building all those solar panels and wind turbines (in factories that, by the way, would likely result in clearing land of a considerable deal of plant coverage). Restoring ecosystems and conserving vegetation doesn’t need to be limited to non-urban areas, though. In addition to decontaminating them (when necessary) and leaving forests alone to regenerate, plants just as easily flourish in cities. Beyond building ‘green roofs’ and street level gardens (akin to the World War II-era “victory gardens” that supplied 40% of people’s vegetables, as McKibben reminds us), much of the space devoted to cars (streets, freeways, gas stations, parking lots, etc.) could be dedicated to the growth of trees and vegetation. By absorbing both CO2 and water vapor, trees and urban gardens, not to mention spontaneously growing plants, would cool cities, improve air quality, and make cities more livable, all while mitigating global warming and providing food. Because they require space that could be used to grow plants, a serious commitment to mitigating climate change should also ration, or ban altogether, the toxic private car – at least from urban areas. If during World War II the use of public transportation increased by close to 90%, as McKibben notes, there’s no reason why this can’t be replicated today, improving the wellbeing of the climate, as well as that of human and non-human animals.

In general, this leads to the question of  "industrial mobilization" versus "demobilization" and the recovery of diminishing and collapsing ecosystems, like world fisheries:

Rather than the “industrial mobilization” McKibben advocates, then, in many respects demobilization could be at least as effective at mitigating climate change, and could be implemented far more rapidly. When methane-producing, ecosystem-killing dams are dismantled, for instance, entire ecosystems can quickly and spontaneously recover. And, as it’s part of World War II history, McKibben may appreciate the fact that, in the decades leading up to the war commercial fishing in the North Sea led to the virtual extinction of fish. But, because of a commercial fishing moratorium (imposed by the threat of German submarines, and other martial maritime dangers), by the end of the war the ecosystem had regenerated itself. Following this precedent, moratoria should be imposed immediately on the commercial fishing industries presently devastating the oceans (wiping out entire species of coral, fish, and mammals, not to mention gigatons of carbon-storing, oxygen-producing phytoplankton).

Of course, rationing and imposing moratoria on ecocidal practices such as commercial fishing, logging, and the production of toxic materials, such as plastics, would slow economic production substantially; but if our priority is effectively mitigating climate change’s harms, as opposed to making money, slowing economic production is crucial. Moreover, rather than exacerbating existing poverty, the phasing out of ecocidal industries, such as the fast food industry, could lead to the elimination of poverty; we simply need to produce necessities, such as food, housing, healthcare, and transportation, for their own sake, rather than in exchange for money. Among other benefits, this would eliminate the conflicts of interest that result in such absurdities as food producers refusing to grow, and willfully destroying, tremendous amounts of food each year in order to keep up prices, and market forces driving vulnerable populations from necessary housing in order to develop luxury housing for people who already have more than enough."

To repeat: If our first priority is effectively mitigating the harm done by climate change, instead of protecting the "right" of the wealthy to make money, slowing economic production is crucial.

Just Give It Some Thought

I'm not asking you to make that choice yet. Just to be aware of it and give it some thought of your own. I'll have more on this in a bit.

Economic growth (a world awash in profit) versus sustainable living (a world without the super-rich, but one we can share and maintain) — if we're lucky, we may get to finally decide between them.

GP
 

Is The Republican Party On A Collision Course With Their Allies At Big Insurance Over Climate Change?

Since 1990, the Insurance Industry has contributed $306,387,653 in congressional races, almost two-thirds of it to Republicans. So far this year, they've doled out $17,600,207, again, most of it to Republicans. So far in the cycle they have carefully selected the incumbents who have been most willing-- in each house-- to put the special interests of the insurance industry ahead the interests of their own constituents and of the American people. No one on this list of the dozen topic recipients of insurance industry legalistic bribery is fit to serve in Congress:

This week Republican legislators in Oklahoma passed a bill to prevent science teachers tackling the question of Climate Change. But now there may be an interesting new "special interest" insurance companies may be taking into account: yes, Climate Change. Listen to this report from Marketplace from Wednesday afternoon about Farmers Insurance suing local governments for not taking climate change seriously enough to protect homeowners whose property was damaged by flooding:



This could put the insurance industry at serious odds with their conservative allies in Congress.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. is suing Chicago for failing to prevent flooding related to climate change in what experts say could be a landmark case that accelerates local efforts to grapple with the impacts of climbing temperatures.

