In this excerpt, Magdoff and Williams show the immense levels of waste created by capitalism today, including by the prison-industrial complex, food system and housing in the United States — not to mention the horrendous expensive and wasteful US military.
As a scientist working for decades on national and global water and climate challenges, I must speak out against what I see as an assault on America’s water resources.
I grew up in New York in the 1960s hearing about massive Polychlorinated Biphenyl – a toxic chemical used as a coolant – contamination in the Hudson River and the threatened extinction of bald eagles and ospreys from eating contaminated fish.<!–more–>
I remember watching on television Ohio’s Cuyahoga River burning. I remember scientists warning about the death of the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay from uncontrolled industrial pollution. I remember not being able to swim at beaches polluted with raw sewage.
And I remember the public debate and bipartisan enthusiasm for federal action to clean up our waters – enthusiasm that led to passage of one of the nation’s foundational environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1972.
This law and the related federal regulations reduced water pollution and protected some of the nation’s rivers and lakes, but they are incomplete, only partially implemented, and increasingly outdated in the face of new threats from unregulated contaminants, worsening climatic changes, failing water infrastructure and direct political assault.
Donald Trump claimed he’d work to promote clean water. This claim has proven to be hollow. Since taking office, the president, administration officials, and the Republican-led Congress have moved aggressively to roll back decades of water-quality protections put in place by previous Republican and Democratic administrations.
These moves benefit industrial polluters rather than local communities, hinder progress toward cleaning up contaminated water and deteriorating ecosystems and worsen public health risks.
To address these problems, the Obama administration developed new rules to remove mercury from municipal sewage; impose limits on the amount of toxic and bioaccumulative water pollutants such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium that can be released from power plants; control previously unregulated pesticides; stop the dumping of coal wastes into streams and clarified authority for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers to extend protections to around 60% of the water bodies in the United States – the so-called Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule.
The Trump administration and Congress have moved to rescind every one of these environmental protections.
Immediately after Trump’s inauguration, the EPA announced the agency’s intention to cancel the new regulation to cut mercury pollution in urban wastewater.
Mercury is a persistent neurotoxin affecting the brain and nervous system and scientists estimate that more than 75,000 infants in the US each year have an increased risk of learning disabilities associated with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. The largest single source of mercury contamination in urban wastewater comes from dental offices and the new rule required dental offices to install inexpensive and effective equipment to capture rather than dump mercury.
In April, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt proposed to postpone the compliance dates for meeting the new limits on toxic water pollutants from power plants. This rule would have reduced pollutant releases by 1.4bn pounds a year – including chemicals that lead to cancer and other illnesses in humans, lowered IQ in children, and deformities and reproductive damage in fish and wildlife.
The Clean Water Rule was published in June 2015 after years of scientific study, more than 400 public hearings, and literally a million public comments. It provides a critical tool for tackling persistent pollution problems from pesticides, fertilizers and industrial chemicals in water that previously lacked regulations.
Eliminating the Waters of the United States rule was an explicit objective of the Republican platform, and Trump signed an executive order in February 2017 asking the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers to review and either rescind or revise it. In late June, the EPA announced it would move to completely replace it, removing protections from vast areas of the country.
Finally, Trump’s proposed budget imposes massive cuts to federal water-quality protections. The EPA office that develops standards for pollution in drinking water, already years behind in setting limits for unregulated pollutants, would have its budget cut in half.
The Superfund program, responsible for cleaning up severely polluted industrial sites, including many contaminating or threatening groundwater, would be cut 25% and enforcement would be cut 40%.
Programs that support environmental cleanup in Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and other waterways would be cut to zero. The EPA’s office for scientific research and development would be cut in half.
Federal grants to states to identify and prevent leaks from underground storage tanks and programs to reduce lead exposure, like that seen recently in Flint, Michigan, would be eliminated. If we do nothing, undrinkable water could be one of Trump’s most poisonous legacies.
The good news is that the Americans cares enormously about clean water. The annual Gallup Poll on the environment ranks worries about water pollution above any other environmental issue, now higher than they’ve been since 2001. Scientists, public health officials, and environmental groups are also fighting back.
Lawsuits have been filed in federal court arguing that the Trump administration doesn’t have the legal authority to delay these protections, hasn’t given public notice or allowed public debate, is ignoring proven science and has acted to prioritize the interests of the coal and chemical industries over public health.
And there has been some success: in early June, in the face of a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA agreed to let the mercury rule go forward. Some Republican members of Congress have publicly expressed concern over the severity of the proposed federal budget cuts to environmental protection.
We’ve come a long way from the era of unregulated dumping of chemicals in our streams, burning rivers, and dying ecosystems. I’m optimistic that the goal of clean, fishable, swimmable waters nationwide is achievable. But the Republican party is moving rapidly to become the party of dirty water. That’s not in their interest and it’s not in the interest of the nation. It’s time scientists and the public speak out.
Peter Gleick is a member of the US National Academy of Science and the president-emeritus of Pacific Institute
Ten years on: Anatomy of the global financial meltdown
Reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the crisis helps to distil its essentials
For some, today marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the global financial crisis. August 9 2007 was the day when BNP Paribas, the French bank, froze three investment funds. Investors whose money was placed in suddenly toxic securities linked to US real estate, were no longer permitted to cash out their investments. The FT marks the anniversary with a chart-rich series on what the crisis did to the global economy, starting this week.
Admittedly, such dating is always a little arbitrary. Some swear by June 22 2007, which was when Bear Stearns had to bail out two hedge funds it had marketed, which were making big losses on mortgage-backed securities. As my colleagues John Authers and Alan Smith point out in their contribution to the FT series, the summer months of 2007 saw a rapid deterioration of the market values of many financial products — a sign that the Bear Stearns episode raised broader fears in the market leading up to the BNP event.
But we should keep both dates in mind, because jointly they outline a useful basic anatomy of the financial crisis. They do so even better when coupled with one more date: April 2006, when US house prices peaked, and an unprecedented — and unexpected — nationwide decline began.
The effect of the falling value of houses on the quality of the loans that had paid for them is what pre-determined the June 22 event. Bear Stearns’ move was the first clear admission that the assets its funds had invested in were worth much less than almost everyone had thought. It was the first clear sign of unrealised losses in the US and, by extension, the global financial system. In short, it was the first clear exposure of a solvency problem.
The August 9 event marked the next phase, where doubts about solvency turned into a liquidity problem. As Stephen Cecchetti and Kermit Schoenholtz nicely show, BNP’s halting of redemptions was followed by an immediate tightening of lending between financial institutions. Below is their graph of the Libor-OIS spread, which measures the difference between the rate at which big banks reported to be lending to one another over a measure of the safest market interest rate. From almost zero this spread suddenly shot up 10 years ago today. The European Central Bank reacted with an immediate liquidity injection into the banking system.
This three-point timeline — summer 2006, June 2007 and August 2007 — and the chain of events it represents forms a schema of debt crises generally. First, the value appreciation fuelled by a credit boom fizzles out and goes into reverse. Second, the absence of the value investors had expected to find becomes exposed (the solvency problem). And third, the presence of solvency problems, whose exact magnitude and location are uncertain, leads to a liquidity crisis, as each nervous investor tries to be the first to reach safety before the money runs out.
The June 22 solvency event can thus be seen as the forerunner of Bear Stearns’ total collapse in March 2008. The August 9 liquidity event can be seen as the forerunner of the bank run on Northern Rock in the UK a month later. And together they presage the demise of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in September 2008, with the chain reaction that followed for financial institutions of all stripes around the world.
So there is use in reflecting on anniversaries. Not just because of the storytelling thrill of going through the fast-paced events of 10 years ago, for which Cecchetti and Schoenholtz’s timeline is very useful, as is the retrospective live-tweeting on the Real Time Crisis account. But also because it helps to distil the essentials of a crisis.
These essentials are twofold. First is the readjustment of expectations about how much economic value there is to go around, and in particular the realisation by market participants that it is insufficient to honour all the claims racked up in the boom. Second is the proliferation of uncertainty through the web of short-term liquid funds that financial institutions provide one another with, a story that is well told by Adam Tooze in a recent essay.
There is also an inkling here of what it takes to handle a crisis well. The dawning certainty that losses will have to happen, combined with rising uncertainty about where the losses will fall, are what can paralyse the system. The lesson is that the sooner losses can be crystallised in full, the better. That requires difficult political decisions — but as the past 10 years have surely shown, indecision ultimately imposes a much greater cost.
As they always do on the anniversary of the armistice, North Koreans celebrated their “victory” in the Korean War on July 27. A few days later President Donald J Trump remarked that if the North Koreans make any more threats, they “will be met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen.”
No American president has uttered words like this since Harry Truman warned the Japanese, between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either to surrender or face “a rain of ruin from the air, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.” Trump’s nuclear bluster, made off-the-cuff between golf rounds, was widely condemned, but a few days later he doubled down on it.
As a White House staffer told the New York Times, the president “believes he has a better feel for Mr Kim [Jong Un] than his advisors do. He thinks of Mr Kim as someone pushing people around, and Mr Trump thinks he needs to show that he cannot be pushed.”
Trump is surrounded by people who echo his fantasies of ultimate power. Sebastian Gorka, a strange figure advising Trump (said to be a Trump “favorite” and a dead ringer for a Bela Lugosi flunky in a Dracula movie), told Fox News that Trump’s “fire and fury” line meant “don’t test America and don’t test Donald J Trump.”
We are not just a superpower, Gorka went on, “we are now a hyper-power. Nobody in the world, especially not North Korea, comes close to challenging our military capabilities.” This has been a truism since the Soviet Union collapsed, but it doesn’t explain how the US has failed to win four of the five major wars it has fought since 1945. One of those wars was Korea, where rough peasant armies, North Korean and Chinese, fought the US to a standstill.
It was 64 years ago that North Koreans emerged from this war into a living nightmare, after three years of “rain and ruin” by the US Air Force. Pyongyang had been razed to the ground, with the Air Force stating in official documents that the North’s cities suffered greater damage than German and Japanese cities firebombed during World War II.
Just as Japan scholar Richard Minear termed Truman’s atomic attacks “exterminationist,” the great French writer and filmmaker Chris Marker wrote after a visit to the North in 1957, “Extermination crossed this land.” It was an indelible experience still drilled into the heads of every North Korean.
On my first visit to Pyongyang in 1981, a guide quickly brought up the bombing and said it had killed several of his family members. Wall posters depicted a wizened old woman in the midst of the bombing, declaring “American imperialists – wolves.”
The day after Trump’s bluster, the DPRK government stated: “The US once waged a tragic war that plunged this land into a sea of blood and fire, and has been leaving no stone unturned to obliterate the DPRK’s ideology and system century after century.”
There are 25 million human beings living in North Korea. They bleed like we do, they live and die like we do, they love their kin like we do. Trump’s callous and cavalier threat was perhaps the most irresponsible thing he has said since becoming president (which is really saying something), but most Americans will not know this because they know nothing about the carpet-bombing of North Korea.
What about the 50 million South Koreans, whose elders also suffered through this war? “Trump doesn’t seem to understand what an alliance is, and doesn’t seem to consider his ally when he says those things,” Lee Byong-chul, a senior fellow at an institute in Seoul told the New York Times.
“No American president has mentioned a military option so easily, so offhandedly as he has.” But here Trump has a precedent: Bill Clinton also didn’t bother to consult South Korean president Kim Young Sam when drawing up plans for a preemptive strike in June 1994.
The next few weeks are critical to this deepening crisis, with annual “Ulchi-Freedom Guardian” war games set to start up on August 21, involving tens of thousands of American and South Korean troops.
North Korean generals have been preparing for moments like this for decades, gaming out war scenarios during several crises going back to January 1968 when they seized the US spy ship Pueblo and held the crew for 11 months.
Thus the North’s statements in the current crisis (unlike Trump’s) have a concrete, predictable nature: lots of bluster and bombast combined with quite specific plans, namely four medium-range missiles to be launched into waters near Guam on August 15th, if Kim Jong Un gives the go ahead.
Pyongyang always pursues tit-for-tat strategies: the US lifts B1-B nuclear-capable bombers from Guam for flyovers of South Korea – a constant not just under Trump but also during Obama’s tenure – and the North chooses a scenario that will call attention to the nuclear blackmail that the US has pursued going back to the Korean War, and particularly during the decades from 1958 to 1990, when the US stationed hundreds of nukes in South Korea with standard plans to use them in the early stages of a North Korean invasion. Pyongyang also likes to choose dates that have historical resonance: August 15 is the anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonialism in 1945.
Upon the news of his wife’s death, Shakespeare’s Macbeth said, “Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury.” He famously added, “Signifying nothing.” Trump signified this: yet another American venture in extermination.
Bruce Cumings teaches at the University of Chicago and is the author of The Korean War: A History
Here’s What It Looks Like When the World Tests Nuclear Weapons
As tensions mount between the United States and North Korea, with President Donald Trump promising “fire and fury” if threats from Pyongyang continue, the prospect of nuclear weapons actually being used looms larger than it has in years.
Like North Korea, the U.S. has a history of conducting its own nuclear tests. The first successful atom bomb test happened in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945. It was code named “Trinity.” That detonation was a part of the Manhattan Project, a government research project during World War II that gave us the first nuclear weapons. Near the end of World War II, on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and three days later another bomb over Nagasaki. Those were the first and last times nuclear weapons have been used in combat.
But since then more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted in more than half-a-dozen countries. There have been a few treaties against testing put in place. A Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963 to prevent test detonations in the atmosphere, in space, and underwater. And in 1996 the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted to ban all nuclear explosions — but it has not been enforced. In 2009 the United Nations General Assembly declared Aug. 29 to be an International Day Against Nuclear Tests.
Of the eight countries that have tested nuclear weapons, only one has done so after 1998: North Korea. The country’s most recent test, a hydrogen bomb, occurred in September 2016. The U.S. currently relies on experimental data from computer models instead of testing live bombs.
The gallery above shows a selection of nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and present day.
The Coming Solar Eclipse Is a Big Moment for Natural Gas
Natural gas is about to get a glimpse of its future role in the U.S. power mix as solar energy’s backup.
During the upcoming Aug. 21 eclipse, operators of giant solar fields from California to the Carolinas will rely on power from fast-start natural gas generators as well as hydroelectric plants and other sources to fill the gaps as the sky darkens. The celestial event, the first total solar eclipse visible in the lower 48 states since 1979, will provide owners of gas turbines a chance to shine even as the fossil-fuel is expected to be displaced over time by solar and wind energy.
The eclipse comes as the U.S. power grid undergoes a transformation that will bring increasing amounts of flexible resources needed to complement growing supplies of solar and wind energy. Solar installations have grown ninefold since 2012 and renewable sources are forecast to supply just as much of America’s electricity demand as gas by 2040, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The “electric grid of tomorrow” will increasingly have to deal with fluctuating power supplies from the wind and sun while incorporating quick-start gas turbines during events like the upcoming eclipse, said Stephen Berberich, president of California ISO, the state’s grid operator. Operators will also use new technologies to control demand when the moon will completely block the sun along a 70-mile-wide (113-kilometer) corridor stretching from Oregon to South Carolina.
Based on a Bloomberg calculation of grid forecasts, more than 9,000 megawatts of solar power may go down. That’s the equivalent of about nine nuclear reactors.
To help keep the lights on, the California Independent System Operator will tap the state’s network of gas generators and hydroelectric dams to make up for the loss of about 6 gigawatts of solar output over three hours. Duke Energy Corp. said it will utilize gas generators in North Carolina, the biggest solar state after California, to make up for output that is expected to sink 92 percent to about 200 megawatts in 90 minutes.
See Also: A Solar Eclipse Could Wipe Out 9,000 Megawatts of Power Supplies
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation doesn’t foresee any reliability issues as grid operators have been planning for the eclipse for months.
“Given that the timing and path of the eclipse are well understood and well reflected in solar generation forecasts by CAISO and other grid operators, generation dispatch or curtailment would be managed as a part of routine operations,” said Steve Krum, a spokesman for First Solar Inc., the largest operator of solar plants in the U.S.
AutoGrid Systems Inc. says some utilities will be using its software systems to shut off unnecessary appliances during the height of the eclipse, and bring them on slowly as solar power returns, said Adam Todorski, a director of product technology for the Palo Alto, California-based company.
“It’s a lot like a planned outage; you know it’s coming,” Todorski said. “You can get hundreds of megawatts by shedding things like water heaters and pool pumps, and heat pumps.”
Demand for gas is forecast to stop growing in the U.S. by 2040 as new technologies such as battery storage ramp up to provide backup for wind and solar, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
During a March, 2015 eclipse that crossed Europe, German grid operator TenneT TSO GmbH brought on 8 gigawatts of generating capacity to compensate for the loss of solar power as the sun disappeared, double the usual amount. It also kept hydropower plants that can store energy on standby and coordinated its flows with neighboring grid operators.
