As we have noted before, things are really not looking good for the global economy this year. Whether we actually experience another financial crisis on the order of 2008 or even 1929 (or worse) is a matter of debate, but the time to prepare for such a scenario is yesterday. At the very least, another recession is inevitable at this point by 2017 at the latest, since no economic expansion has lasted much more than eight years straight in this country (with the notable exception of 1991-2001 that lasted exactly ten years). Granted, the expansion from July 2009 to the present mostly benefited the rich, and until around 2014 practically entirely benefited the rich, but it was still technically an expansion of the economy even if the growth was largely uneconomic in practice. And expansions can only go on so long before a contraction (i.e. recession or depression) inevitably occurs--it's just a fundamental truth of the business cycle.
One thing is for sure--things are very different this time around at least in terms of monetary policy. At least in 2008, interest rates were well above-zero, and could be cut to stimulate the economy (or, more accurately, stop or slow down the hemorrhaging). When that proved to be futile, then the Feral Reserve and many of the world's other major central banks resorted to "quantitative easing" (i.e. creating money out of thin air and giving it to the banks directly). In late 2014, the USA tapered off and ended its QE policy, and in December 2015 ended its zero interest-rate policy by raising the Fed Funds Rate to 0.25-0.50%. But now, the central banks of the world are starting from zero or close to zero--and some banks including the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have even resorted to negative interest rates recently. That means they are effectively charging depositors for the "privilege" of depositing money, and effectively paying borrowers to borrow money, which basically turns the world of finance upside-down. Such negative rate territory is uncharted waters, since until a few years ago no country has ever dared to do such a thing. And there is currently no evidence that such a move will be beneficial, and may in fact turn out to do more harm than good overall.
So monetary policy basically needs a new set of tools and a new game plan to deal with the next crisis, whenever it occurs. The Feral Reserve and the other central banks of the world are basically still using an outdated playbook. In the near-term, two things need to change yesterday. First of all, they need to abandon interest-rate targets altogether for the time being, and instead focus on targeting the growth of the overall economy. Like Paul Volcker did in 1979-1982, but done in reverse since the "inflation dragon" is not the problem this time. Secondly, implement Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money into everyone's bank accounts. Granted, the latter measure would probably require an Act of Congress to allow it to occur legally, but as the Feral Reserve is currently debating the legality of negative interest rates in the future, I'm sure they could find some sort of a loophole to allow it in an emergency such as a massive financial crisis. And of course fiscal stimulus would likely be necessary as well, in additional to much needed reforms to regulate Wall Street and the big banks (a law that rhymes with "brass seagull" comes to mind, as well as a financial transactions tax and better regulation of the shadow banking system), but those two changes to monetary policy would go a long way towards preventing the next recession/crisis from turning into another 2008 or worse. And of course the silly idea of negative interest rates needs to be abandoned as well.
But let's be brutally honest. What we are really witnessing these days is the death of an obsolete system, one that has been kept on life support for many years now. And eventually we will have to pull the plug on it, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Saturday, February 6, 2016
How to Prepare for the Next Big Crash
As we have noted in the previous article, the risk of the next big economic crash continues to loom large, and it may be too late to actually prevent it from occurring entirely. That's not to say that there aren't things that should be done to prepare for it to make it less catastrophic, though. Back in 2014, the TSAP had predicted that a crash would occur within a few short years, and we had written an article then discussing how to prevent it before it occurs or at least take the edge off of it, while ending the previous economic "stagpression" for good. And we should note that these things would indeed help take the edge off of the next looming financial crisis as well.
Two things come to mind right away: 1) a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all, an idea that is LONG overdue, and 2) Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money into everyone's bank accounts. Additionally, we need to better regulate the Wall Street casino so such a crisis could never happen again, and also JAIL the banksters who caused the crisis (instead of bailing them out) like Iceland did. A debt jubilee would be even better still, but even the things we just mentioned are a fairly tall order for a government who is bought and paid for by the banksters/oligarchs. While other things need to be done as well in the long run, such as critical investments in infrastructure and education, the aforementioned measures would go a long way towards fixing our ailing economy.
Those are the things that should be done at the government level, of course. At the individual level, there is really not much one can do except get OUT of the stock market while you still can, and take at least most of your money OUT of the big banks (before the "bail-ins" begin) and put it into smaller banks, credit unions, or even under your mattress. Or even in a big, brown bag inside a zoo.
Two things come to mind right away: 1) a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all, an idea that is LONG overdue, and 2) Quantitiative Easing for We the People in general (as opposed to the banks, which only benefits the ultra-rich) by injecting newly-created money into everyone's bank accounts. Additionally, we need to better regulate the Wall Street casino so such a crisis could never happen again, and also JAIL the banksters who caused the crisis (instead of bailing them out) like Iceland did. A debt jubilee would be even better still, but even the things we just mentioned are a fairly tall order for a government who is bought and paid for by the banksters/oligarchs. While other things need to be done as well in the long run, such as critical investments in infrastructure and education, the aforementioned measures would go a long way towards fixing our ailing economy.
Those are the things that should be done at the government level, of course. At the individual level, there is really not much one can do except get OUT of the stock market while you still can, and take at least most of your money OUT of the big banks (before the "bail-ins" begin) and put it into smaller banks, credit unions, or even under your mattress. Or even in a big, brown bag inside a zoo.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Is the Crash of 2016 Upon Us?
A few years ago, Thom Hartmann wrote a book called The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America. And recent events suggest that book is even more presicent than we originally thought:
Oh, and by the way--there appears to be no "safe haven" for money this time. Commodities are doing poorly, and as Ellen Brown has repeatedly noted for years now, the big banks supposedly have a plot to confiscate our deposits via "bail-ins". Thus, FDIC would basically become a dead letter in practice, and the resulting bank runs would undoubtedly deepen any financial crisis. Not to say that the Feral Reserve won't bail out the banks again, but there is still such a risk. Caveat emptor, and caveat lector as well.
- Economic inequality remains at historically high levels, and history has shown that high levels of inequality are virtually always followed by a massive stock market crash and a deep recession or depression, as infamously happened in 1929 and 2008.
- The stock market has been artificially high (a bubble) for a few years now and the Dow Jones dropped from a high of over 18,000 to below 16,000, most of which in the past month alone. The drop has actually been faster that the same period in early 2008.
- The Feral Reserve's quantitative easing (QE) ended in late 2014 and their zero-rate policy ended in December 2015, both of which have been artificially propping up the stock market.
- The stock bubble was also fueled by corporations buying back their own stock and/or cannibalizing their workforces, for the most part. And that clearly can't go on forever.
- We still have not yet fully recovered from the previous crisis and depression.
- Rich Dad famously predicted in 2010 that the stock market would crash in 2016 thanks to ERISA, which mandates that retirees start taking money out of IRAs (and thus out of the stock market) by age 70 1/2 at the latest. And guess what age the first Baby Boomers turn this year? You guessed it!
- Industrial production dropped in the fourth quarter of 2015, which historically predicts at least a recession in the near future.
- There has been concern that China's recent economic weakness will affect us as well.
- Recently, a key trade indicator, the cost of shipping "dry goods" (Baltic Dry Index), has dropped to historically low levels, and history has shown that index to be a bellwether of the global economy. This would actually predict a worse crash than 2008.
- Oil prices have been plummeting since mid-2014, and this has been hurting oil companies' profits. And apparently the banks have made some pretty bad bets on that.
- And finally, the real kicker: Thanks to the Wall Street casino remaining poorly regulated, the same derivatives bubble that caused the Crash of 2008 is now bigger than ever, and all it would take is one default in just the right place and it will burst, with severe consequences.
Oh, and by the way--there appears to be no "safe haven" for money this time. Commodities are doing poorly, and as Ellen Brown has repeatedly noted for years now, the big banks supposedly have a plot to confiscate our deposits via "bail-ins". Thus, FDIC would basically become a dead letter in practice, and the resulting bank runs would undoubtedly deepen any financial crisis. Not to say that the Feral Reserve won't bail out the banks again, but there is still such a risk. Caveat emptor, and caveat lector as well.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
How To Really Defeat ISIL For Good
The USA and coalition forces have been bombing Daesh/ISIL (which we prefer to call them so as not to inadvertently profane the name of the Goddess) for over a year now, 17 months to be exact. And Russia has been bombing them for nearly three months now. And yet they still seem to be spreading, even though they are clearly on the losing side in the long run. After the first few weeks of bombing in August/September 2014, the fight basically became a stalemate which lasted until Russia started their airstrikes in Syria, tipping the balance against Daesh once more.
Now the hawks such as Donald Chump are, unsurprisingly, calling for an escalation of this war. Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In fact, it was our own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place! But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want. In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them where it really hurts by taking out their OIL. Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air. And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well. Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them. And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.
The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that. Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)
Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor. VIVE LA FEMME!
Now the hawks such as Donald Chump are, unsurprisingly, calling for an escalation of this war. Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In fact, it was our own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place! But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want. In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them where it really hurts by taking out their OIL. Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air. And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well. Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them. And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.
The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that. Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)
Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor. VIVE LA FEMME!
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Where We Stand Today
Since our founding in 2009, the True Spirit of America Party (TSAP) has come a long way. Many of our positions on various issues have evolved since then, in some cases rather dramatically.
- Originally, we believed that capitalism could perhaps be redeemed and used for the greater good. Currently, the TSAP is essentially anti-capitalist since we now realize that capitalism cannot be redeemed, and its addiction to growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host. We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.
- Originally, the TSAP was staunchly pro-guns and in some ways to the right of the NRA. But with the recent increase in mass shootings and what we have learned since then, we have since adopted a more nuanced and moderate position on the issue of gun control.
- Originally, the TSAP attempted to find common ground with the nascent Tea Party movement and the broader Patriot movement in 2009-2010. Since around 2011 or so, we have since ended such attempts upon realizing that they are, by and large, just another reich-wing racist and neo-fascist movement. We now prefer the Occupy movement instead, by far.
- Originally, our stance on immigration was relatively hard-line; it has since softened quite a bit. We now believe in a more generous amnesty program, as not doing so would be far too cruel. And we also realize just how blinded by white privilege we once were.
- Originally, the TSAP was pro-nuclear power all the way; as of 2015 we now currently take the more neutral stance that the Union of Concerned Scientists takes, neither for nor against it.
- Originally, the TSAP believed that with very few exceptions, every able-bodied adult should "work for a living". We now feel that such an idea is archaic and outdated, and that Buckminster Fuller would be rolling in his grave. There are more than enough resources in the world such that with today's technology we no longer NEED everyone to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to. The real problem is that our abundance is being wasted and/or hoarded by the oligarchs, to the detriment of everyone else.
- Originally, the TSAP was "egalitarian" on the issue of gender for the most part. We also assumed that our party (including our leader Ajax the Great) would eventually save the world, lol. But more recently, we now believe that it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world. Only women would really be able to do so, and to do so they must take over. Yesterday. The futurists are unanimous about this: the future belongs to women. Thus, as of 2014 our party has been an observer of the Matriarchy movement, and as of 2016 we have basically joined the movement fully. At the same time, we will continue to support our cause of progressive libertarianism to the fullest, as we believe that the two are perfectly compatible. We would like to thank the distinguished Guru Rasa von Werder and William Bond for helping us see the light in that regard, as well as several others such as Pat Ravasio and Riane Eisler who have inspired us along the way.
Thus, our rather dynamic third party is continuing to evolve. As John Mellencamp and India Arie would say, "If you're not part of the future, get out of the way!"
UPDATE: The TSAP party leader, Ajax the Great, has recently created a new blog about the Matriarchy movement, called "The Chalice and the Flame". Please check it out. Opinions expressed therein are those of Ajax the Great and not necessarily the TSAP as a whole.
UPDATE: The TSAP party leader, Ajax the Great, has recently created a new blog about the Matriarchy movement, called "The Chalice and the Flame". Please check it out. Opinions expressed therein are those of Ajax the Great and not necessarily the TSAP as a whole.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
The TSAP is Feeling the BERN!
It's 2016, and Election Day will be right around the corner. And the True Spirit of America Party will be unequivocally endorsing Bernie Sanders for President. On essentially all of the issues, his platform is the one that closest to ours among all the candidates that have a chance this year.
As much as we want a woman to be President yesterday, which is LONG overdue, the TSAP will not be endorsing Hillary since we believe that she is simply not progressive enough for us or for the nation. Granted, she is FAR better than literally any Rethuglican candidate out there (puke!), and we would much rather have her instead of any of them, we still feel that Bernie is the better choice overall this time around. And unfortunately Elizabeth Warren is not going to be running this year, nor is the woman who we feel would really be the ideal President, Marianne Williamson. Bernie is the next best thing, and in fact Marianne herself is endorsing him as well. So yes, we are FEELING THE BERN!!!
As much as we want a woman to be President yesterday, which is LONG overdue, the TSAP will not be endorsing Hillary since we believe that she is simply not progressive enough for us or for the nation. Granted, she is FAR better than literally any Rethuglican candidate out there (puke!), and we would much rather have her instead of any of them, we still feel that Bernie is the better choice overall this time around. And unfortunately Elizabeth Warren is not going to be running this year, nor is the woman who we feel would really be the ideal President, Marianne Williamson. Bernie is the next best thing, and in fact Marianne herself is endorsing him as well. So yes, we are FEELING THE BERN!!!
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
State of the Planet Address 2016
On January 12, 2016, the President will give his annual State of the Union Address. And every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our annual State of the Planet Address in mid-January. Yes, we know it is a bit of a downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year thanks to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. And it is only getting worse every year.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. Yesterday.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude. In fact, for something as dire as climate change, as of 2015 we now support a strong "no regrets" approach. With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the naysayers' pseudoscience (*cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*) as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point (or points) will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm, ASAP. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level of 400+ ppm, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways. Technology is important, but it won't be decisive on its own (economics geeks may recall Jevons Paradox). The real problem is the paradigm that our society has been following, and that system is based on wetiko, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul. It often seems that the only difference between capitalism and cannibalism is the spelling.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
In addition to the ideas in Carbonomics, we also support several other measures to help us end our addiction to fossil fuels once and for all. Our Great American Phase-Out plan would phase out all fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest, via alternative energy, efficiency, and conservation. One good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity. Another crucial method would be regenerative organic farming, which also turns the soil into an effective carbon sink as well.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. Our ultimate goal is 100% renewable energy by 2030, but we need to hedge our bets. We can phase out fossil fuels, or we can phase out nuclear power, but we can't do both at the same time--and fossil fuels need to be phased out first, and quickly. Nuclear is doing a pretty good job of phasing itself out as it is. Our nation's irrational fear of all things "nuclear" needs to die NOW. (And speaking of which, let's irradiate all ground meat as well--if only to scare people into eating less meat, lol)
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe that more liberty is the answer, not less. In fact, the two most effective means of reducing the birthrate are poverty reduction and female empowerment. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to below 1.9, though it remains to be seen if that is a secular trend or just a temporary blip due to the "recession" (i.e. depression). But clearly we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being decoupled from well-being) is also every bit as harmful as overpopulation as well, if not more so. Growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell, is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. We clearly need to transition to a steady-state economy, most likely following a period of what Naomi Klein calls "selective degrowth" as well. And to do that, we need a radical paradigm shift to happen yesterday. Put another way, we need to leave room for Nature, lest it not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact. Unfortunately, such warnings have largely fallen of deaf ears until very recently.
Last but not least, the TSAP now believes that as long as men remain in charge, we are all merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's face it, it ain't gonna be us fellas who will save the world, as the past 7000 years or so have shown. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it peace. We devoured and suffocated our own empire, and our proverbial 15 minutes of fame is almost up. Only when women finally take over and reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world--and they will--will there be any real permanent solution.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Oh, by the way, wanna hear a joke? Peak Oil. Not saying it won't happen, of course--it will eventually peak and decline at some point--but climate change kinda trumps it. While conventional oil most likely has already peaked, there is more than enough total oil (including unconventional) to deep-fry the Earth--and most of which needs to stay in the ground if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fossil fuels are, after all, what Buckminster Fuller referred to as our planet's "energy savings account", which we need to wean ourselves off of and save just in case of a planetary emergency--and he first said this in 1941!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