The insurance company filed nine class-action lawsuits last month alleging that dozens of Chicago-area municipalities are responsible for the damage caused by a two-day downpour last year in April. The company claims that local officials are aware that climate change is causing heavier rainfalls but failed to prevent sewage backups in more than 600 homes by draining water from the region's system of tunnels and retention basins before the storm.

Farmers is asking to be reimbursed for the claims it paid to homeowners who sometimes saw geysers of sewage ruin basement walls, floors and furniture. The company says it also paid policyholders for lost income, the cost of evacuations and other damages related to declining property values. But some analysts say that Farmers likely has a bigger prize in mind.

The company, which is a subsidiary of global giant Zurich Insurance Group, could be positioning itself to avoid future losses nationwide from claims linked to floods, sea-level rise and even lawsuits against its corporate policyholders that emit greenhouse gases, said Andrew Logan, an insurance expert with Ceres.

In 2012, a different Zurich subsidiary, Steadfast Insurance Co., won another high-profile climate fight: Steadfast fought a claim submitted by its policyholder AES Corp., an electric utility, stemming from a lawsuit by Kivalina, Alaska, that accused AES of contributing to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Steadfast wasn't liable for AES's pollution.

When viewed together, Zurich's two climate cases might represent a broader strategy to insulate itself from climate losses, Logan said. The company protected itself from corporate claims related to emissions with the Steadfast case; now it seems to be separating itself from municipal losses in Illinois.

"I guess if you're an insurer that's really worried about the scale of liability that you might face from climate change, this would be a pretty smart way to begin to put up some walls around yourself," Logan said. "The dollars at stake [in the Illinois case] are much smaller than the precedent that's being set."

…A book-length analysis of the legal challenges faced by insurers notes that the industry's climate expertise related to natural catastrophes, climate science and adaptation resembles its level of knowledge around asbestos. One of the authors is Lindene Patton, Zurich's climate expert in North America.

"This could lead to claims against insurers arising out of their particularized knowledge of any of these issues," says the book, titled Climate Change and Insurance.

Similarly, the lawsuit by Farmers uses the climate assertions by local officials to show that they knew about the risks of a warmer and wetter atmosphere but didn't do enough to avoid damage. The suit points to the Chicago Climate Action Plan as evidence that the city is aware of the dangers.

"The defendant knew or should have known that climate change in Cook County has resulted in greater rain fall [sic] volume, greater rainfall intensity and greater rainfall duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced, resulting in greater stormwater runoff," the lawsuit says.

The Chicago Tribune is a very right-wing newspaper, a Republican bastion you would expect to support crackpot Republican tactics and strategies. An OpEd this week, however, did not support the crazy, unsubstantiated, theories expressed by Marco Rubio that fly in the face of climate change science, a science the Chicago region is well aware of-- as is Rubio's own Florida. "In an interview yesterday, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a possible presidential candidate in 2016, took about as extreme a position on global warming as he possibly could. 'Our climate is always changing,' he said. 'I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.' In short, he thinks that if the climate is changing, it is not attributable to anything people have done."

Rubio's statement is not just meant to firm up support from the fringe Republican base who have been brainwashed by Fox and Hate Talk Radio, it is a public pledge to the Koch brothers, that even if climate change makes Orlando beachfront property and drowns his own Miami-Dade, his fealty to their cause is undying. So far, in his short time in Congress, Rubio has taken $464,470 from the insurance industry. The Chicago Tribune points out that his position "departs not only from the vast majority of climate scientists but even a skeptic as prominent as Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the Cato Institute. In his book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know, co-written with Robert Balling Jr., Michaels says, 'Humans are implicated in the planetary warming that began around 1975. Greenhouse gases are likely to be one cause, probably a considerable one.'"

So Rubio is repudiating even scientists who reject the scientific consensus, not to mention scientists who once were skeptical but changed their minds. He intends to defend the position that if any warming is underway, humans didn't cause it and humans can't contain it.

In 2012, Rick Santorum called global warming a "hoax." Mitt Romney originally acknowledged humans were causing the climate to heat up, but reversed course, saying, "I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans." That position is what primary voters demand. So expect the Republican Party to keep denying what is increasingly untenable to deny.

A congressman from Orlando, whose district would be beachfront property if numbskulls like Rubio are given a hand in formulating environmental and climate policy, is Alan Grayson. "It’s insane, " he told John Amato last week in regard to Rubio's statements about climate change, "but that’s what passes for political discourse these days. It’s a complete rejection of facts, evidence and logic-- the “Endarkenment.”

