Read the rest of this post...
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Friday, August 17, 2012
July was hottest on record in US
Wait, but are we sure global warming is for real? Just because the science is once again showing that there's a problem, it's probably best that we pretend as though there is not a problem.
Be sure to click through to see the map that shows the temperature changes. As you might imagine, the US was mostly much warmer than the recent historical average.
Be sure to click through to see the map that shows the temperature changes. As you might imagine, the US was mostly much warmer than the recent historical average.
July 2012 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous (lower 48) United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It turns out that the month was pretty warm globally as well, lining up as the fourth warmest July since modern record-keeping began in 1880.Read the rest of this post...
The map above shows temperature anomalies for July 2012, as analyzed by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). That is, the map shows how much warmer or cooler each area was in July 2012 compared with the average for the month from 1951–1980. To build their map, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.
Unchain discussions of race
I noticed something about Obama during the 2008 campaign. Unlike McCain, Palin, or even to a degree Hillary Clinton, Obama never showed anger. He never got indignant. He had to understand that at the first flash of the feared and loathed "angry black man" it would all be over. So he essentially ran for President with one arm tied behind his back.
In response he was called aloof, weak, and ineffectual. His family was attacked. FOX and Limbaugh feverishly worked to define Michelle as "an angry black woman". But he kept his cool, and he won. Had I been in his shoes there's no way I could have done it. I'm pretty sure precious few among us could've.
Of course, we should note, honest discussions about race and politics are forbidden. Disregard all you've learned about the Southern Strategy, voter suppression, etc. The GOP somehow struck a fabulous deal with the media where despite how racist their words, actions, or policies are we mustn't discuss it. WE MUSTN'T!
When I think about the GOP & media's relationship I picture the GOP in the role of an abusive alcoholic father p*ssing on the Christmas tree. Playing the role of the hysterical shell shocked wife is the media, desperately trying to ignore the dysfunction and pull off THE BEST CHRISTMAS EVER!
I for one am done with the charade and think it's wearing thin with many of us- including Joe Biden. The titanic power struggle between working people and monied interests is a zero-sum game, so when Romney said he wanted to "unchain Wall Street" it begged the question "Where are the chains going?"
In the wake of the Citizens United decision that corporations are people, decades of failed trickle-down policies, the countless laws limiting women's rights- some of which have resulted in women being forced to carry a dead fetus to term, predatory lending, voter suppression efforts, "papers please" laws, it's well past time to begin questioning our freedom.
Slavery happened and economic slavery is real. We're all adults and clutching our collective pearls when it comes up is ridiculous.
The issue of race has never been off limits for Republicans. Let's unchain ourselves and speak freely.
@EmperorAndoe
Read the rest of this post...
GOP again makes it more difficult to vote in PA
Seriously, why do Republicans hate our system so much that they keep making it more and more difficult to participate? They're always happy to spend money and let people die for the cause of "spreading democracy" but they certainly are against it at home. The Inquirer:
On the same day a judge cleared the way for the state's new voter identification law to take effect, the Corbett administration abandoned plans to allow voters to apply online for absentee ballots for the November election and to register online to vote.Read the rest of this post...
A spokesman for the Department of State said county elections officials told the agency that implementing the new online initiatives as well as voter ID requirements was too much to handle less than three months before the election.
But Stephanie Singer, the top elections official in Philadelphia, said she was unaware that there was an issue with setting up a system to allow voters to register and apply for absentee ballots online, and said shifting more activity online would actually make for less paperwork.
Krugman explains what's in the Ryan plan
In the interest of keeping you informed, I bring you the Professor, briefly back from vacation, to offer the low-down on Paul Ryan's budget plan.
You've probably heard it vilified. You've probably not heard it explained.
According to Krugman, the Ryan budget has two phases, the first ten years, prior to the conversion of Medicare to VoucherCare, and the years after that conversion.
Krugman on the first ten years (all emphasis mine):
After the first ten years, VoucherCare starts to kick in, which transfers a whole lot of medical costs back to Granny (and all of the suckers who voted for him). But the plan is still not a deficit-reduction plan unless there are major cuts to ... ready? ... the military:
All you need to know? Ryan proposes:
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
You've probably heard it vilified. You've probably not heard it explained.
According to Krugman, the Ryan budget has two phases, the first ten years, prior to the conversion of Medicare to VoucherCare, and the years after that conversion.
Krugman on the first ten years (all emphasis mine):
In the first decade, the big things are (i) conversion of Medicaid into a block grant program, with much lower funding than projected under current law and (ii) sharp cuts in top tax rates and corporate taxes.How does Ryan get to claim that the deficit will be reduced in this phase? "Magic asterisks" — assertions that can't possibly be true, but which everyone accepts anyway:
Is this a deficit-reduction program? Not on the face of it: it’s basically a tradeoff of reduced aid to the poor for reduced taxes on the rich, with the net effect of the specific proposals being to increase, not reduce, the deficit.
