Scientists Were Asleep at the Wheel

During the ongoing debate about the nature of climate change, I had assumed, as I’m sure most others have, that the revelation both regarding the extent of climate change and the cause of that change being greenhouse gases was relatively recent.  I certainly never remember the subject being raised before the 90s.

I was shocked therefore when I recently came upon the following while reading Rachel Carson’s famous and well-respected book, The Sea Around Us.  The book discusses the origins of the oceans and the evolution of oceans, continents, climate, and human settlement over geologic time into the present.  Writing in 1961, she said:

“It is now established beyond question that a definite change in the arctic climate set in about 1900, that it became astonishingly marked about 1930, and that it is now spreading into sub-arctic and temperate regions.  The frigid top of the world is very clearly warming up.”

She goes on to discuss a resulting dramatic lessening of ice in the arctic, the greater ease of navigation, the retreat of glaciers, the impact on the migration patterns of animals, and the lengthening of growing seasons in sub-arctic regions.  She also notes the rising of the seas.

But she puts this in the context of “we are still in the warming-up stage following the last Pleistocene glaciation - that the world’s climate, over the next thousands of years, will grow considerably warmer before beginning a downward swing into another Ice Age.”  

She states that the dramatic change seen since 1900 is “of a shorter duration, decades or centuries,” perhaps because the change is so much greater than would be expected, and goes on to note the several possible explanations that scientists have proposed … an increase in solar activity or the cycle of the ocean’s deep currents.  She ends with  “the long trend is towards a warmer earth; the pendulum is swinging.”

She does not mention the greenhouse gas effect.  Yet in fact, the theory of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming from burning fossil fuels was formed and studied by the late 1800s.  But scientists being often ego-driven and slow to accept another’s research, this theory was not taken up again until the 1950s and was not broadly accepted until the 1980s.  Apparently when Rachel Carson wrote, there wasn’t a serious question in scientific minds at that time that this warming was caused by the greenhouse gas effect.

So we have been sitting on a climatic time bomb for more than a century.  And for most of that time, scientists and governments have been asleep at the wheel.  We have virtually lost the opportunity to act so as to prevent future climatic disruptions and disaster for the human race.  Even if the will were to be found.

The question I ask myself is: how many other issues are there that are of vital importance to the future wellbeing of the planet and mankind that we aren’t addressing because no one is paying attention or no one has a confirmed answer.  Just like there is a group that is scanning the skies for asteroids that might strike the Earth, creating havoc, there should be a committee which focuses on evidence of other matters that are of great import to our future and sees to it that they receive appropriate public and scientific airing.

Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval

Recently, the Trump administration made it clear that the U.S. does not intend to live up to its commitment made as part of the Paris Agreement to slow climate change.  As the second major source of climate change pollution (after China), this is significant.  This retrenchment has been met with howls from environmental organizations and the international community, but the U.S. public has been mostly silent.

This post seeks to examine this issue and the U.S. public’s apparent assumption that the impact, on us at least, will be slight and that technology can be depended upon to allow us to adapt to any changes.

Our Earth is undergoing changes.  We have been having a conversation about this using the phrases “global warming” and “climate change.”  Given the facts I will present in this post as to what is already happening and the predictions, I think the terms “climate disorder” which results in “global upheaval” are more accurate and appropriate.

The result of these conversations has not been significant.  Yes, there is a global commitment now (all countries, even China, are still committed despite the U.S. pullback), but it is at such a low level that while it may slow the process, it will not stop it.  Indeed, there is serious question whether we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing that could be done to stop it.

There are several reasons why our response has been so weak.  One reason is the persistence of those who deny that these changes, these disruptions, are man-made … they're just part of the natural cycle that the Earth has experienced over the ages.  This has found a receptive audience in many people owing to their habit of being in denial of inconvenient truths.

There are many ways to challenge that position.  But assuming for the moment that the deniers are right, wouldn’t it still be advisable to take whatever action we can to minimize the changes?  The problem with that question is that the changes have been presented as so non-threatening to us if not most of mankind that the answer is, “no.”

The next reason is that any action we could take to significantly reduce CO2 emissions (and thus slow or halt these changes) would involve such an alteration both to our lifestyle and to the operation of our industrial base that it has minimal support from either the public or industry.  From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit just doesn’t seem to be sufficient to warrant the cost.

Which brings me to the last and most important reason:  the presentation of the issue - the facts marshaled and its packaging - have been woefully understated and ineffective.  Even the more dire predictions, even slick media presentations like Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, seem almost irrelevant to most people.  The common reaction is, “So what?  So some people will be displaced by rising oceans and we’ll have to adapt to warmer temperatures.  No big deal.”  The general feeling is that the change will not be significant, and what change there is can be dealt with through adaptive technology.  Bottom line, no disruption. 

What we must therefore attempt is to accurately ... there is no need to exaggerate or embellish ... and clearly present the facts and predictions in a way which makes them relevant to people in the U.S. and around the world.