So far this cycle, the insurance industry has given Rubio, who is not up for reelection, $64,830. And Grayson, who is up for reelection? $750. Many in Florida want to see Grayson run against Rubio for the Florida Senate seat in 2016. Perhaps the Insurance Industry will stop funding Rubio by then… maybe not. But one thing is certain… Grayson will continue drawing his support from grassroots progressives, which is why we're asking DWT readers-- and insurance companies-- to consider sending money to GutsPAC right here-- to help avoid more endarkenment.


UPDATE: Getting Played… By Big Insurance

Mike Obermueller released this awesome TV spot today. I happen to be reading the part of Elizabeth Warren's book where she talks about the lobbyists barreling down the halls of Congress-- so sure of themselves and so positive that the weak and pathetic congressmembers would bend to their will (and wads of cash). This clip reminded me of how hard it is to fight that kind of force. The insurance industry has given John Kline $430,000-- and he's worked hard for their money… betraying his own constituents. Watch the ad:

208 Republicans Joined The Democrats In Supporting Community-Based Flood Insurance Options-- But What About The 17 Republicans Who Favor Floods?

Flooding along the Reedy River through the west end section of downtown Greenville, SC, 29 July 2004 (Trey Gowdy's district but he probably figures it'll never flood again)

Remember the other day when we talked about the Pro-Pandemic Caucus? There are 28 Republicans in that one. Would you believe that there's also a Pro-Flood Caucus? It's considerably smaller-- only 17 tight-wing crackpots Members of Congress in that one.

Tuesday 208 Republicans and every single Democrat passed H.R. 1035, (397-17) which requires a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance programs. Sounds like the kind of thing Congress should be doing, right? Well not to the certifiably insane fringes of the GOP, the nihilists who just want to see the whole house come down. These guys (no gals; the bolded ones are also part of the Pro-Pandemic Caucus):

• Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI)
• Paul Broun (R-GA)
• Doug Collins (R-GA)
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)
• RonDeSantis (R-FL)
• Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
• Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)
• Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
• Tom Graves (R-GA)
• Thomas Massie (R-KY)
• Ted Poe (R-TX)
• Trey Radel (R-FL)
• Reid Ribble (R-WI)
• Steve Stockman (R-TX)
• Tim Walberg (R-MI)
• Randy Weber (TX)

How much more crazy are the pro-flood Republicans than the pro-pandemic Republicans? Well... what does it tell you that this group was even too much for Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, Mo Brooks and Jeff Miller?

This bill, which was sponsored by Gwen Moore (D-WI) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL), directs FEMA "to study options, methods, and strategies for making voluntary community-based flood insurance policies available through the National Flood Insurance Program, including a strategy to implement options that would encourage communities to undertake flood mitigation activities." Socialism! These really are the craziest of the crazy-- real dangers to society! I guess the three kooks from northern Georgia who voted against this, Broun, Collins and Graves, don't recall the Chattahoochee River flooding in September, 2009, which did over half a billion dollars in damage and killed ten people. And as the two GOP nutcases from Florida who voted NO-- Radel and DeSantis-- know, it never floods in Florida. And were any of the kooks from Michigan alive and kicking when the Grand, Red Cedar and Battle Creek rivers all flooded at the same time, pretty much inundating what is today much of Justin Amash's district. Hey, but what do a few hundred-- or even a few thousand-- homes washed away matter when pointy headed, extremist ideological purity in on the line? And Amash is contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate? Maybe he and Broun, who  has delusions of being Georgia's next U.S. Senator, can cross-endorse each other.

Flood Insurance Bill Passes-- Boehner And His Cronies Vote NO

And neither does the Republican leadership

Yesterday the House passed-- with wide bipartisan support, 329-90-- Maxine Waters' H.R.5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. 85 Republicans crossed the aisle, abandoning their hysterical and obstructionist leaders-- who are obsessed with making America fail and causing misery everywhere. Aside from the crackpot extremists like Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Steve King (R-IA), Paul Broun (R-GA), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), John Campbell (R-CA), and Patrick McHenry (R-NC), all the Party leaders-- Boehner, Cantor, Issa, Pence, Dreier, Ryan, Sessions, and McCotter-- voted against it. So it was 85 Republicans joining with the Democrats to make sure their constituents were covered in flooding catastrophes and 89 Republicans voting to chip away at the security and well-being of American families once again. (And for those wondering how candidates for higher office Pete Hoekstra, Mark Kirk and Zach Wamp voted... forget it. Although they have all flatly refused to resign from the House, all are full time candidates now and don't bother coming in for work-- although they get $174,000/year + fantastic benefits-- not even when an issue as important to everyday citizens as flood insurance is being debated.