First, he insists that the tax cuts won’t reduce revenue, because they’ll be offset with unspecified “base-broadening”."Base-broadening" means broadening the tax base (taxing more things and/or closing loopholes). Right; lift your glass and say "Never gonna happen."
Second, there are large assumed cuts in discretionary spending relative to current policy[.]Both of these assertions (magic asterisks) were made without the hint of a shred of a list showing what would be done to achieve them. That's what makes the asterisks magic; like Tinker Bell, you just gotta believe.
After the first ten years, VoucherCare starts to kick in, which transfers a whole lot of medical costs back to Granny (and all of the suckers who voted for him). But the plan is still not a deficit-reduction plan unless there are major cuts to ... ready? ... the military:
[M]uch of the supposed deficit reduction comes not from Medicare but from further cuts in discretionary spending [which eventually falls] to 3.5 percent of GDP ... this number includes defense, which is currently around 4 percent of GDP.Of course these are just lies to fool the eagerly-fooled press and the right-wing rubes. The plan's proponents know these are just assertions.
All you need to know? Ryan proposes:
[S]lashing Medicaid, cutting taxes on corporations and high-income people, and replacing Medicare with a drastically less well funded voucher system.It's the asterisks that make this look like "deficit reduction."
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Your immortality on Facebook
I got a message on Facebook yesterday suggesting that I wish my friend Skip a happy birthday.
Skip did nearly a year ago.
It was a bit creepy. But it also got me thinking about Skip, who was a reader of this blog and an engineer at Apple, and who I befriended over the years, though we never did meet in person. And it was nice thinking of him again.
The same thing happened when my sister died. She had installed some app on her Facebook page that kept posting a daily inspirational photo. When I saw an update from her pop up on her Facebook page, I was a bit taken aback.
As an aside, Facebook has a way of dealing with the accounts of the dearly departed. You can ask them to "memorialize" the page. Here's their description:
Now sure, you can do nothing, and the friends will still be able to find the page. And if they read through the comments they'll figure out that you've died. Still, for me at least, it's a bit unsettling getting "updates" from people who have died. Maybe since my generation was the first "Internet" generation, it won't be as unsettling for kids younger than me. Maybe they'll just take it in stride getting annual birthday greetings, and fun photos of the day, from friends and family who passed away years ago. I don't know. And I'm not sure entirely sure I think it's a bad thing having Facebook update me on those who are no longer with us. The occasional memory isn't a bad thing.
I just found it odd, and somewhat unsettling, at first. What do you think? Has this happened to any of you? Read the rest of this post...
Skip did nearly a year ago.
It was a bit creepy. But it also got me thinking about Skip, who was a reader of this blog and an engineer at Apple, and who I befriended over the years, though we never did meet in person. And it was nice thinking of him again.
The same thing happened when my sister died. She had installed some app on her Facebook page that kept posting a daily inspirational photo. When I saw an update from her pop up on her Facebook page, I was a bit taken aback.
As an aside, Facebook has a way of dealing with the accounts of the dearly departed. You can ask them to "memorialize" the page. Here's their description:
How do I report a deceased user or an account that needs to be memorialized?I'm not entirely sure that those are enough options. Why not a third option, whereby some notice is put on the page that the person has died, but you still permit people, anyone, to find the page in search? (And maybe, depending on the family's wishes, permit them to turn off the auto-updates - UNLESS you indicated in some "options" page that you'd like the updates to continue after your death - a virtual Facebook "will and last testament" of sorts.) I mean, wouldn't it be better for long-lost friends (who aren't your Facebook "friends") to know that you've died, rather than have your page disappear entirely either because of its memorialization or removal?
Memorializing the account:
It is our policy to memorialize all deceased users' accounts on the site. When an account is memorialized, only confirmed friends can see the profile (timeline) or locate it in Search. The profile (timeline) will also no longer appear in the Suggestions section of the Home page. Friends and family can leave posts in remembrance.
In order to protect the privacy of the deceased user, we cannot provide login information for the account to anyone. However, once an account has been memorialized, it is completely secure and cannot be accessed or altered by anyone.
If you need to report a profile (timeline) to be memorialized, please click here.
Removing the account:
Verified immediate family members may request the removal of a loved one’s account from the site.
Now sure, you can do nothing, and the friends will still be able to find the page. And if they read through the comments they'll figure out that you've died. Still, for me at least, it's a bit unsettling getting "updates" from people who have died. Maybe since my generation was the first "Internet" generation, it won't be as unsettling for kids younger than me. Maybe they'll just take it in stride getting annual birthday greetings, and fun photos of the day, from friends and family who passed away years ago. I don't know. And I'm not sure entirely sure I think it's a bad thing having Facebook update me on those who are no longer with us. The occasional memory isn't a bad thing.
I just found it odd, and somewhat unsettling, at first. What do you think? Has this happened to any of you? Read the rest of this post...
Solving the climate crisis — Picking goals, targets and tactics
UPDATE: A complete list of climate series pieces is available here:
The Climate series: a reference post.
