Written by Don Fitz
This is the final part of an exchange between Robert
Pollin and Don Fitz carried in Green
Social Thought (GST) and ZNet. The first portion consisted of two articles
by Pollin which originally appeared in Truthout on 7/3/21
and 6/10/21. The second portion was a response by
Fitz to Pollin’s articles.
The third portion was a rejoinder by
Pollin to Fitz’s response.
Robert Pollin repeats a message often seen in writings
defending alternative energy (AltE): while they briefly shake their heads at
capitalist waste, they deny an overproduction problem. In his response to my article on “Be
Careful What Energy You Wish For,” his message comes through that there are
no limits on what can be done to the Earth’s ecosystems that AltE can’t
solve.
He accuses me of intending to restrict “consumption”
even though that word never appears in my article. What appears repeatedly is the word
“production.” Capitalism produces for profit, not consumption. This seemingly small difference becomes
central for environmental solutions. A
liberal might say “Produce cars, but make people feel guilty about driving
them.” A socialist would say “Create
walkable communities as a precondition for limiting production of individually
owned cars.”
As heat waves, out-of-control fires and hurricanes
increasingly sweep the globe, fossil fuel (FF) apologists continue their
“climate change denial.” They are
matched by the “energy denial” of AtlE enthusiasts who similarly deny that ALL
industrially produced energy has seriously negative effects.
The first major problem with Pollin’s rebuttal is
that, like Congressional Democrats, he fails to demand federal legislation
capping production of oil, gas and coal and lowering the caps to zero by
specific dates. With no plan for
eliminating FFs, we are left with a vague belief that increasing AltE will
somehow cause a reduction in FFs rather than adding new sources of energy to
the mix. To further confuse the issue,
he claims that AltE has no emissions, when in fact every type of AltE produces
significant emissions during its life cycle.
Second, by failing to acknowledge that AltE is not
“clean,” he trivializes the way it destroys communities and ancestral lands, poisons
workers, and intensifies species extinction during operation and
decommissioning. One example is lithium
for electric vehicles. As Thea
Riofrancos writes: “Chile’s Atacama Desert is on the water system… Mining
for lithium here is like mining salty water and evaporating it. Already
water-scarce, the region is becoming drier due to climate change and water use
by extractive sectors…”
Lithium is then manufactured into batteries, exposing
workers to NMP
(reproductive toxin and embryotoxic), acetone (potential
for neuroblastoma in children), and biphenyl
(associated with Parkinson’s disease and dangers to the respiratory tract,
liver and nervous system). Multiply
these effects of lithium by other damaging effects and then multiply them by
the hundreds or thousands of substances that are mined for AltE and you get an
idea of the KNOWN dangers.
A third way in which Pollin exemplifies AltE writing
is by vastly underestimating land area it requires by claiming that rooftops
and parking lots provide most of the solution.
Perhaps he did not read the quotation in my previous piece by climate
scientists James Dyke, Robert
Watson, and Wolfgang Knorr that harvesting wood for biomass energy
“would demand between 0.4 and 1.2 billion hectares of land. That’s 25% to 80%
of all the land currently under cultivation.”
And perhaps he has not seen the estimate of Distinguished
Professor Emeritus Vaclav Smil that “To replace current US energy
consumption with renewables, you’d need to devote at least 25–50 percent of the
US landmass to solar, wind, and biofuels.”
Additional points must be considered:
1. If Pollin truly believes that only a tiny land area
is needed for AltE, then he should call for an end to lawsuits in the US and
land grabs across the globe to build solar arrays and industrial wind turbines.
2. Since the US uses 25% of the world’s energy with
only 6% of its population, an unbelievable amount of land and rivers would be
required for the rest of the world to match US squandering of resources.
3. A 3% annual growth rate in GDP means a doubling of
the economy in less than 25 years, a quadrupling of energy usage in less than
50 years, and an 8-fold increase in less than 75 years.
4. The Law of Diminishing Returns verifies that the
best space for wind, solar, hydro and biomass are used first and remaining
land/rivers are less productive, requiring more to be used over time.
This means that land usage must expand much more
rapidly than GDP, exhausting the Earth’s resources and species.
A fourth error permeating AltE writing is faith in
unproven technologies. Pollin expects
improvements in “industrial machinery, transportation equipment and computers”
along with “advances in battery storage and electricity transmission systems.” Such promises of accomplishments in an
imagined future remind me that, during the ‘50s, the nuclear industry painted
rosy pictures of “electricity too cheap to meter” which were just around the
corner.
Like other AltE supporters, Pollin insists that
production must be increased massively to provide for the world’s poor. It is helpful to examine Cuba during its
“Special Period” after the USSR collapsed in 1991 and discontinued its $4-5
billion annual subsidy. In my 2020 book,
Cuban Health
Care: The Ongoing Revolution, I emphasize that Cuba’s poverty is
exacerbated by the embargo of 60 years from the richest country in the world,
the US. During the Special Period,
Cuba’s economy shrunk by 45%, imports fell from $8.12 billion to $1.99 billion,
and oil imports from Russia plunged from 13.3 to 1.8 million tons.
Despite these traumas, Cuba actually improved its
health care system. In 1990, infant
mortality per 1000 live births were 10.5 in Cuba and 9.4 in the US. By the end of the Special Period in 2000,
Cuba was doing better with 6.3 deaths versus 7.1 in the US. At the beginning of the Special Period Cubans
expected to live 64.2 years and Americans to live 69.8 years. By 2000, Cuba’s life expectancy of 76.9 years
slightly edged out that of the US at 76.8 years.
This is vitally important for a discussion of energy:
Cuba spends roughly 10% per person per year on health care compared to the
US. How is this possible? Even with an end to the embargo and
ultra-economic growth, Cuba would not have been able to outpace per capita
GDP of the US.
The fundamental precondition of those changes was
creating a new consciousness that Cuba could accomplish much more with much
less. Without that new consciousness,
its medical miracle could never have happened.
Tunnel-visioning on AltE blocks the consciousness
necessary for developing ways to use vastly less energy, which is essential for
protecting biodiversity and human health.
The gargantuan increase in production that a new AltE system would
require is vital to capitalism, which cannot tolerate a long-term decrease in
production. Capitalism is doomed to
perish unless it finds a way to grow without FFs. Thus, late capitalism desperately needs an
ideology to justify AltE growth, just as infant capitalism needed the ideology
of racism to justify plunder of Africa, Asian and the Americas.
During World War I, many Social Democrats took sides
with “their own” national capitalists, believing that they were less bad. Today, their political great-grandchildren
similarly help to preserve capitalism by siding with AltE “progressive
capitalists.” Environmental, labor and
socialist movements should reject any ideology of plundering of the Earth to
fund capitalism’s pathological urge to grow.
It is time to scream DEFUND CAPITALISM!
Don Fitz (fitzdon@aol.com) has taught Environmental Psychology at Washington University and Fontbonne University in St. Louis and is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought. He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor. His book on Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution has been available since June 2020.
4.3 bn people have USD 1280 household wealth, whilst if world wealth of USD 418.3 tn was distributed equally everyone wld have USD 53630. Match this up with pollution: total GHG emissions are 50 bn tCO2e, so USD 8366 is responsible for 1 tCO2e. Who exactly is polluting? #COP26 #CommunismNotBarbarism
ReplyDelete