I think we should stop calling utilities "private." They are supposed to be public. We already have utilities whose job is to offer a community-wide grid. Why re-invent the wheel when we could fix it and save countless lives and species now headed for extinction? Why give up? Recovering from the last several decades of destructive deregulation (and the privatization of our public sector)—i.e. capitalism run amok—and putting the public sector back in business through political action will put us far ahead of where we'd be if we just threw up our hands and stayed the course. I just put solar panels on my roof that send solar energy to our regional public utility, which monitors usage and reduces my bill accordingly. A friend of mine was furious when the utility wouldn't let them, in effect, go entirely off grid but made then connect to the utility's system. I agreed with the utility. What is needed isn't to undo all the existing infrastructure but to REGULATE our utilities, which have been encouraged and even forced to act like private corporations in during the post-Reagan grow-or-die neoliberal economy times. Those times are over. Most people are now in agreement that this was a terrible idea. History did not "end" and global utopia begin when the private sector was given free rein to "solve" all problems by monetizing everything. THIS is what needs changing: we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't have time and can't afford to do that. We must, as they saying goes, recycle and reuse. We must remember the original definition and purpose of a PUBLIC utility and stop putting "shareholder value" first. Our public utilities are already responding to the climate crisis. They are already building out the infrastructure for efficient collection of huge quantities of solar and wind energy. We must focus on saving what we have (learning how to take agriculture back too, which many of us are also already doing) and ending these ridiculous NIMBY fights, which are encouraged by the neoliberal elites. We must take our government back from the private sector. It seems to me that any plan to start over AFTER the apocalypse is irresponsible and reckless. The elites are counting on this and planning for their own survival after the rest of us are dead. Doing nothing to save what we have and FIX IT condones the otherwise inevitable die-off of countless species, not just us, and the rendering of our habitat unlivable for humans. The answer is old-fashioned politics. We must protect what we have left of nature and focus on stopping these devastating wars and all the other activities that are destroying the planet. There is NO REASON other than a cynical belief that "all is lost" to NOT roll up our sleeves, organize and fight for a return to a system that puts we-the-people first instead of last. I sense the momentum shifting. Ordinary working people have had enough of the lies and greed. We must work together to save what we can while there's still time.
Privately owned utilities are regulated, and guaranteed profit rates based on invested capital in plants, wires, etc. They engage in efficiency when utility commissions demand it. The system is biased to energy generation. I agree utilities should be publicly owned. And many are. But even many that are still emphasize energy delivery over efficiency. This is why I referred to utility culture. And even in efficiency programs there is an emphasis on low-hanging fruit rather than deep efficiency. Least cost power planning which includes efficiency as a resource still measures it against the cost of new power plants rather than overall minimization of energy use. So I see coops as an element within a public utility grid that focuses these issues, and develops local energy resources. Of course, I agree we should be doing all of this now rather than waiting for breakdown. But it may take that to spur transformation.
Have you ever read this piece entitled "Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism"? (https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/). IMHO, the author makes an important and overlooked point about the extremely misleading language implied by calling for-profit companies "private". They are really nothing of the sort, because they mostly cannot be singlehandedly alienated by any private individual, which is usually taken to be the ultimate determinant as to whether an object is truly under "private" ownership! Rather, corporations are generally a form of SOCIAL ownership, but of a very peculiar kind, in which only a certain special oligarchy of equity holders and executives have any say, and not the wider community represented by the government issuing and legally enforcing their charters.
As I state in my other response, in the article I specified this does not cover all points, just some of the key ones. That said, I do think electrified trains are crucial for reducing and eliminating shorter flights. With such trains, I would support a ban on short hops as France is doing. For longer flights, a carbon price that actually reflects the climate cost would reduce demand significantly. The EU is moving in that direction. That is a matter that can only be handled at national and international levels.
First, I said in my introduction this does not cover the entire picture, just some of the key bases.
Second, I am focusing on areas in which I have some background, and healthcare is not one. I will close part 2 of this scenario with areas I have not covered, and this is one. I do think efforts by states such as California to pass single payer are interesting, and may write about this in the future.
Third, you have repeated commented on abortion funding, apparently from a belief population is a central issue. I think it's more an issue of how people are supplied with the needs of life rather than the number of them. And the people who would take advantage of such a program are the lower-income people who represent the least of the problem. Overall population growth is decreasing throughout most of the world, with Africa and India being the major exceptions. The only reason for increases in the U.S. is immigration, driven by U.S. policies in Latin America. I have not engaged you directly on this before, but now I will. I just do not see population control as important from an ecological standpoint.
Fourth, there are rooftop gardens, window planters, etc. In terms of overall greenspace, Vienna has shown how you can have substantial greenspace and dense housing in areas well served by transit. Cities have to be healthy for people, and it is documented how important green elements are, not just psychologically, but for moderating temperature extremes. Within this, we can have community gardens. You will see in part 2 how I see local food systems as regional in scope, and also how I do not think this eliminates all long-distance food transportation.
Fifth, yes electrification will reduce climate pollution, even in areas still with substantial fossil electricity on the grid, and electric options will take fossil equipment such as stoves, heaters and buses off line. Reducing climate pollution is the absolute priority. Some CO2 released today will actually be in the atmosphere longer than nuclear waste is in deadly form, unless feasible methods of CO2 removal are developed. It is simply off base to claim we need to stop electrification before we get fossil or nuclear off line. We are already facing a deepening climate crisis, so the quicker we reduce fossil CO2 emissions, the better.
Sixth, we have substantial solar in both Seattle, where I actually live, and Portland, where I used to. Our long summer days at northern latitudes are great for solar, and the moderate temperatures even better than the southwest, where heat reduces solar production. Germany, where the sunniest area is cloudier than Seattle, also has significant solar. In my scenario I also say some power will come from outside the cities, and my region certainly has substantial wind generation that already plays a significant role.
Seventh, at no place do I say dismantle the tent and RV camps. It is only because social and community housing has been supplied that the city was able to eliminate them, in my scenario.
What I am saying is that US population would decline without immigration, much as it is through most of Europe and East Asia. Again, I think the problem is not so much population as economics, how people are supplied with their needs and wants, and the values that drive the economic system. In any event, population curves are a long matter, while changing economic systems can take place rapidly, which is the ecological necessity.
One of the biggest solar booms is happening in Texas. It will soon catch up with California. Cities across the U.S. are increasing mass transit, as well as biking and walking. My scenario is based on building a new consensus. Meanwhile, immigration is driving right wing politics in Europe and the U.S. That is political reality. But, as I mentioned before, Europe and East Asia are projected to see population declines. Most population growth will take place in Africa and South Asia. Where it is important to supply needs with ecological technologies.
Good luck with opposing environmental funding in Portland. With one of the first city clean energy funds in the US. https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy. p.s. Oregon was the first state to institute statewide land use planning, creating an urban growth boundary around Portland, which has comprehensive planning in the metropolitan area. The Seattle area now has a similar boundary. Both prevent sprawl into farm and forest lands.
I think we should stop calling utilities "private." They are supposed to be public. We already have utilities whose job is to offer a community-wide grid. Why re-invent the wheel when we could fix it and save countless lives and species now headed for extinction? Why give up? Recovering from the last several decades of destructive deregulation (and the privatization of our public sector)—i.e. capitalism run amok—and putting the public sector back in business through political action will put us far ahead of where we'd be if we just threw up our hands and stayed the course. I just put solar panels on my roof that send solar energy to our regional public utility, which monitors usage and reduces my bill accordingly. A friend of mine was furious when the utility wouldn't let them, in effect, go entirely off grid but made then connect to the utility's system. I agreed with the utility. What is needed isn't to undo all the existing infrastructure but to REGULATE our utilities, which have been encouraged and even forced to act like private corporations in during the post-Reagan grow-or-die neoliberal economy times. Those times are over. Most people are now in agreement that this was a terrible idea. History did not "end" and global utopia begin when the private sector was given free rein to "solve" all problems by monetizing everything. THIS is what needs changing: we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't have time and can't afford to do that. We must, as they saying goes, recycle and reuse. We must remember the original definition and purpose of a PUBLIC utility and stop putting "shareholder value" first. Our public utilities are already responding to the climate crisis. They are already building out the infrastructure for efficient collection of huge quantities of solar and wind energy. We must focus on saving what we have (learning how to take agriculture back too, which many of us are also already doing) and ending these ridiculous NIMBY fights, which are encouraged by the neoliberal elites. We must take our government back from the private sector. It seems to me that any plan to start over AFTER the apocalypse is irresponsible and reckless. The elites are counting on this and planning for their own survival after the rest of us are dead. Doing nothing to save what we have and FIX IT condones the otherwise inevitable die-off of countless species, not just us, and the rendering of our habitat unlivable for humans. The answer is old-fashioned politics. We must protect what we have left of nature and focus on stopping these devastating wars and all the other activities that are destroying the planet. There is NO REASON other than a cynical belief that "all is lost" to NOT roll up our sleeves, organize and fight for a return to a system that puts we-the-people first instead of last. I sense the momentum shifting. Ordinary working people have had enough of the lies and greed. We must work together to save what we can while there's still time.