UPDATE 2: A summary version of this post is available here.
________
To recap, in previous episodes of this series:
■ We've taken a walk through the numbers and we know that they aren't good.
We're going to get 1½°C (3°F) warming by 2100 regardless — even if we stop right now. We've gotten only half that already. The rest is in the pipeline, inevitable.
The political elites — for example, the G8 and Copenhagen conference — want to stop at 2°C (3½°F) warming, but no one can agree to start the process, and Obama has recently backed away from that target number.
We know that we're inches away from James Hansen's "game over" at 3°C (5½°F) by 2100 — a mass extinction scenario for life on earth. Up to half the species alive today will disappear.
Even so, we're currently on track for a life-killing 6–7°C (11–12½°F). No change we've made so far has altered that trajectory. Amazing.
■ We've looked at what doesn't work. Individual action, while absolutely necessary, is not and will not be enough. Technology alone will not solve the problem (click to see why).
Further, market solutions — for example, a carbon tax — are unlikely answers since (a) modern markets are chaotic and manipulated, not "efficient" and self-correcting; and (b) we simply have no time to wait.
■ We know we must act. Yet there's a monster at the gate, standing in the way, and he aims to stop every effort to stop him.
That monster is the carbon industry and the men and women who who use it to aggrandize their own egos and already considerable wealth.
■ The answer is inescapable. There's only one way to solve this crisis before it gets much much worse. If we don't put the carbon industry out of business, we're done for; time to pack it in.
But how? The rest of this series will consider that question.
A note about solutions
I don't want to offer just solutions. Though I'll have suggestions, others will have more.
I also want to offer kinds of solutions. I'd like to focus the discussion to avoid dead-end answers and shape it toward effectiveness. Dead-ends and ineffectiveness have been our downfall on the recent left — time to do better. The enemy is strong; we need to be stronger than we've been.
Just one example: Training all of our guns [metaphorically of course] on right-wing deniers is a waste of time. Don't do it personally; don't do it professionally (unless the science is your profession).
Educating (unconfusing) the public matters; it's an important and critical element (see below). But if we don't as a group move past the deniers and deal with the carbon lords and their enablers, directly and forcefully, we're toast. Denialism is not what's keeping us from educating the public — it's the carbon lords and those who do their bidding.
Keeping us engaged with deniers is what they want. If I were a carbon CEO, that's what I would want. It keeps the denier-discussion alive. We need to act like we've won that discussion and move on. Because we have and we have to (won, and move one).
The pieces of the puzzle — how do we solve this problem?
As I see it, the climate-solution puzzle has these pieces:
1. Defining the problem correctly
The problem has been characterized throughout this series, and recapped at the top of this post. I want to focus here on just two elements, two numbers. From a solutions standpoint, nothing else matters:
Why? Because stopping at "only" 3°C is as difficult as stopping at "only" 2°C, or 4°C, or 5°C. No one in power wants to stop at all. Their solution is delayed action, and that's the 7°C scenario. Getting to any number less than 7°C will take the same monumental effort.
Carbon extraction needs to end, not slow down. The problem isn't how to ramp down to some high number. The problem is how to stop completely. If we don't, as a species, stop completely, it's over. Period.
If I'm right (and believe me, I'm dying to see the argument that shows me wrong), those two numbers characterize the two main parts of the problem. The first is the "best" that we can hope for if we do stop. The last is what we get if we don't.
Bottom line: (1) Picking the number to stop at isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. Slowing isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. No more man-made carbon should go into the air, forever.
(2) And we better not lose track of that 1½°C scenario. It's coming, and only a few countries have even begun to prepare for it.
2. What's the umbrella solution?
We mentioned that above, and we dealt with that here. To repeat:
These are pathologically sick and dangerous individuals. Our goal is to stop them.
Yes, I know this will cause convulsions. Consider the alternative. We're going to get convulsions. The point is to make sure we get the right convulsions.
Is carbon-lord behavior really pathological? Yes; I can prove it with one illustration:
According to the Forbes 2012 billionaire's list, Charles Koch and David Koch each own $25 billion, for a combined fortune of $50 billion.
Each alone is the 12th richest man in the world. The combined $50 billion makes the Koch Bros together the 3th richest on the planet — just behind Bill Gates and slightly ahead of Warren Buffett (poor fellow; he slipped).
Yet these two men (just two of 7 billion humans on this planet) — these two carbon lords — are prime financiers of climate denialism. As much as anyone alive, they're why we're headed for 7°C; they and their peers are pushing in that direction just as hard and as fast as they can.
The Kochs re wealthy beyond anyone's dreams; they have the third largest fortune on the planet; yet they want more. Worse, to win they're putting our species at risk, putting the world on course for mass extinction.
This is beyond criminal — it contemplates murder on a planet-wide scale, for the sake of mere pride, mere greed. Monstrous. Used to be, only the villains in a Star Trek movie would act this evil.
I'm serious. No one with a conscience would do what the Koch Bros are doing; what Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, is doing; what Barack Obama will be doing if he approves the Keystone Pipeline.
No one with a conscience.
Bottom line: The only solution is to kill the carbon industry. If we don't do that, we're toast. Any scenario that includes adding carbon to the air adds to the problem.
3. What's the right "ask"?
History is filled with successful movements that asked for the wrong thing and got it. I'll give you one example from just last year.
The environmental movement shook down the thunder to delay Obama's approval of the Keystone Sludge-Bearing Pipeline. They succeeded — Obama announced a delay until after the 2012 election — and the movement disbanded, left the streets and went home.
That was a monumental effort, really heroic and courageous stuff. I applaud everyone involved. Now they have to do it twice.
I know I may be in the minority here, but I'd have asked for something different the first time. How about this:
With that in mind, what's the right "ask" for us — the thing we need to shoot for to put the carbon lords out of business? Read these devolution scenarios and pick one.
The answer — and thus the "ask" — are obvious:
■ The only devolution scenario a sane person picks is the first one — the 1½°C we're already stuck with. No one would choose any of the others.
■ If that's true, there's only one ask:
1. If you could magically stop now — which would easily end up being two years or more from today — would you go for it? Of course you would. Why not? If the carbon lords knew they really had to stop, they'd be all over alternate business plans in a heartbeat. Most would involve energy.
(I'll have an example of a Stop Now scenario in a few days. Want a preview? Assume that FDR were in the White House, FDR's Congress was on Capitol Hill, then ask yourself what he would do. I know the answer, because he's already done it. And it worked.)
2. No matter what you ask for, you'll get something worse. There's zero downside to asking for what you want.
3. "Stop Now" is the only moral request. Do you really want to be the person asking for the consequences a 2°C ceiling — which no one can get to anyway — when your very argument says even that will be terrible?
Given the moral imperatives and what's at stake, you end up looking like you don't take your own rhetoric seriously:
4. Finally, given the way the other side is playing — delay is their trump card — only two numbers matter. The 1½°C (at least) that's baked in, and the 7°C we're headed for. It will take a Stop Now effort to keep us anywhere below that second number.
Bottom line: There's only one "ask" — Stop Now. Stop at the earliest possible second. That's the only way we'll stay under 6–7°C. In my opinion, of course.
4. Who are the movement's targets?
If the goal is to apply leverage to people whose actions matter, I see two broad courses of action:
There are four groups of perps whose behavior I'd target for change — the top predators who are driving the show, and three groups of important enablers. The fifth group is the people, who need to hear the truth:
1. The carbon CEO class. Any individual making obscene money from personal participation in corporate carbon extraction. These are the "carbon lords" I've been referring to, the top predators. They really are feeding big.
We could broaden that out, but let's keep it simple. This gives us about ... what? ... 20 or 30 individuals to make the face of mass extinction? In my opinion, that's plenty.
We could start with four or five to focus initial action, but I'd develop the whole list first. It wouldn't take that long, and it makes a nice newspaper ad and reference list.
2. Their "friends" in the political class. Political enablers give the carbon lords enormous leverage and reach. If the political class ever turned against the carbon CEOs, we'd be playing a different game.
So target the carbon politicians. Imhofe is an easy one. So is Obama the minute he won't say No to Keystone. But there are quite a few others. We could probably add about 100 names in the U.S. alone. That's more than enough. If we started with just three and really pushed, the rest will take notice.
(How about it, Barack. Just say No. Do you really want to be the face of mass extinction? How's that for a legacy?)
3. Their "friends" in the media. If it weren't for the top media enablers, the people would be unconfused by now. It's not just Dancing Dave ("One Live Crew") — we could list maybe 10 in his business and do just fine.
Again, if you target just two or three, the rest will take notice. Does nice David Gregory or smiling Brian Williams want to be the face of mass extinction? I can think of several ways to make them say Yes or No — on camera. Just takes the courage to ask.
4. The important denier "scientists". I thank Mike Papantonio for making this suggestion. Yes, these people are "whores" (to quote Mr. Papantonio) and need to be punished, taken off the board as actors.
For starters, how much easier would Michael Mann's job be, if he didn't have to fend off the top deniers in his profession? How much more good work could he get done?
Help Michael Mann and all who work with him. Help make the top deniers the face of extinction. I'll bet if we took two or three of these folks to serious task — destroyed their professional reputations — the rest would soon crawl away.
5. The people. Unlike the other four groups, the people should be unconfused only, not punished or threatened.
True, some are right-wing rubes and will never be "unconfused." But most are not; most are genuinely perplexed.
A campaign of education — not aimed at the deniers (lost cause), but messaged around "the data is in and here's what it says" — is the only next step.
We have to talk like we know, because we do, and get the message out in a way that's easy to grasp. This series of posts is an effort in that direction.
Now combine that education effort with actions that publicly target the CEO class for their greed, the way abortion haters target clinics with signs showing fetuses. (We could make signs too, don't you think?)
Combine it with an attack on two or three prominent politicians — I'm looking at you, Mr. Obama — that challenges them directly, personally and morally. Combine it with a parallel attack on one or two billionaire news-blond(e)s — on camera.
As the enablers begin to fall, as they're starting to do, the messaging becomes easier, self-reinforcing. Education of the broad population isn't enough by a long shot; but it's critical.
Bottom line: Who are our targets? The perps and the people. Lean on perps as individuals who are making immoral choices. Be bold, aggressive, persistent. Unconfuse the people with easy-to-grasp explanations. Don't apologize, don't speak to deniers, and don't stop.
5. Tactics and action
I'll leave this for a future post, but regular readers know my thinking already.
I always recommend using leverage and timing, being aggressive and courageous, rejecting violence, and following the rules for effective coalitions.
For two examples of leverage and timing that work, read this post. Focus on what Color of Change did to ALEC and why they succeeded.
Then scroll down to the Joe Sudbay–Barack Obama story. That was leverage. All it took was one man, a one-time-only situation, and courage. Joe changed the history of gay rights on that afternoon.
Again, I'll have much more on this in the future. I'm certainly not the only source of tactical suggestions (god help us if I am). But I think I'm one of just a handful who thinks this way. We need to up our game; a movement based on mass demonstrations alone is not going to get the job done, as I see it.
Bottom line: A variety of tactics are needed, but my preference includes focused "asymmetrical" actions that use few resources and take advantage of leverage and timing. Think Tim DeChristopher; think out of the box.
But all tactics, in my opinion, should focus on the two actions mentioned above. Again:
Conclusion
Because this is already long, I'll save the summary for a future post. It's easy to devise — I'll just extract the bones of this post — and I don't want to bury the simple version of what's here by placing it this far down.
When that summary is written, I'll link to it in this space. [Summary is here.]
If you want to see all posts in the Climate series, I've created a reference list. I'll be updating it continually until we're done. Hope it helps.
As always, thanks for reading this far.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
The Climate series: a reference post.
UPDATE 2: A summary version of this post is available here.
________
To recap, in previous episodes of this series:
■ We've taken a walk through the numbers and we know that they aren't good.
We're going to get 1½°C (3°F) warming by 2100 regardless — even if we stop right now. We've gotten only half that already. The rest is in the pipeline, inevitable.
The political elites — for example, the G8 and Copenhagen conference — want to stop at 2°C (3½°F) warming, but no one can agree to start the process, and Obama has recently backed away from that target number.
We know that we're inches away from James Hansen's "game over" at 3°C (5½°F) by 2100 — a mass extinction scenario for life on earth. Up to half the species alive today will disappear.
Even so, we're currently on track for a life-killing 6–7°C (11–12½°F). No change we've made so far has altered that trajectory. Amazing.
■ We've looked at what doesn't work. Individual action, while absolutely necessary, is not and will not be enough. Technology alone will not solve the problem (click to see why).
Further, market solutions — for example, a carbon tax — are unlikely answers since (a) modern markets are chaotic and manipulated, not "efficient" and self-correcting; and (b) we simply have no time to wait.
■ We know we must act. Yet there's a monster at the gate, standing in the way, and he aims to stop every effort to stop him.
That monster is the carbon industry and the men and women who who use it to aggrandize their own egos and already considerable wealth.
■ The answer is inescapable. There's only one way to solve this crisis before it gets much much worse. If we don't put the carbon industry out of business, we're done for; time to pack it in.
But how? The rest of this series will consider that question.
A note about solutions
I don't want to offer just solutions. Though I'll have suggestions, others will have more.
I also want to offer kinds of solutions. I'd like to focus the discussion to avoid dead-end answers and shape it toward effectiveness. Dead-ends and ineffectiveness have been our downfall on the recent left — time to do better. The enemy is strong; we need to be stronger than we've been.
Just one example: Training all of our guns [metaphorically of course] on right-wing deniers is a waste of time. Don't do it personally; don't do it professionally (unless the science is your profession).
Educating (unconfusing) the public matters; it's an important and critical element (see below). But if we don't as a group move past the deniers and deal with the carbon lords and their enablers, directly and forcefully, we're toast. Denialism is not what's keeping us from educating the public — it's the carbon lords and those who do their bidding.
Keeping us engaged with deniers is what they want. If I were a carbon CEO, that's what I would want. It keeps the denier-discussion alive. We need to act like we've won that discussion and move on. Because we have and we have to (won, and move one).
The pieces of the puzzle — how do we solve this problem?
As I see it, the climate-solution puzzle has these pieces:
- Defining the problem correctly.
- Identifying the umbrella solution — what high-level goal will solve the problem?
- Choosing the right "ask" — making sure we don't ramp up our forces, for example, and then ask for something that won't be a solution (a surprisingly common mistake).
- Identifying the targets of action.
- Choosing effective tactics and acting aggressively.
1. Defining the problem correctly
The problem has been characterized throughout this series, and recapped at the top of this post. I want to focus here on just two elements, two numbers. From a solutions standpoint, nothing else matters:
- If we stop now, global warming will reach 1½°C (3°F).
- We're currently on track for 6–7°C (11–12½°F).
Why? Because stopping at "only" 3°C is as difficult as stopping at "only" 2°C, or 4°C, or 5°C. No one in power wants to stop at all. Their solution is delayed action, and that's the 7°C scenario. Getting to any number less than 7°C will take the same monumental effort.
Carbon extraction needs to end, not slow down. The problem isn't how to ramp down to some high number. The problem is how to stop completely. If we don't, as a species, stop completely, it's over. Period.
If I'm right (and believe me, I'm dying to see the argument that shows me wrong), those two numbers characterize the two main parts of the problem. The first is the "best" that we can hope for if we do stop. The last is what we get if we don't.
Bottom line: (1) Picking the number to stop at isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. Slowing isn't the problem. Stopping is the problem. No more man-made carbon should go into the air, forever.
(2) And we better not lose track of that 1½°C scenario. It's coming, and only a few countries have even begun to prepare for it.
2. What's the umbrella solution?
We mentioned that above, and we dealt with that here. To repeat:
Put the carbon industry out of business.The goal of the carbon CEO class is to make as much money as they can regardless of the destruction they cause. Their greed is as monumental is their inhumanity.
These are pathologically sick and dangerous individuals. Our goal is to stop them.
Yes, I know this will cause convulsions. Consider the alternative. We're going to get convulsions. The point is to make sure we get the right convulsions.
Is carbon-lord behavior really pathological? Yes; I can prove it with one illustration:
According to the Forbes 2012 billionaire's list, Charles Koch and David Koch each own $25 billion, for a combined fortune of $50 billion.
Each alone is the 12th richest man in the world. The combined $50 billion makes the Koch Bros together the 3th richest on the planet — just behind Bill Gates and slightly ahead of Warren Buffett (poor fellow; he slipped).
Yet these two men (just two of 7 billion humans on this planet) — these two carbon lords — are prime financiers of climate denialism. As much as anyone alive, they're why we're headed for 7°C; they and their peers are pushing in that direction just as hard and as fast as they can.
The Kochs re wealthy beyond anyone's dreams; they have the third largest fortune on the planet; yet they want more. Worse, to win they're putting our species at risk, putting the world on course for mass extinction.
This is beyond criminal — it contemplates murder on a planet-wide scale, for the sake of mere pride, mere greed. Monstrous. Used to be, only the villains in a Star Trek movie would act this evil.
I'm serious. No one with a conscience would do what the Koch Bros are doing; what Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, is doing; what Barack Obama will be doing if he approves the Keystone Pipeline.
No one with a conscience.
Bottom line: The only solution is to kill the carbon industry. If we don't do that, we're toast. Any scenario that includes adding carbon to the air adds to the problem.
3. What's the right "ask"?
History is filled with successful movements that asked for the wrong thing and got it. I'll give you one example from just last year.
The environmental movement shook down the thunder to delay Obama's approval of the Keystone Sludge-Bearing Pipeline. They succeeded — Obama announced a delay until after the 2012 election — and the movement disbanded, left the streets and went home.
That was a monumental effort, really heroic and courageous stuff. I applaud everyone involved. Now they have to do it twice.
I know I may be in the minority here, but I'd have asked for something different the first time. How about this:
Dear sir,Think I'm joking? The arguments for delay were correctly and consistently presented in "death of the planet" language. If protecting life on earth is the problem, why ask for delay? Cut out the middle man and ask for the real solution. Zero pipeline ever.
Please cancel the pipeline now and forever.
Your friend, the entire rest of the world
With that in mind, what's the right "ask" for us — the thing we need to shoot for to put the carbon lords out of business? Read these devolution scenarios and pick one.
The answer — and thus the "ask" — are obvious:
■ The only devolution scenario a sane person picks is the first one — the 1½°C we're already stuck with. No one would choose any of the others.
■ If that's true, there's only one ask:
Stop Now.Obvious, right? Consider:
Stop at the earliest possible second.
1. If you could magically stop now — which would easily end up being two years or more from today — would you go for it? Of course you would. Why not? If the carbon lords knew they really had to stop, they'd be all over alternate business plans in a heartbeat. Most would involve energy.
(I'll have an example of a Stop Now scenario in a few days. Want a preview? Assume that FDR were in the White House, FDR's Congress was on Capitol Hill, then ask yourself what he would do. I know the answer, because he's already done it. And it worked.)
2. No matter what you ask for, you'll get something worse. There's zero downside to asking for what you want.
3. "Stop Now" is the only moral request. Do you really want to be the person asking for the consequences a 2°C ceiling — which no one can get to anyway — when your very argument says even that will be terrible?
Given the moral imperatives and what's at stake, you end up looking like you don't take your own rhetoric seriously:
I'll die within minutes if I don't eat now. But I'll settle for later tonight if that works for you.No; if we need to Stop Now, say so.
4. Finally, given the way the other side is playing — delay is their trump card — only two numbers matter. The 1½°C (at least) that's baked in, and the 7°C we're headed for. It will take a Stop Now effort to keep us anywhere below that second number.
Bottom line: There's only one "ask" — Stop Now. Stop at the earliest possible second. That's the only way we'll stay under 6–7°C. In my opinion, of course.
4. Who are the movement's targets?
If the goal is to apply leverage to people whose actions matter, I see two broad courses of action:
- Lean on the perps.
- Unconfuse the people.
There are four groups of perps whose behavior I'd target for change — the top predators who are driving the show, and three groups of important enablers. The fifth group is the people, who need to hear the truth:
1. The carbon CEO class. Any individual making obscene money from personal participation in corporate carbon extraction. These are the "carbon lords" I've been referring to, the top predators. They really are feeding big.
We could broaden that out, but let's keep it simple. This gives us about ... what? ... 20 or 30 individuals to make the face of mass extinction? In my opinion, that's plenty.
We could start with four or five to focus initial action, but I'd develop the whole list first. It wouldn't take that long, and it makes a nice newspaper ad and reference list.
2. Their "friends" in the political class. Political enablers give the carbon lords enormous leverage and reach. If the political class ever turned against the carbon CEOs, we'd be playing a different game.
So target the carbon politicians. Imhofe is an easy one. So is Obama the minute he won't say No to Keystone. But there are quite a few others. We could probably add about 100 names in the U.S. alone. That's more than enough. If we started with just three and really pushed, the rest will take notice.
(How about it, Barack. Just say No. Do you really want to be the face of mass extinction? How's that for a legacy?)
3. Their "friends" in the media. If it weren't for the top media enablers, the people would be unconfused by now. It's not just Dancing Dave ("One Live Crew") — we could list maybe 10 in his business and do just fine.
Again, if you target just two or three, the rest will take notice. Does nice David Gregory or smiling Brian Williams want to be the face of mass extinction? I can think of several ways to make them say Yes or No — on camera. Just takes the courage to ask.
4. The important denier "scientists". I thank Mike Papantonio for making this suggestion. Yes, these people are "whores" (to quote Mr. Papantonio) and need to be punished, taken off the board as actors.
For starters, how much easier would Michael Mann's job be, if he didn't have to fend off the top deniers in his profession? How much more good work could he get done?
Help Michael Mann and all who work with him. Help make the top deniers the face of extinction. I'll bet if we took two or three of these folks to serious task — destroyed their professional reputations — the rest would soon crawl away.
5. The people. Unlike the other four groups, the people should be unconfused only, not punished or threatened.
True, some are right-wing rubes and will never be "unconfused." But most are not; most are genuinely perplexed.
A campaign of education — not aimed at the deniers (lost cause), but messaged around "the data is in and here's what it says" — is the only next step.
We have to talk like we know, because we do, and get the message out in a way that's easy to grasp. This series of posts is an effort in that direction.
Now combine that education effort with actions that publicly target the CEO class for their greed, the way abortion haters target clinics with signs showing fetuses. (We could make signs too, don't you think?)
Combine it with an attack on two or three prominent politicians — I'm looking at you, Mr. Obama — that challenges them directly, personally and morally. Combine it with a parallel attack on one or two billionaire news-blond(e)s — on camera.
As the enablers begin to fall, as they're starting to do, the messaging becomes easier, self-reinforcing. Education of the broad population isn't enough by a long shot; but it's critical.
Bottom line: Who are our targets? The perps and the people. Lean on perps as individuals who are making immoral choices. Be bold, aggressive, persistent. Unconfuse the people with easy-to-grasp explanations. Don't apologize, don't speak to deniers, and don't stop.
5. Tactics and action
I'll leave this for a future post, but regular readers know my thinking already.
I always recommend using leverage and timing, being aggressive and courageous, rejecting violence, and following the rules for effective coalitions.
For two examples of leverage and timing that work, read this post. Focus on what Color of Change did to ALEC and why they succeeded.
Then scroll down to the Joe Sudbay–Barack Obama story. That was leverage. All it took was one man, a one-time-only situation, and courage. Joe changed the history of gay rights on that afternoon.
Again, I'll have much more on this in the future. I'm certainly not the only source of tactical suggestions (god help us if I am). But I think I'm one of just a handful who thinks this way. We need to up our game; a movement based on mass demonstrations alone is not going to get the job done, as I see it.
Bottom line: A variety of tactics are needed, but my preference includes focused "asymmetrical" actions that use few resources and take advantage of leverage and timing. Think Tim DeChristopher; think out of the box.
But all tactics, in my opinion, should focus on the two actions mentioned above. Again:
- Lean on the perps.
- Unconfuse the people.
Conclusion
Because this is already long, I'll save the summary for a future post. It's easy to devise — I'll just extract the bones of this post — and I don't want to bury the simple version of what's here by placing it this far down.
When that summary is written, I'll link to it in this space. [Summary is here.]
If you want to see all posts in the Climate series, I've created a reference list. I'll be updating it continually until we're done. Hope it helps.
As always, thanks for reading this far.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Should an American medal winner wave a Mexican flag at the Olympics?
 |
| From CNN.com. |
American Olympic athlete Leo Manzano won a silver medal in the 1500 meters final in London. When he did his victory lap, he was carrying a US flag and a Mexican flag. Manzano is an American citizen, but originally from Mexico. Some people felt that it was wrong - downright unpatriotic - of Manzano to fly the flag of another competitor after his victory for "America."
Did Manzano do anything wrong?
I have to admit I was somewhat conflicted when I saw the photo. I was surprised that the issue didn't feel like a 100% slam dunk in the "yes" category. The question is why it didn't (to me at least), and whether that helps us better understand issues ranging from immigration to minorities.
First, I read a story by Ruben Navarrette, who's Mexican-American, on CNN. Navarrette didn't think the flag was a good idea (though he doesn't mind Mexican-Americans waving it in other contexts). I'm not convinced that Navarrette makes a very compelling argument against waving the flag, but some of his points were interesting to me, as a child of immigrant(s) myself.
Most Mexican-Americans I know would need a whole team of therapists to sort out their views on culture, national identity, ethnic pride and their relationship with Mother Mexico. They're the orphans of the Southwest -- too Mexican for the Americans, too American for the Mexicans. Their positive reaction to the photo has less to do with Manzano than with their own sense of displacement.Welcome to the club. He could be describing Greek immigrants, or really any immigrants to America who had to carefully, and confusedly, navigate the waters between two cultures, and never fully feel a member of either.
Many Mexicans who came to the United States -- particularly those who came as professionals or became professionals once they got here -- look to Mexico with a mixture of affection and guilt. They romanticize what they left behind and find it easier to love the country from hundreds or thousands of miles away. They may live in the United States, but many of them still consider themselves children of Mexico -- the kind who run away from home.
So I get ethnic pride. Having grown up being called "John the Greek," I get it.
But I was trying to figure out what bothered me, albeit only slightly, about seeing Manzano with the flag - and moreso, what bothered me about what he told the media. More from Navarrette:
You can't help but be proud of Manzano and the country that allowed him the opportunity to fulfill his potential.Gotta admit, the quotes kind of bothered me too. The question is why? Would I be as bothered if a Greek-American said he was running for two countries, Greece and America? Would I be as bothered if a Greek-American Olympian ran around the track carrying two flags, Greek and American? I'm not so sure I would.
So why did Manzano carry two flags with him on his victory lap? As the world looked on, he held up both the U.S. flag and the Mexican flag. Not a good look. And not a good idea.
Manzano posted messages on Twitter throughout the competition -- in Spanish and English. After his victory, he tweeted, "Silver medal, still felt like I won! Representing two countries USA and Mexico!"
That's funny. I only saw one set of letters on his jersey: USA.
Now, as Navarrette acknowledges, in part it comes down to context. He notes that he recommended that Mexican-Americans not wave Mexican flags during the huge immigration rallies they had around the country several years ago. Joe and I attended the enormous rally they had in DC, and it was a sea of American flags. It was a beautiful and compelling visual that would have been lessened, I think, had it included the flag of another country (the point of the March was to say "we are American too" - that's best done with Americana, not Mexicana).
But that was a political PR decision, what about Manzano in the Olympics? Well, a few points.
I suspect some of the "concern" over a Mexican-American waving a Mexican flag at the Olympics is because there's a concern in some quarters over whether today's immigrants, of whatever nationality, really want to "become" American. Are they willing to learn our language, assimilate to our culture and our values, become truly "American"?
Not that this concern is new - nor that the concern is entirely valid: My mom's mom never did learn much English beyond responding to a knock on the front door with "who is?" But "yiayia" did a marvelous job raising a new family in a new lang, and we all turned out quite American, thank you very much. So I'm divided on the question of language and assimilation.
Back to Manzano. I suspect any concern about his Mexican flag is based in a concern about whether Latino immigrants to America truly want to become "American." I suspect that that's the difference between why some would worry about a Mexican flag but not worry had a second generation Italian American waved an Italian one. There's no concern about the Italian assimilating - his family did a good 80 years ago. That's not to say that the same concerns wouldn't have been aired about the Italian-American had he waved the Italian flag back in the 1920s...
None of this "proves" that the concern over the flag is warranted. But I suspect that the origins of the concern go to the question of immigration more generally, and Latino immigration specifically. And to the extent that anyone is concerned that some recently Latino immigrants to the US aren't sufficiently interested in becoming "American," from the political angle at least, a little added PR for the Mexican-American cause, by putting the Mexican flag aside and sticking with the stars and stripes, might not have been a bad PR move for Manzano, just as his brethren stuck with the American flags at the immigration rally. It's possible that Manzano missed a golden opportunity to show the doubters that immigrants really can be Americans, and even the best of America.
But I'm still not 100% sure. Your thoughts? Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