1.  What is happening already?

The enormous weight of the Greenland ice sheet impacts the axis of the Earth’s rotation and the location of the poles. As the Greenland ice sheet melts, as it is doing with increasing speed … each year the sheet is loosing 287 billion tons of ice … the axis and the location of the poles will change.  How much no one knows, but the loss of just a fragment of the Greenland ice sheet, as well as Antarctic and North Pole ice, is already having an impact with the North Pole moving ever so slowly towards the UK.  This will without question impact worldwide weather and climate, but in ways unknown.

The seas have risen 2.6 inches since 1993 and are rising at an increasing rate. In low-lying places around the world, from Miami Beach to islands in the South Pacific, the water at high tide is routinely covering land that was only flooded during serious storms in the past.

Large areas of Asia and Africa have experienced terrible drought; desertification is increasing.  California has experienced a severe multiple year drought.  Yes, they’ve recently had lots of rain and snow, but that does not signal the end of the drought; just a brief respite.

Due to flooding and drought and other natural disasters, areas of the world have been made uninhabitable and so there have already been masses of climate change refugees.  In 2014 more than 19 million people from 100 countries were forced to flee their homes (how many of these were just temporary evacuations is not available).

Warmer winter temperatures have already extended the range of a variety of pests with devastating impact on pine and other forests.  Moose in Maine are dying because ticks are not being killed by winter cold.  Alfalfa crops in areas of California have encountered a new disease due to climate change.  This is just a sampling.

2.  What are the current predictions?

Sea levels could increase anywhere from a conservative 3 feet up to nearly 10 feet by 2100, depending on CO2 concentrations in the air and the speed at which polar ice melts.  Even a 3’ increase will mean huge areas will become uninhabitable.  In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where rising sea levels will play a major role in the extent of flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

In the US, the south-west and the Great Plains will likely face decade-long droughts far worse than any experienced in recorded memory, including recent droughts.  The risk of drought from 2050-2099 rises to 96% in both areas compared to only 45% in the plains and 62% in the south-west from 1950-2000.  The will mean the end of U.S. food production as we’ve come to depend on it.  One quarter of all US food production occurs in the central valley of California; the great plains is the bread basket of the country.   Food production in those areas would suffer a major decrease.  

As for the rest of the world, most of Europe, the Middle East, large parts of Africa and parts of South America are at high risk for extreme drought.  The most serious impact for most people will again be on food production and water, which will be significant.

It is impossible to predict how many climate change refugees the combination of drought, increasing desertification, floods, and other natural disasters will bring in the future.  The estimates range anywhere from a low of 25 million to a high of 800 million.  But whatever the figure, the resettlement of these refugees will pose huge stresses on countries as so much of the world will be suffering.

There are no predictions on the change in insect infestations and plant diseases as a result of climate change.  But there is no question that the impact will be significant, given what we see happening already at the beginning of this century.

Then there are the national security questions.  In recent Congressional testimony, Defense Secretary James Mattis called climate change a national security threat, impacting stability in areas of the world where U.S. troops are operating.  Nations under stress from climate disorder will be subject to internal unrest and conflicts may erupt between nations to gain control of diminishing resources.  It also presents logistical problems for the military.  The extent of these problems are unknowable, but they will certainly occur.

Note that, to date, all the best scientific predictions have been significantly off in that greater change has occurred within a shorter period of time.  Whether it’s the loss of ice at the poles and Greenland, or the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, scientists keep saying we didn’t think this would happen for another 20-30 years.  So it would be wise to take these predictions as low.

Why is it so hard to make accurate forecasts even with sophisticated computer modeling?  All elements of nature … the water we drink, plants growing, weather patterns … are dependent on a multitude of interacting factors.  The water we drink is the product of a complex interaction of meteorological, geologic, and chemical forces.  Plants are dependent on so many things - light, water, nutrients - which are in turn dependent on a variety of natural forces.  Weather patterns are again dependent on a complex interaction of meteorological and geologic forces.

The answer to the above question is that even the most accomplished scientists have an incomplete understanding of the interaction of the forces of nature that impact the changes we have already seen and will control what happens in the future.  Since the value of computer output is based on the value of the inputs given the computer, the computer cannot produce accurate results.

Clearly, this issue should be a big deal for everyone.  These are not things that one can just adapt to through improved technology.  The human dislocation will be massive.  Our food production system, which has developed over the past century, will be devastated; we will have to make changes, start over again in new places and perhaps in new ways.  And this at a time when the world’s burgeoning population needs a constant increase in food production to prevent disaster.   Pests of various types will appear in areas where they never have and wreak havoc on the native vegetation and animal life. 

The more accurate phrase to describe what is happening and what will happen in the future is not “global warming” or “climate change,” but “climate disorder” resulting in “global upheaval.”  We must do whatever we can, at whatever cost to both convenience and finances, to slow down this process so that our children and their children don’t inherit a hell on earth.

What Drives Policy Decisions? - The Theory v The Reality

Since the establishment of representative democracies, the role of government has been to promote and secure the safety and well-being of their people.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the first official document stating this concept of government, “That to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  That is at least the theory on paper.

From the beginning, a tactical problem was encountered in that the interests of all the people are rarely, if ever, in agreement.  Added to this complexity are the varied interests of organizations and corporations which, while creatures of the law, nevertheless should also be promoted by government since the law provides for their existence because they are thought to contribute to the good of the whole.  

To deal with this multiplicity of interests, the concept arose of government promoting the greater good.  The question is always whether a policy is in the interest of the people as a whole, or at least not contrary to their interest.  

For example, if a policy is good for wealthy individuals but harmful for the rest of society, then it is not in the greater good.  Likewise, policies that favor particular corporations to the detriment of the public are not in the greater good.  The old saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” was debunked many years ago.

However, corporate and public interests are not always at odds.   A policy that favors particular corporations could be in the interest of the people because, for example, it is directly tied to creating jobs or encourages the development of products at a reasonable cost that are needed for the welfare of the people.  

One used to say that policies that promote robust corporate growth are on their face for the greater good because that means more jobs and better wages.  However, in modern times that is not the case.  Policies have fostered corporate growth and profit, but workers have not benefited and even been harmed, either because jobs were sent overseas or because wages stagnated.

Needs and interests are not just competing but are often in conflict.  In its effort to promote the safety and well-being of all, government’s policies need to be balanced so that at a minimum all have their most critical needs met and have the opportunity to prosper.

But what is the reality of government decision making?  While the people do vote for their representatives, it is the corporations through their lobbyists and campaign donations who have control of government.  It is true that Democrats are more attentive to “the public good” than Republicans, but even they are deeply influenced by corporate interests which, while not wiping out their support of various programs or efforts, does often weaken the programs’ effectiveness by lessening their impact on corporations and the corresponding protection afforded the public.

While the influence of corporations has been a recurring issue during our history, it is only in the post-WWII era … remember President Eisenhower’s admonition to beware the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex … and even more so beginning with the Reagan years that corporate influence has become so predominant as to render our representative democracy to a large extent illusion.

To understand the terrible human cost of this development, let’s look at some examples of both domestic and foreign policy.  (Although the Declaration of Independence only deals with the relationship between the American government and its people, these same principles should govern foreign policy decisions by government because ultimately the people are affected.  And also because this is what we say we stand for.)

The most horrendous example in recent foreign policy was of course the Iraq war.  Although the talk was to save U.S. citizens from Saddam’s missiles and the Iraqi people from his tyranny, the reality was that the invasion of Iraq was to enhance corporate interests by gaining control of Iraqi oil and establish a friendly base in that economically and militarily strategic part of the Middle East.  But when we left Iraq, not only had we not gained our corporate and geopolitical goals, but we left a people who were worse off in almost every aspect than they were under Saddam.  

Perhaps worst of all was the impact on our own people.  The war created another generation of severely damaged, both physically and psychologically, young American men and women.  And it had placed such a burden on this country’s finances that it made future needed investment in our people and in our infrastructure almost impossible.

A more recent example where the welfare of a foreign people was not the concern is Syria.  The U.S. has long wanted to be rid of Assad in Syria.  Not for any concern for the welfare of the Syrian people, but because during the cold war and its aftermath, Syria under Assad was in the Russian sphere of influence and not friendly disposed to American interests, both corporate and geopolitical.  So when the rebellion started, we gladly lent some aid, even though the fight was again not so much to better life for the Syrian people but to change who or what group was in power and control.  Certainly, the Syrian people have done nothing but suffer during this rebellion because no one on either of the various sides really has had any concern for their welfare.  

True, as regards the American people, the Syrian conflict has not had much impact because the U.S. does not have boots on the ground and the cost of our “aid” has been relatively modest.  It appears the government has at least temporarily learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, we have accepted almost no Syrian immigrants, which is a matter I will not go into here.  That burden has been left to Europe.  But the policy approach to the extended Syrian conflict has nevertheless been an unmitigated human disaster.

Domestically, while the impact of a decision-making process concerned more with corporate geopolitical interests than with the welfare of the people has had effects arguably not as dramatic or violent as these foreign policy examples, the effects have been in other ways even more devastating for the American people.

The two domestic examples I will site are the background and aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the politics of transportation policy/energy policy/global warming.  Since the Reagan years, when government was declared to be the problem not the solution, there had been a steady increase in the deregulation of business, which regulation had been put in place to begin with to protect the people.  But regulation interfered with business and their profits, and so it almost became un-American.  

One of the hallmarks of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prevented banks from having both banking and investment operations.  Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression in an effort to prevent banks from diverting bank assets into speculative operations, to keep them free of the manipulative methods and volatility of the investment market … for the good of the people.  Banks had long chafed under these restrictions, and under the leadership of Republican Senator Phil Gramm the act was repealed and the legislation was signed into law by President Clinton, who had many Wall Street advisors surrounding him, in addition to having received massive amount of campaign donations from Wall Street.

The result was the development by the biggest banks of a whole host of unscrupulous and manipulative investment strategies that benefited their bottom line and amassed huge wealth but screwed the public, even including at times their own customers.  When the bubble inevitably burst, several banks and the economy came crashing down and would have entered a severe depression, were it not for the government bail-outs.

Now one might have hoped that in the aftermath of such clear unethical behavior the government would reimpose strict rules on investment banks.  But even with a Democratic-controlled Congress in the Obama’s administration’s first 2 years, it was a fight to get the Dodd-Frank Act passed, and in the end it was not as strong as it could or should have been because of Democrats’ desire to not “unduly” harm banking interests.  The Act has been further weaken by prolonged fights over implementing regulations which have also turned out often to be far less strict than they should have been.

As for the interrelated policies regarding transportation, energy, and global warming, corporations have again been in control.  Transportation policy has always been a function of what is best for those being regulated (auto manufacturers, railroads, airlines), not the people.  The result is a terrible transportation system which is outdated, environmentally inefficient and provides bad service to the public.  Energy policy likewise has been a creature of corporate wishes, for the most part.  Under Bush II, Vice President Cheney even took the unbelievably bold public move of convening a meeting of energy execs to devise the administration’s energy policy.  No one representing the public was present.  The result not surprisingly was a policy which did not protect the interests of the public nor did it even give a nod towards the issue of global warming.

With regard to global warming itself, I will only say that while there has been to-date a confluence of corporate opposition and, given our addiction to cheap energy, people opposition to necessary measures, there is no doubt in my mind that even had there been a strong and vocal majority in favor of such measures, the corporate world still would have managed to water down almost anything that passed.

As I have said at the conclusion of many prior posts, our system of representative democracy is broken.  The reasons are various, but certainly the outsized influence of money and corporations on policy is a major factor.  The system can only be fixed, and the people’s welfare be protected, with a soft revolution in who has power in Congress.

For the Sake of Your Children and Grandchildren, Don’t Ignore Climate Change

If you have a 3-year old child or grandchild, he or she will most likely live until 2090.  His or her children … your grandchildren or great-grandchildren … will most likely live until 2115.  What kind of environment do you want to leave them … one that creates hardship and even threatens life or one that nurtures it?   That is the question that every corporation head, every member of Congress, and each and every citizen should ask themselves when considering the issue of climate change.

Al Gore was absolutely right when he labeled climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Corporations find it inconvenient because they don’t want to spend more money to clean up their emissions or change how things are produced.  The public finds it inconvenient because it doesn’t want to change it’s habits … the car culture, wanting consumer goods to be cheap, not wanting to bother with conservation.  And it’s inconvenient for the government because it means having to take leadership and, at least in the short run, displeasing important constituencies.

But guess what?  Inconvenient or not, the evidence becomes clearer every year that we are headed down a path that will lead to major disruptions and hardship for much of the Earth’s inhabitants.  And the disruptions and hardships are arriving more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

In the old days, miners used to take canaries down with them into the mines to warn them of impending disaster.  If gas was building up, the canaries would get sick before the miners had any awareness of a problem.  And the miners would get out as quickly as possible.

We have already had plenty of climate change “canaries in the mine,” but only scientists seem to be concerned.  Whether you look at the disappearance of arctic ice in summer, the weakening of the ice shelf in Greenland and parts of Antartica, the increase in violent weather and drought, the report that most polar bear cubs are not living to maturity, the march of pests from southern to northern areas with accompanying destruction of forests, deadly tick infestations of moose, the movement of fish and lobsters from their ancestral habitats further north as the Atlantic Ocean waters off much of New England become too warm … all of these things are warnings of much worse things to come.  

And each year, the scientific reports contain a familiar refrain … that the changes are happening more quickly than had been anticipated.  Now there is consensus that even with the world-wide agreement to cut carbon emissions currently in process, significant impact cannot be avoided, with such impact appearing by 2050.  Scientists are no longer even sure that the previous standard limit of a “safe” rise in temperature (2º C/3.6º F) is correct; it may be lower.  But even that limit can no longer be avoided.  Only catastrophic impact can possibly be avoided, and even that is less likely as each year without action passes..

We … governments, corporations, and the public … are playing a losing game of Russian roulette with the lives of our children and grandchildren.  If we want our immediate descendants to be able to continue living on Earth in a safe, secure environment, then more drastic broad-based action needs to be taken now.  Everyone gives lip service to “our children are the future,” yet everyone acts like there’s no tomorrow.  Everyone’s planning is short-term.

I don’t know what the exact answer is.  But I do know that denial has to stop.  And significant action has to be taken by government, corporations, and individuals for the sake of our children.

Large Corporations Have Gutted Our Economy and Damaged Our Country

Republicans are always touting large corporations as the engine of our economy and argue that we have to have business-friendly policies in order to allow them to grow and create jobs.  And while Democrats might take a more nuanced stance publicly, their actions in Congress certainly show that they, while not in lock step with Republicans on this issue, are also certainly very friendly-disposed to large corporations.

One would be a fool not to agree that the business sector, including large corporations, is critical to the health of our economy.  However, it is one thing to say that we need to have policies that promote the growth of business and another to say that business interests trump all others, such as the public good.

But these statements about the importance of large corporations are just cover.  What it’s really all about is something very base at the core of American politics … the power and influence of money.  

It’s no secret that large corporations and industry groups have, through their largesse in donating money to political campaigns as well as their newer participation in PACS, bought unequaled clout in the halls of Congress.  While there are some clear exceptions, generally, regardless what type of legislation or regulation you look at, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, at the end of the day, big business has either gotten their way or so weakened measures meant to control them and protect the public that the end result is in their favor.

Clearly the growth of big business has benefited those who sit at the top of corporate power and are players on Wall Street ... the new elite, the 1%.  But what about the rest of us?  Has the average American benefited from the growth of big business?  Has our country benefitted?  To answer that question, I will be looking at the impact on jobs, wages, small business, and transportation.

Jobs:  Big business is almost solely to blame  (I say “almost solely” because unions carry a good share of the blame as well), aided and abetted by government tax policies, for the loss of millions of jobs overseas since 1979.  For the transformation of the average American worker from solidly middle class with a good wage, to struggling to hang on at a low wage.  Looking just at manufacturing, employment collapsed from 19.5 million workers in June 1979 to 11.5 million in December 2009.

Corporations have always been greedy.  It’s their nature.  In the first part of the 20th century, workers were typically, not always, viewed almost as an enemy who challenged the corporation’s absolute power and wanted more of the corporate financial pie, rather than as valued workers who were responsible for the quality of the product.  The antagonism between the two forces was very evident.  The passage of Federal labor laws, while not changing this dynamic between management and labor,  helped level the playing field by giving workers real negotiating power.

But at some point, corporations had enough of labor negotiations.  Those in power wanted to retain more of the financial pie for themselves and shareholders.  This provided the motivation to find a way out.

And they found one readily available ... the South and it’s “Right to Work” laws.  Many manufacturing firms moved south to take advantage of these state laws which made it very difficult to unionize, and thus wages were significantly lower.  Job losses thus started occurring long before globalization.  

So, for example, I grew up in Reading, PA.  One of the largest employers was Berkshire Knitting, at the time the largest knitting mill in the world.   But within a few years, the vast mills were all empty.  After being sold to Vanity Fair, the jobs moved south and thousands of workers in Reading were out of work.  The same scenario played out in many cities throughout the northeast as light manufacturing relocated to the South.

But it was the advent of the global economy, “globalization,” that nailed the lid on the coffin of the American blue collar worker.  Again, solely because of corporate greed ... wanting to increase the bottom line regardless at whose expense ... (and often against the background of union intransigence) manufacturing as well as many other types of jobs moved en masse to lower cost locations, mainly Mexico and Asia.  The result was a literal hemorrhaging of jobs and the decimation of America’s middle class.

For example, U.S. Dept. of Commerce data show that “U.S. multinational corporations cut their work force in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”  In the two years following the 2008 Wall Street crisis, large American corporations cut U.S. payrolls by a net of 500,000 jobs.  At the same time, they hired 729,000 workers overseas. Corporations were hiring, just not in the U.S.

Corporate spokesmen and their political apologists say that this move off-shore was necessary in order to keep “American” business competitive.  Nonsense.  It was to keep corporate profits and thus CEO and shareholder pockets flush.  They always had the option to cut prices, but that would have meant lowering profits, which is anathema in corporate America.  Protecting American jobs was obviously nowhere on their list of goals.  (Unfortunately, unions were also often unrealistic and refused to countenance pay or benefit cuts in return for job security.)  

The poster child for this off-shore movement, General Electric’s then-CEO Jack Welsh, argued that public corporations owed their primary allegiance to stockholders, not employees.  Nor, although this was unspoken, to the country that spawned them.  Therefore, Welsh said, companies should seek to lower costs and maximize profits by moving operations wherever is cheapest.

And so they moved their operations and the jobs were lost.  These are no longer “American” companies in any sense other than headquarters. 

Yes, it’s true that many new jobs have been created in the United States, including since the recent recession.  But those jobs have overwhelmingly been lower-paying service industry jobs and often part-time jobs.  So people hired for these new jobs are working for less money and their standard of living is far below what it was previously.

Wages:  It’s no secret that American workers’ wages have stagnated over the past few decades.  The reason is also clear … the loss of middle class living-wage jobs overseas and the creation of low-paying jobs here.  And for those who still have their formerly good jobs, their pay has at best remained stagnant or they have had to take a significant cut in pay in order to keep the corporation from moving the jobs overseas.  

Again, all to protect the corporate bottom line.  And so we see that while CEOs today make astronomical sums, a 937% increase, inflation adjusted, in their total compensation package between 1978 and 2013, a typical workers’ income in inflation-adjusted dollars rose only 10% during that same period.  

If corporate profits have risen approximately 3% per year during this period (or 105% … yes, I was surprised, far less than the rise in CEO pay), why haven’t their workers benefited?  Because workers no longer have any clout.  With so many jobs lost overseas, companies, whether unionized or not, don’t have to worry that their employees will leave if they don’t get raises.   They know that workers have nowhere else to go.  And it is a rare corporation that will raise wages because it is fitting to do so.  Obviously, CEOs do have clout.

Small Business:  Politicians of both parties love to talk about the importance of small business to the American economy and cite government efforts to help small business.  Yet these same politicians curry the favor of the very forces … large corporations … that have brought doom to small (and often not so small) local businesses across the country.

We have become a nation that, certainly from a retailing perspective, lacks virtually any individual character from place to place.  Everywhere you go, you will find shopping malls with exactly the same stores.  You will find roads lined with exactly the same collection of fast-food outlets.  You will find a proliferation of Starbucks coffee shops.  And of course, you will find a Walmart, a Lowes or Home Depot, and a Staples or Office Depot.  As a consequence, local stores offering the same services have been put out of business whether because they couldn’t compete with volume pricing or corporate marketing or couldn’t offer the same selection.

These large corporations have thrived, not just because of the business acumen and ambition of their management … which of course is critically important … but because of government policies and actions, including the enabling if not encouraging of the suburbanization of America.

Let me again look at Reading, PA as an example.  In the 50s, downtown Reading was a thriving place with a vibrant local retail scene and cultural life.  But as highways were built that encouraged the creation of suburban development, a new type of business entered the mix … national and regional retail corporations … that found their home not downtown but in new suburban malls.  As this development increased, people living in the suburbs, which now overshadowed the city-dweller in both numbers and economic purchasing power, no longer needed to go downtown to shop, or eat, or go to the movies.  And so despite all sorts of measures by Reading officials, downtown Reading died and is nothing more than a memory, replaced now by an office culture.

Transportation:  Why is America a nation which, more than any other, is so dependent on the automobile?  Why do we have such a weak national or regional passenger railroad system?  Why, with a few large city exceptions, do we have such weak local public transportation networks?

The answer is unambiguous … for almost a century, the automobile industry was the most powerful industrial force in the country.  The saying, “What’s good for GM is good for the country,” was said in all seriousness.  And its influence was not surprisingly felt in Congress as well as in state and local government.

Prior to WWII,  although cars had become an essential element in American transportation, the railroad and mass transit were equally essential.  But after WWII, the federal government, under President Eisenhower, began a massive investment in creating the interstate highway system and expressways that bypass and go through major urban areas … all to make it easier for automobile and truck traffic to get from place to place.  

The official reasoning for this huge expenditure was improving our defense and response to nuclear attack.  But what really lay behind this decision was the power and influence of the automobile industry, together with a desire to increase economic growth through new highway and housing construction.

Just as the coming of the railroad brought about the creation of new towns and cities in its day, so too did the new highway systems (together with the new availability of low down-payment long-term mortgages) bring about the proliferation of suburban development, not just outside major cities but virtually all cities. Over the next few decades, what began as an experiment in changing the basic nature of American everyday life turned into the default mode, urged on by a confluence of powerful business interests and people’s desire to own a home and some property (what became “the American dream”) as well as the white flight from cities.

This government action amounted to a huge subsidy of the automobile industry which had no counterpart in the railroad industry and only a faint counterpart for local mass transit.  Since automobiles were deemed by government to be the transportation of choice, virtually no new mass transit or light rail systems were built in the United States for several decades after WWII. 

But the automobile industry wasn’t satisfied with the benefits flowing from this government action.  They also brought about the actual dismantling of existing light rail systems, most well-known is the Los Angeles system, and the obstruction of new mass transit lines.

The result of this influence (together with the other factors noted) was an increasingly car-dependent society, the deterioration of railroads, and the stagnation of mass transit systems.  Only in the last few decades, since the mid-70s, have new and expanded mass transit systems been built in various cities to accommodate an inescapable need.  

For example, in the San Francisco area, “after dismantling the existing electric streetcar and suburban train system in the 1950s in favor of highway travel using automobiles and buses, given the explosive growth of expressway construction,” the modern BART system began limited operation in 1972 and was expanded over the following decade.

Now, one could certainly argue that the American public revels in and treasures its ability to go where and when it wants to based on the automobile.  After decades of mass marketing campaigns, this has indeed become a major feature of our culture.  And so the average American would not say that they have been short-changed by this development; quite the contrary.

But looked at objectively, would the average American and the country as a whole have been better off with the post-WWII development of a more balanced transportation network … one that included a viable, modern national and regional railroad system, more comprehensive mass transit systems in major cities, and light rail systems in other cities, together with an improved network of roads.  The answer is certainly yes.   And it would have left us better prepared to adjust to an era where the use of fossil fuels must be reduced. 

By looking at these major areas … jobs, wages, small business, and transportation … we see that the power of big business has had a major negative impact on the average American worker as well as on various aspects of our society.  

Not to be forgotten is the broader economic impact of the decimation of the American middle class … the middle class was the backbone of our consumer-driven economy with consumer spending accounting for 70% of GDP (some argue 52%).  Only the emergence of the ubiquitous credit card has saved the economy, but at the cost of massive household debt … an average of $15,593, a total of $880 billion.   Not a good thing.  Many things that have happened because of the power of big business cannot be reversed; however, many can.

Large corporations have consistently shown themselves to be amoral.   As defined by the dictionary, that means that they have no moral standards, restraints, or principles; are unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong.  They have only one guiding principle … improving their bottom line. 

For the good of our country, this cannot be allowed to continue free of restraint.  The public and government must break from this stranglehold of big business and fight for a more egalitarian society.   

In every society, there will always be those who are better off, even rich, and those who are not as well off.  But there is no excuse in a society as rich as ours for the egregious disparity in incomes, for the decimation of a strong middle class, for children to go to bed hungry, for people to be homeless, and for the pollution of the air we breathe and the water that sustains us, which pollution threatens not just our health but our very way of life and possibly the viability of planet Earth.

Peak OIl or No, The Answer is Back to the Future

I have been a firm believer in the peak oil theory.  A recent article in the Atlantic, however, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” provided updated facts and changed my perspective.  If one believes in peak oil, then one believes in an oncoming economic disaster since the world’s economy is based on oil.  But the proponents of peak oil provide no answer to that scenario.  If one believes that there is no end to obtainable oil reserves, and we keep on living as we have been, perhaps even more so, then the disaster comes from climate change which will also reek economic disaster.  And we have no answer for that either.

In addressing these issues, people either seem focused on how to keep living as we have been, or they throw up their hands in despair.  Even climate change proponents don’t argue for a radical change in lifestyle but base their proposals on the smarter use of fossils fuels together with alternative energy sources because of the economic implications of doing otherwise.  No one is really moving us closer to an answer to the riddle.

This is one of those moments that screams for thinking outside the box.  Whether peak oil  is or comes to be, or whether we have an endless supply of it, the bottom line is the same ... we must find a way to wean the world off of oil so that we avoid economic and social disaster, whether it comes from the lack of oil or climate change.

The answer I propose is in one sense surprisingly simple.  We go back to the future.  We for the most part go back to a system and structure that is not dependent on oil or other fossil fuels.  We don’t have to make up a new world, we just have to look back at the world we came from to see how it would work.  

That at least is the basic rule, though in some areas of life the use of fossil fuels will continue to be necessary.  Why?  Because our population has grown so much and is more concentrated in cities.  Because, for example, the cold-water flats of the past are no longer acceptable in a modern-day scenario and heating with wood is not a viable option.

There are various ways to look at the implications of what I am proposing.

Replacing oil as an energy source.  As the industrial revolution advanced, one of the main changes was the replacement of human labor by machines.  And that has increased exponentially in the digital and robotic age of manufacturing.  Modern methods of manufacturing and farming are highly energy intensive.  We will have to go back to a form of operation that is more labor intensive.  That will have the double advantage of not only freeing us from oil, but once again finding appropriate employment for masses of workers in industry and farming, thus ending the unemployment problem.  To the extent that an energy source is needed, it will have to come from cleaner sources.

This will without question make products more expensive, which will mean a drop in the standard of living for many, but that will be offset by the increased standard of living of all the millions of people who now once again have gainful employment.  We have been living too long with the illusion of cheap goods fostered by the exploitation of the poor in far away lands and the availability of cheap transport made possible by cheap oil.

Where goods are manufactured.  In a back to the future world, the modern global economy will cease to be.  Instead, the economy will be as it was before ... primarily national, and in many cases regional or local.  While again this means an increase in the cost of many items, and a corresponding lowering of the standard of living many are used to, it will mean the repatriation of millions of jobs which will, together with the increased employment of human labor noted above, result in far less income inequality than has existed in recent times as well as an increased standard of living for many.  Plus whole towns and cities will be reborn.

The products we use.  Almost everything we use today is derived at least partially from oil.  That will end.  Instead, we will go back to natural products ... whether it’s glass bottles, or cotton shirts, or wood siding for homes, and of course all food products.  Again, this will mean an increase in cost but it will have the benefit of reviving rural economies, both nationally and world-wide, that have been devastated by the modern industrial economy. 

There is at least one area, though, where limited use of oil will be required, and that is in the production of modern pharmaceuticals.  Unless a way can be found to produce them without the organic compounds that come from oil, that will remain a necessary ingredient.

Transportation.  While we won’t have to go back to the horse and buggy, major changes will be necessary.  First, all cars will have to be electric, and the electric generating plants that produce the electricity to charge them must be operated on natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, or alternative energy, otherwise there is no energy saving.  All public transportation must be electric or alternate energy, and there must be more public transport.  The nation’s regional train system needs to be revitalized with efficient, modern high-speed trains.  Air travel would be limited to national (i.e. not regional) and international travel.

While all of this will involve a massive restructuring, given the entrepreneurial prowess of American business, there is no question in my mind that all of this can be accomplished.  If we start planning now rather than waiting for disaster to strike, our economy and people will prosper as perhaps never before and with greater equality.  

But American business and politics has operated for a long time on a short-term planning basis.  The question is whether our corporate and political leaders can face the facts and engage in the type of long-range planning that this massive restructuring of our system and lives will require.

Energy Policy Ignores the Elephant in the Room: Saving Us from Global Warming and Peak Oil

In current thinking, the issues presented by global warming concern using less fossil fuel and replacing that energy source with alternative”clean” energy.  We are all familiar with the options that are on the table: solar power, wind power, ethanol, and nuclear power. Oh and I suppose for accuracy one should add clean coal. There is also modest incremental talk of conservation.

However, there are problems with all of these “solutions.”  Clean coal, which requires the deep burial of carbon dioxide, will never be politically or economically viable.  For one, the energy companies want to be left off the hook legally if the gas should happen to escape its underground habitat and kill people.  Then there’s the problem of removing mountaintops and the resulting environmental degradation to access the coal.

Nuclear power, at least nuclear fission, has the inescapable and unsolvable problem of what to do with the nuclear waste product that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.  Nuclear fusion, which would be safer and produce less radioactive waste is still experimental; a test reactor is under construction in France.

The remaining “green” options are generally agreed not to have the capacity to provide anywhere close to our massive energy needs.  And even the green options, including electric cars, would need massive amounts of energy … generated by fossil fuels, of course … to be financially viable. Corn ethanol, which has only thrown world corn markets into a frenzy resulting in increased food costs for the poor, has been proven to be worthless as an energy saver.

If one is objective, one therefore has to say that all the talk about substantially reducing our carbon footprint through the use of alternative energy sources just is not very realistic, given our current  and future dependence on energy, which will just get worse as the world population grows and more of it experiences modern development.

And as one thinks about this issue, it is important to remember that there is another energy-related catastrophic event waiting to happen out there … it’s not just global warming. At some point in the future … whether it’s starting to happen already as some argue or will happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years … we will reach “peak oil.” The availability of oil then will be drastically reduced and the price of what oil is available will skyrocket to unimaginable heights.

So if one is trying to plan for the future, the inescapable question that must be addressed is how can modern man live, with a reasonable level of creature comfort (one must be practical), using only a fraction of the energy that is being used today. Only if that question can be realistically answered is there any hope for mankind’s future. If that question is not answered, sooner rather than later our economies will collapse, our standard of living will evaporate … the world will become a very ugly place, not all that different from the futuristic world depicted in “Mad Max.”  We will have destroyed ourselves, not by nuclear weapons, but through our insatiable greed.

I certainly do not have the answer.  What’s scary though, is that I am not aware of any great minds or think tanks that have addressed this issue and come up with various models for how we could live using only a fraction of the energy being used today. No one seems to be thinking or talking about this. This goes way beyond what could be achieved through conservation, energy-efficient appliances, green buildings, and the like. This would most likely require a massive change in the way we currently live.

To my mind, government and industry must join forces in a project even larger than the fabled Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The future of our children, and certainly our children’s children, will depend on whether and how this issue is addressed.

Opposition to Climate Change: Reasoned or Self-Interest?

The Republicans are moving forward in their opposition to climate change.  As the New York Times reported recently, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will push legislation stating that the EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.   They have already done away with the House subcommittee responsible for climate change.   While this bill will most likely not succeed in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, has proposed a bill that would put off any new regulations regarding power plants and other industrial sources for two years.

Despite all the evidence, historic and current, that climate change is upon us and is to a large extent caused by the polluting effect of human industrial and other energy-related activities, there are those, both scientists and politicians, who do not believe this is true.  They either deny that climate change is happening or that it is caused by human activity as opposed to the cycles of nature.  Why?

There is no rational reason for doubting the facts of climate change.  While those who are skeptics have sought to poke holes in the evidence, either by claiming that Climategate showed that the evidence has been manipulated by climate activists or questioning how there can be global warming when the United States and Europe has been experiencing the coldest and snowiest winters in years, these claims have no basis. 

There was no falsification of data found in Climategate and the global warming pattern of climate change is not contradicted by the cold winters we’ve been having.  Overall, we have experienced the hottest years on record and temperatures at both poles and in the ocean are clearly rising.

When you look behind the smoke screens and bluster, one comes up with an answer very much in keeping with human nature and our culture … greed.   Whether it’s scientists who are dependent on the energy industry for the funding of their projects, or it’s Republican politicians whose first interest is always protecting the interests of their big business corporate donors, or it’s a Democrat from West Virginia, a state where politicians regardless of party receive significant financial backing from the local coal industry, the answer is the same.

These people are more concerned with their own personal self-interest then they are with the common good of their countrymen or mankind.  While this is not an uncommon human character trait, and it is certainly not a new trait among politicians, the increasing influence of corporate and financial interests in Congress over the past 30 years is very disturbing. 

Government officials … whether elected or employed … are responsible for doing the people’s work, of acting to further the common good.  President Lincoln coined the phrase, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The Republicans and some Democrats have instead sought to nurture government of industry, by industry, and for industry.