Privately owned utilities are regulated, and guaranteed profit rates based on invested capital in plants, wires, etc. They engage in efficiency when utility commissions demand it. The system is biased to energy generation. I agree utilities should be publicly owned. And many are. But even many that are still emphasize energy delivery over efficiency. This is why I referred to utility culture. And even in efficiency programs there is an emphasis on low-hanging fruit rather than deep efficiency. Least cost power planning which includes efficiency as a resource still measures it against the cost of new power plants rather than overall minimization of energy use. So I see coops as an element within a public utility grid that focuses these issues, and develops local energy resources. Of course, I agree we should be doing all of this now rather than waiting for breakdown. But it may take that to spur transformation.
Have you ever read this piece entitled "Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism"? (https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/). IMHO, the author makes an important and overlooked point about the extremely misleading language implied by calling for-profit companies "private". They are really nothing of the sort, because they mostly cannot be singlehandedly alienated by any private individual, which is usually taken to be the ultimate determinant as to whether an object is truly under "private" ownership! Rather, corporations are generally a form of SOCIAL ownership, but of a very peculiar kind, in which only a certain special oligarchy of equity holders and executives have any say, and not the wider community represented by the government issuing and legally enforcing their charters.
As I state in my other response, in the article I specified this does not cover all points, just some of the key ones. That said, I do think electrified trains are crucial for reducing and eliminating shorter flights. With such trains, I would support a ban on short hops as France is doing. For longer flights, a carbon price that actually reflects the climate cost would reduce demand significantly. The EU is moving in that direction. That is a matter that can only be handled at national and international levels.
Worst possible place for housing due to noise, pollution and safety reasons.
I try to build my scenarios on a sense of political reality. You obviously do not.
First, I said in my introduction this does not cover the entire picture, just some of the key bases.
Second, I am focusing on areas in which I have some background, and healthcare is not one. I will close part 2 of this scenario with areas I have not covered, and this is one. I do think efforts by states such as California to pass single payer are interesting, and may write about this in the future.
Third, you have repeated commented on abortion funding, apparently from a belief population is a central issue. I think it's more an issue of how people are supplied with the needs of life rather than the number of them. And the people who would take advantage of such a program are the lower-income people who represent the least of the problem. Overall population growth is decreasing throughout most of the world, with Africa and India being the major exceptions. The only reason for increases in the U.S. is immigration, driven by U.S. policies in Latin America. I have not engaged you directly on this before, but now I will. I just do not see population control as important from an ecological standpoint.
Fourth, there are rooftop gardens, window planters, etc. In terms of overall greenspace, Vienna has shown how you can have substantial greenspace and dense housing in areas well served by transit. Cities have to be healthy for people, and it is documented how important green elements are, not just psychologically, but for moderating temperature extremes. Within this, we can have community gardens. You will see in part 2 how I see local food systems as regional in scope, and also how I do not think this eliminates all long-distance food transportation.
Fifth, yes electrification will reduce climate pollution, even in areas still with substantial fossil electricity on the grid, and electric options will take fossil equipment such as stoves, heaters and buses off line. Reducing climate pollution is the absolute priority. Some CO2 released today will actually be in the atmosphere longer than nuclear waste is in deadly form, unless feasible methods of CO2 removal are developed. It is simply off base to claim we need to stop electrification before we get fossil or nuclear off line. We are already facing a deepening climate crisis, so the quicker we reduce fossil CO2 emissions, the better.
Sixth, we have substantial solar in both Seattle, where I actually live, and Portland, where I used to. Our long summer days at northern latitudes are great for solar, and the moderate temperatures even better than the southwest, where heat reduces solar production. Germany, where the sunniest area is cloudier than Seattle, also has significant solar. In my scenario I also say some power will come from outside the cities, and my region certainly has substantial wind generation that already plays a significant role.
Seventh, at no place do I say dismantle the tent and RV camps. It is only because social and community housing has been supplied that the city was able to eliminate them, in my scenario.
What I am saying is that US population would decline without immigration, much as it is through most of Europe and East Asia. Again, I think the problem is not so much population as economics, how people are supplied with their needs and wants, and the values that drive the economic system. In any event, population curves are a long matter, while changing economic systems can take place rapidly, which is the ecological necessity.
An unlikely scenario. Take a look at current politics in the US and Europe.
One of the biggest solar booms is happening in Texas. It will soon catch up with California. Cities across the U.S. are increasing mass transit, as well as biking and walking. My scenario is based on building a new consensus. Meanwhile, immigration is driving right wing politics in Europe and the U.S. That is political reality. But, as I mentioned before, Europe and East Asia are projected to see population declines. Most population growth will take place in Africa and South Asia. Where it is important to supply needs with ecological technologies.
Good luck with opposing environmental funding in Portland. With one of the first city clean energy funds in the US. https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy. p.s. Oregon was the first state to institute statewide land use planning, creating an urban growth boundary around Portland, which has comprehensive planning in the metropolitan area. The Seattle area now has a similar boundary. Both prevent sprawl into farm and forest lands.
You might get abortion funding from somewhere, but people in Portland are committed to clean energy funding. They voted for it.