Power prices in Germany’s wholesale market surged then dipped for a short time as the first eclipse of the emerging solar age passed, briefly switching off thousands of panels that on the brightest days provide 40 percent of Germany’s power.
In the U.S., which will have another full eclipse in 2024, gas will continue to provide a backstop to solar until battery storage becomes cheaper and more widespread. Until then, regulators are urging consumers to pledge to cut consumption during the hours of the eclipse.
“We have plenty of wind, geothermal, hydro, and natural gas to make sure the grid runs smoothly during the solar eclipse, but we also have a lot of Californians who want to do their California thing and step in to help replace the sun when it takes a break,” said California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker.
Trump considering privatizing Afghanistan military ops, massive contract to Blackwater founder
Erik Prince, brother of Betsy DeVos, is one of the largest donors to Donald Trump and the Republican party as a whole. He’s also the founder of Blackwater, the private “security” company that was one of several private companies the George W. Bush administration used in Iraq. It was an extremely lucrative time for Blackwater. In 2001, Blackwater had contracts with the U.S. government valued at $736,906. By 2006, those contracts skyrocketed to $593 million, with a combined total of more than $1 billion in those five years.
The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.
The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions.
We know Trump values loyalty above all else (even though he shows no loyalty to anyone who does not have the last name Trump) and Erik Prince is about to be rewarded with more massive government contracts, this time in Afghanistan. In an interview with USA Today, Prince revealed the new plan to privatize military operations in Afghanistan:
The White House is actively considering a bold plan to turn over a big chunk of the U.S. war in Afghanistan to private contractors in an effort to turn the tide in a stalemated war, according to the former head of a security firm pushing the project.
Under the proposal, 5,500 private contractors, primarily former Special Operations troops, would advise Afghan combat forces. The plan also includes a 90-plane private air force that would provide air support in the nearly 16-year-old war against Taliban insurgents, Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater security firm, told USA TODAY.
The unprecedented proposal comes as the U.S.-backed Afghan military faces a stalemate in the war and growing frustration by President Trump about the lack of progress in the war.
CBS News reports that jobs in the wind energy field will grow 108 percent in the next 7 years. Working on wind turbines, in short, is the fastest-growing job sector in the United States now and in the foreseeable future.
One of the characteristics of wind turbines is that they can be refurbished and software can be installed in them to improve their integration into the grid. Alete is putting $80 million into refurbishing 350 turbines in Minnesota and Iowa. That project translates into jobs.
About 17% of Minnesota’s electricity comes from wind.
Most of this wind generation capacity was added in just the last decade.
The two biggest private energy players in this industry are Xcel (6,686 megs of wind power capacity) and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway energy (6,405 megawatts of wind capacity).
Xcel is busy adding 11 new major wind farms, totaling 3,400 megawatts of capacity, and wind will account for 34 percent of its electricity generation mix by 2021, up from 19 percent now.
All this is one reason that coal jobs are not coming back, no matter what that blowhard Trump says. On the other hand, a lot of coal workers will be retrained to work on wind turbines. China has a program to help Wyoming coal works make this transition.
In California’s poverty-stricken ‘Inland Empire’ region alone, green energy since 2010 has generated 36,000 jobs and $9.6 billion in business investment. Riverside and San Bernardino counties are among the smoggiest in the state, so moving to renewables will not only benefit the economy but will also combat respiratory and heart disease produced by breathing air polluted by coal and gas emmissions. Not to mention that those emissions are producing global heating that could threaten California’s prosperity.
Fossil fuels have two major problems that paint a dim picture for their future energy dominance. These problems are inter-related but still should be discussed separately. First, they cause climate change. We know that, we’ve known it for decades, and we know that continued use of fossil fuels will cause enormous worldwide economic and social consequences.
Second, fossil fuels are expensive. Much of their costs are hidden, however, as subsidies. If people knew how large their subsidies were, there would be a backlash against them from so-called financial conservatives.
A study was just published in the journal World Development that quantifies the amount of subsidies directed toward fossil fuels globally, and the results are shocking. The authors work at the IMF and are well-skilled to quantify the subsidies discussed in the paper.
Let’s give the final numbers and then back up to dig into the details. The subsidies were $4.9 tn in 2013 and they rose to $5.3 tn just two years later. According to the authors, these subsidies are important because first, they promote fossil fuel use which damages the environment. Second, these are fiscally costly. Third, the subsidies discourage investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy that compete with the subsidized fossil fuels. Finally, subsidies are very inefficient means to support low-income households.
With these truths made plain, why haven’t subsidies been eliminated? The answer to that is a bit complicated. Part of the answer to this question is that people do not fully appreciate the costs of fossil fuels to the rest of us. Often we think of them as all gain with no pain.
So what is a subsidy anyway? Well, that too isn’t black and white. Typically, people on the street think of a subsidy as a direct financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the opportunity cost of the product (fossil fuel in this case). However, as pointed out by the authors, a more correct view of the costs would encompass:
not only supply costs but also (most importantly) environmental costs like global warming and deaths from air pollution and taxes applied to consumer goods in general.
The authors argue, persuasively, that this broader view of subsidies is the correct view because they “reflect the gap between consumer prices and economically efficient prices.”
Without getting too deep into the weeds, the authors discuss both consumer subsidies (when the price paid by a consumer is below a benchmark price) and producer subsidies (when producers receive direct or indirect support which increases their profitability). The authors then quantify what benefits would be achieved if the fossil fuel subsidies were reformed.
Interested readers are directed to the paper for further details, but the results are what surprised me. Pre-tax (the narrow view of subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013.
The authors also broke the results down by fossil fuel type and usage (coal, petroleum, natural gas, electricity). It is not clear to me how the authors separated the various fuel sources out of electrical generation; however, the results show that petroleum and coal receive much larger subsidies compared to their counterpart fuels. The authors organized results by geographical region and found that the top three subsidizers of fossil fuels are China, USA, and Russia, respectively. The European Union is a bit less than half of the entire US subsidy. Other notable countries and regions are discussed.
There are two key takeaway messages. First, fossil fuel subsidies are enormous and they are costs that we all pay, in one form or another. Second, the subsidies persist in part because we don’t fully appreciate their size. These two facts, taken together, further strengthen the case to be made for clean and renewable energy. Clean energy sources do not suffer from the environmental costs that plague fossil fuels.
I asked one of the authors, Dr. Coady, why their work is important. He told me:
A key motivation for the paper was to increase awareness among policy makers and the public of the large subsidies that arise from pricing fossil fuels below their true social costs—this broader definition of subsidies accounts for the many negative side effects associated with the consumption of these fuels. By estimating these costs on a global scale, we hope to stimulate an informed policy debate and provide renewed impetus for policy reforms to reap the large potential benefits from more efficient pricing of fossil fuels in terms of improved public finances, improved population health and lower carbon emissions.
As a climate scientist, I focus almost exclusively on the scientific questions related to climate change. But equally important are the economic issues that, when dealt with, will usher in a new era of energy.
When Democrats think about their party’s problems on the political map, they tend to think of President Trump’s ability to win the White House despite losing the popular vote and Republicans’ potent efforts to gerrymander congressional districts. But their problems extend beyond the Electoral College and the House: The Senate hasn’t had such a strong pro-GOP bias since the ratification of direct Senate elections in 1913.
Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.
In a major blow to the future of nuclear power in the United States, two South Carolina utilities said on Monday that they would abandon two unfinished nuclear reactors in the state, putting an end to a project that was once expected to showcase advanced nuclear technology but has since been plagued by delays and cost overruns.
The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built.
I hadn’t realized when I was growing up in Gary, Indiana, an industrial town on the southern shore of Lake Michigan plagued by discrimination, poverty and bouts of high unemployment, that I was living in the golden era of capitalism. It was a company town, named after the chairman of the board of U.S. Steel. It had the world’s largest integrated steel mill and a progressive school system designed to turn Gary into a melting pot fed by migrants from all over Europe. But by the time I was born in 1943,
But now, the very affluent (the 99.999th percentile)
see the largest income growth.
The poor and middle class used to see the largest income growth.
Note: Inflation-adjusted annual average growth using income after taxes, transfers and non-cash benefits.
Many Americans can’t remember anything other than an economy with skyrocketing inequality, in which living standards for most Americans are stagnating and the rich are pulling away. It feels inevitable.