The flood program, an arm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has for more than four decades offered affordable insurance to more than 20,000 communities that participate in flood damage reduction efforts and to residents in federally designated flood zones. It was created in 1968 because of the reluctance of private insurers to cover flood damage.

Congress has not updated the program since 1994. In the ensuing years the once-solvent program had to pay out some $17 billion in Katrina-related claims and had to deal with FEMA flood zone remapping that has thrust thousands of homes and businesses into areas where they are required to buy flood insurance.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the chief sponsor of the bill, said it helps reduce the sticker shock of FEMA remapping by delaying the mandatory buying of insurance for five years and then phasing in full premiums over another five years.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. Without congressional action on a long-term bill, the flood program has lapsed three times this year, and Waters said that during those lapses some 1,200 people a day were unable to close on home purchases in flood plains because FEMA could neither write new insurance policies nor renew old ones. The flood program is now running on a short-term extension that expires at the end of September.

Wednesay one branch of the Republican Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, put forth what amounts to the GOP platform for the midterm elections:

• Privatize Social Security

• Cut taxes for the rich

• Log the national forests

• Expand offshore gas and oil drilling

• Privatize highways and waterways

Flood insurance? Go drown. Unemployment insurance? Go starve. Wall Street regulations? Caveat emptor. Health Insurance? As Alan Grayson put it so eloquently, "Don't get sick-- and if you do, die fast."

The Democrats, and especially Obama, may be huge disappointments-- they sure are for me, albeit not unexpected ones-- but the Republicans? Been there, done that. Instead of crying in your beer, how about kicking some right-wing Democrats who enable the Republicans, conservative shitheads like John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Lori Edwards (Blue Dog-FL) and Katrina Swett (Liebermanoids-NH), all of whom have progressive opponents on this Act Blue page?

Government Insurance

-by David Sherbula

I think maybe the Republicans are right. The U.S. Government probably has no business being in the insurance business. But since it already is, it should start off small in eliminating programs. Like Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, we need to wind these programs down slowly, so as to not create problems for those people who were counting on them.

I say we start with the U.S. Government Flood Insurance program. Let's put it on Ryan's Roadmap. It is not widely used and is a consistent loser. (That's why it was created. The private sector wouldn't touch it.) 

Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968 as the government's response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and oversees the floodplain management and mapping components of the program.

...Over 20,000 communities across the United States and its territories participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes Federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities.

Flood damage is reduced by nearly $1 billion a year through partnerships with communities, the insurance industry, and the lending industry. Further, buildings constructed in compliance with NFIP building standards suffer approximately 80 percent less damage annually than those not built in compliance. And, every $3 paid in flood insurance claims saves $1 in disaster assistance payments.

Flood insurance claims and all operating expenses of the program are paid for through premiums. None of these costs are paid by taxpayers.

How could the Republicans vote against eliminating a government insurance program that always loses money? How would Sen. DeMint of South Carolina vote on that? What about ConservaDem Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Senator Cornyn of Texas, are you in? How about you Senator Shelby?  Where do you stand on Government Flood Insurance Senator Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell? And what about all you Republican governors with the big yaps-- and the big floods-- like ole Haley Barbour in Mississippi, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota, Mark Sanford in South Carolina or Argentina, Sonny Perdue in Georgia and John Hoeven of North Dakota? 

I've seen some pretty horrible floods in Des Moines Senator Grassley; how would you vote?

Common sense tells you not to build in a flood plain or hurricane prone area. If the private sector refuses to insure you, then why should the Government? Why don't people who make a choice to live in these areas have to assume the responsibility? 

I can only hope some member of Congress puts this up to a vote. We'll see who is really against Government Insurance then. On the record.


Note from Howie: Let's see if we can get Darrell Issa, Gary Miller, Buck McKeon, Mary Bono Mack, David Dreier, Ken Calvert and Tom McClintock to introduce a simultaneous bill in the House banning government earthquake insurance. That would go a long way towards making California's congressional delegation a whole lot saner. And speaking of Republican hypocrisy and deceit, the chart showing U.S. job losses (above) and this video explaining the two-faced nature of Republican carping (below) just came out today: