Setting The Record Straight

If you watched Planet of The Humans, executive-produced by Michael Moore, like me you probably came away profoundly disillusioned. The film essentially says that the environmental movement and its advocacy for alternative energy sources is a house of cards and a big scam. From biomass to EV batteries to solar panels and turbines, the point is made over and over that they consume prodigious amounts of energy to produce, and the savings over the long term in greenhouse gas emissions are negligible at best.

Fortunately, there has been fierce rebuttal to the claims the film makes. One of them is by Bill McKibben, one of the patron saints of the environmental movement, in a lengthy Rolling Stone article, well-worth the read.

Another is by the always readable and always intelligent George Monbiot, who writes that the film is a gift to climate-change deniers who have for years been using discredited myths promoted in the film to justify their position.

Occasionally, the film lands a punch on the right nose. It is right to attack the burning of trees to make electricity. But when the film’s presenter and director, Jeff Gibbs, claims, “I found only one environmental leader willing to reject biomass and biofuels”, he can’t have been looking very far. Some people have been speaking out against them ever since they became a serious proposition (since 2004 in my case). Almost every environmental leader I know opposes the burning of fresh materials to generate power.

There are also some genuine and difficult problems with renewable energy, particularly the mining of the necessary materials. But the film’s attacks on solar and wind power rely on a series of blatant falsehoods. It claims that, in producing electricity from renewables, “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place”. This is flat wrong. On average, a solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil energy required to build and install it. For wind turbines the ratio is 44 to one.

Planet of the Humans also claims that you can’t reduce fossil fuel use through renewable energy: coal is instead being replaced by gas. Well, in the third quarter of 2019, renewables in the UK generated more electricity than coal, oil and gas plants put together. As a result of the switch to renewables in this country, the amount of fossil fuel used for power generation has halved since 2010. By 2025, the government forecasts, roughly half our electricity will come from renewables, while gas burning will drop by a further 40%.

While Monbiot concedes the film's assertion that a good number of conservation groups take money from fossil fuel companies, he says its relentless attack on 350.org co-founder McKibben is misplaced, as he

takes no money from any of his campaigning work. It’s an almost comic exercise in misdirection, but unfortunately it has horrible, real-world consequences, as McKibben now faces even more threats and attacks than he confronted before.

Monbiot sees the film's 'final solution' as something of a red herring, snce it claims that only by seeing a mass die-off of an overpopulated world can there be any hope:

Yes, population growth does contribute to the pressures on the natural world. But while the global population is rising by 1% a year, consumption, until the pandemic, was rising at a steady 3%. High consumption is concentrated in countries where population growth is low. Where population growth is highest, consumption tends to be extremely low. Almost all the growth in numbers is in poor countries largely inhabited by black and brown people. When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, “it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.” It’s not hard to see why the far right loves this film.

No one can ever accuse me of having an especially sunny disposition or optimistic outlook. Nonetheless, I was heartened to read this piece by George Monbiot. In these terrible times, I will take good news wherever I can find it.

Facing Hypocrisy

Last month, I read an article by the redoubtable George Monbiot that left me both shaken and, for a period of time, quite depressed. It forced me to face some unpleasant and inconvenient truths about people like me, and left me with the realization that when all is said and done, I am a hypocrite.

Entitled Too right it's Black Friday: our relentless consumption is trashing the planet, the article took away what little comfort I felt about my own 'green' practices. Hardly a rampant consumerist, I believed I was doing my part by respecting the earth's limited resources, buying only when necessary, being prudent about my water usage, driving only when walking is impractical, and being mindful of the overall environment.

In the overall scheme of things, it turns out those efforts are largely illusory in impact:

The ancillary promise is that, through green consumerism, we can reconcile perpetual growth with planetary survival. But a series of research papers reveal there is no significant difference between the ecological footprints of people who care and people who don’t. One recent article, published in the journal Environment and Behaviour, says those who identify themselves as conscious consumers use more energy and carbon than those who do not.

How can that be, I asked myself. Monbiot has the answer:

Because environmental awareness tends to be higher among wealthy people. It is not attitudes that govern our impact on the planet but income. The richer we are, the bigger our footprint, regardless of our good intentions. Those who see themselves as green consumers, the research found, mainly focused on behaviours that had “relatively small benefits”.

I know people who recycle meticulously, save their plastic bags, carefully measure the water in their kettles, then take their holidays in the Caribbean, cancelling any environmental savings a hundredfold. I’ve come to believe that the recycling licences their long-haul flights. It persuades people they’ve gone green, enabling them to overlook their greater impacts.

While I am hardly one of the wealthy Monbiot identifies, that last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter as it pertains to me. Air travel is the poster child for greenhouse gas emissions.

Back in 2013, The New York Times put it this way explained it this way:

One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10.

Though air travel emissions now account for only about 5 percent of warming, that fraction is projected to rise significantly, since the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency.

David Suzuki explains it this way:

...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83 per cent. The aviation industry is expanding rapidly in part due to regulatory and taxing policies that do not reflect the true environmental costs of flying. “Cheap” fares may turn out to be costly in terms of climate change.

And even more alarmingly:

A special characteristic of aircraft emissions is that most of them are produced at cruising altitudes high in the atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown that these high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. The IPCC, for example, has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone.

In 2017 I had, in total, four air trips: two to Cuba (one last January and one at the start of December, one to England, and one to Edmonton, where my son lives).

Here's the thing: I want to have at least one escape from winter each year. I want to visit my son out West. I want to see more of the world before I depart from it.

Of course, the problem here is obvious. Each of the above sentences begins with the same subject and predicate, and that gets to the heart of the problem (elevating my wants over the needs of the collective) and hence, my own hypocrisy (take a look at how many post I have under the climate change rubric), doesn't it?

Can You Imagine?

I have always believed, and still do, that one of the essentials for bringing about real political change is knowledge. To be aware of and informed about the key issues is, in many ways, to be engaged. However, I now also realize, after watching the George Monbiot video posted by The Mound the other day, and reading No Is Not Enough, by Naomi Klein, that there is another essential ingredient: imagination.

For far too long, as Monbiot explains, we have been given a binary view of the world which offers essentially two choices: there is the neoliberal perspective, which originated with the Chicago School preaching (and there is no better word than that if we consider their proponents' zeal) the virtues of free markets with minimal government interference; then there is the Keynesian model, which extols government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull economies out of recession and depression.

As Monbiot points out, neither is a viable model today. Neoliberalism has plundered our world and brought us to the brink of environmental collapse and an ever-widening social/economic inequity; Keynesian policies, which are predicated on constant growth, are no longer viable because we live in a world of increasingly finite resources that can no longer sustain the environmental consequences of unlimited growth.

So Monbiot asserts that we need a new narrative to compete against the old ones, a narrative that will revive and inspire our imaginations. And that begins with paying attention to an essential component of our natures: our altruism.

If we consider the cant of the neoliberals, we are little more than homo economicus, people who behave with almost a machine-like rationality that determines our behaviour as we go about 'getting and spending." It is a soulless depiction of who we are, and ignores the non-rational, 'human' side of our natures. Monbiot points out that we are the most altruistic creature on earth, far-surpassing that found in other animals, and it is the realization of that fact that can propel us towards a much better world, one whose foundation is cooperation, not ruthless competition. The video provides stirring examples of that altruism, including those who, at grave risk to themselves, harbored Jews from the Nazis in the Second World War, and the millions who marched in solidarity after the Charlie Hebdo killings. The key is for us to be reminded that we are so much more than the neoliberals would have us believe.

That better world begins with imagining its feasibility. Once we pierce through the miasma of neoliberalism and understand that life need not be a zero-sum game, that it need not be a Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, short and brutish," our imaginations are freed, and massive co-operation is possible.

A 'participatory culture' building from the ground up and establishing what Monbiot calls thick networks can mark the beginning of a community renaissance that culminates in an economy owned and operated by the community. Invoking the idea of the commons and enclosure, Monbiot talks about the value that land, in a municipal setting, for example, has thanks to all of the tax money spent on developing infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. Because developers benefit from these expenditures in terms of the added value of their land, a tax or 'community-land contribution' would see a return of some of that value to the community through money for local initiatives such as a new park or even a dividend paid to citizens, perhaps even in the form of a basic income, with some of the money redistributed by higher government levels to other, less affluent communities, etc.

Monbiot also talks about the need for electoral financing reform, mitigating the influence of the big players on our politicians. His vision is that the money for parties would be raised by selling memberships, supplemented by a government subsidy. This would force politicians to reengage with people and their priorities in order to sell more memberships. While there is some merit in this plan, I doubt that it would be a panacea, as the allure of lucrative post-political positions from the corporate sector would still be too tempting for the pols to abandon their masters' agenda. He also advocates abandoning the first-past-the-post system, a subject Canadians know all too well, given Justin Trudeau's betrayal of his promise to do the same.

Another component of renewal is the selective use of referenda, but ones that treat the voter as intelligent and informed. Such referenda offer not a binary choice on issues but a range of choices, ones that require people to educate themselves about the issue at hand. We are talking about the opposite of what transpired on the Brexit vote.

Citing the near success of Bernie Sanders, Monbiot also discusses the importance of what is called Big Organizing, a model that is predicated on grassroots volunteer efforts. Had it started earlier, he has little doubt that Sanders would have won, and the same could have been true of Labour's Jeremy Corbyn.

I have hardly done justice here to what Monbiot has to say. I sincerely hope you will take some time to view the video, even if your time only allows for a fragmented consideration of it. Being an informed and engaged citizen today is hard work, but when one considers where apathy has taken us, there really is no alternative if we truly care about the future and those who will live it.

David Bellamy Being Humiliated By George Monbiot Over Climate Change

The willfully ignorant will be offended, the critical thinker gratified, by this video:

The Real Problem With Contemporary Journalism

The current scandal engulfing the CBC and Amanda Lang has made its way overseas into the cross-hairs of The Guardian's George Monbiot.

After providing a summary, with appropriate links, of the sordid Lang tale that encompasses massive conflict of interest and management collusion, Monbiot has this to say:

CBC refused to answer my questions, and I have not had a response from Lang. It amazes me that she remains employed by CBC, which has so far done nothing but bluster and berate its critics.

But the CBC's indefensible stance is not the real subject of Monbiot's essay, merely part of the context for his thesis:

[T]hose who are supposed to scrutinise the financial and political elite are embedded within it. Many belong to a service-sector aristocracy, wedded metaphorically (sometimes literally) to finance. Often unwittingly, they amplify the voices of the elite, while muffling those raised against it.

Studies and statistic prove his point:

A study by academics at the Cardiff School of Journalism examined the BBC Today programme’s reporting of the bank bailouts in 2008. It discovered that the contributors it chose were “almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.” The financiers who had caused the crisis were asked to interpret it.

The heavily biased reporting on that catastrophe, however, was only representative of a deeper malaise:

The same goes for discussions about the deficit and the perceived need for austerity. The debate has been dominated by political and economic elites, while alternative voices – arguing that the crisis has been exaggerated, or that instead of cuts, the government should respond with Keynesian spending programmes or taxes on financial transactions, wealth or land – have scarcely been heard. Those priorities have changed your life: the BBC helped to shape the political consensus under which so many are now suffering.

And what about fair and balanced reporting? A fiction, according to Monbiot:

The BBC’s business reporting breaks its editorial guidelines every day by failing to provide alternative viewpoints. Every weekday morning, the Today programme grovels to business leaders for 10 minutes. It might occasionally challenge them on the value or viability of their companies, but hardly ever on their ethics. Corporate critics are shut out of its business coverage – and almost all the rest.

On BBC News at Six, the Cardiff researchers found, business representatives outnumbered trade union representatives by 19 to one. “The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world,” the study said. This, remember, is where people turn when they don’t trust the corporate press.

He ends by listing the media's myriad failures, and the grave consequence of those failures:

...their failure to expose the claims of the haut monde, their failure to enlist a diversity of opinion, their failure to permit the audience to see that another world is possible. If even the public sector broadcasters parrot the talking points of the elite, what hope is there for informed democratic choice?

Monbiot's piece should be required reading for all concerned about the condition of that great protector of democracy, the fifth estate. As well, we would be indeed foolish if we failed to understand that the insights he offers apply, not just to Great Britain, but to Canada and much of the rest of western world, as well.

Possibly The Most Important 60-Minutes You've Spent In A Good, Long While

Guardian enviro-scribe, George Monbiot, delivers a stark warning and a call to arms in this year’s Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute address. Monbiot warns that we’re about to feed the environment into the gaping maw of the financial sector so responsible for its current degradation.

Monbiot says that neo-liberalism will complete the devastation of our already reeling environment. He points out, in words that ring true for Canada also, that we lack the political leadership we need so desperately to protect our environment.

“This is the horrendous mistake that New Labour here and the Democratic Party in the United States have made. ‘We’ve got to win the next election so we’ve got to appease people who don’t share our values, so we’re going to become like them. Instead of trying to assert our own values, we are going to go over to them and say, “Look, we’re not really red; we’re not scary at all. We are actually conservatives.” That was Tony Blair’s message. That was Bill Clinton’s message. That, I’m afraid, is Barack Obama’s message. ...We’ve ended up with a situation where there are effectively no political alternatives to neoliberalism being advanced by the ...government. In which the opposition is, in almost every case, failing to oppose. It is in this position because it has progressively neutralised itself by trying to appease people who do not share its values.”


Does that sound familiar? It does to me. Monbiot captures the abandonment of the Left and centre-left in Canada by New Democrats and Liberals alike. They’re all neoliberal petro-pols and, as such, richly deserving of our contempt and loathing. Monbiot warns of the darker side of neoliberal politics – the inability to support anything but neoliberal solutions to our environmental threats. Foremost of these, he warns, is the madness of “natural capital” – monetizing the environment, component by component.

“You are effectively pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive. Dieter Helm, the Chairman of the Natural Capital Committee, said, ‘The environment is part of the economy and needs to be properly integrated into it so that growth opportunities will not be missed.’

“There, ladies and gentlemen, you have what seems to me the government’s real agenda. This is not to protect the natural world from the depredations of the economy. It is to harness the world to the economic growth that has been destroying it. All the things which have been so damaging to the living planet are now being sold to us as its salvation: commodification, economic growth, financialization, abstraction. Now, we are told, these devastating processes will protect it.”

“It gets worse still when you look at the way in which this is being done. Look at the government’s Ecosystems Market Task Force, which was another of these exotic vehicles for chopping up nature and turning it into money. From the beginning it was pushing nature towards financialization. It talked of ‘harnessing City financial expertise to assess the ways that these blended revenue streams and securitizations enhance the return of investment of an environmental bond.’ This gives you an idea of what the agenda is...

“What we are talking about is giving the natural world to the City of London, the financial centre, to look after. What could possibly go wrong? Here we have a sector whose wealth is built on the creation of debt. That’s how it works, on stacking up future liabilities. Shafting the future in order to serve the present, that is the model. And then that debt is sliced up into collateralized debt obligations and all other marvellous devices that worked so well last time round.

“Now nature is to be captured and placed in the care of the financial sector, as that quote suggests. In order for the City to extract any value from it, the same Task Force says we need to ‘unbundle’ ecosystem services so that can be individually traded.

“That’s the only way in which it can work – this financialization and securitization and bond issuing and everything else they are talking about. Nature has to be unbundled. If there is one thing we know about ecosystems, and we know it more the more we discover about them, is that you cannot safgely disaggregate their functions without destroying the whole thing. Ecosystems function as coherent holistic systems, in which the different elements depend upon each other. The moment you start to unbundle them and to trade them separately you create a formula for disaster.”

Monbiot concludes that the only way to save our planet is to utterly reject neoliberalism, no matter the name of the party that embraces it. What he’s saying is that we have to reject not just the Conservatives but also the Liberals and the New Democrats. He says the message from these parties is “follow us and we’ll give you a slightly less worse government.” He’s right and that’s just what the Liberals and the New Democrats have on offer. They’ve already gone to the Dark Side, you just need to be honest with yourself and admit it.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib