Solar Energy Booming

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that solar-electric generating capacity has grown 418 percent from 2010 to 2014.  It now accounts for 1.13 percent of total U.S. generating capacity.  Solar farms with molten salt heat storage are part of the boom.

Update (May 5):  New materials called perovskites are described as a breakthrough in solar cell manufacturing.

American Oligarchy

Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-first Century was published earlier this year and continues to draw interest.  Paul Krugman discusses the book in an interview with Bill Moyers. Krugman notes that inequality in the United States is reaching new records.  He argues that that's bad for economic growth. Very few people are "making it" in America with more and more being left behind.

One point Piketty makes is that the years from about 1914 to 1974 were an aberration in history. Inequality went down temporarily, but now we've resumed the relentless logic of capital: the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth.  The rich get richer and we soon become a society of inherited wealth.

Update (April 23):  More from Bill Moyers and the distribution of wealth in the U.S.

Also, why the Right fears Piketty's research.

Update (April 24):  An interview with Thomas Piketty.

Update (April 25):  Paul Krugman says conservatives are in a panic that Piketty's message will spread.

[W]hat’s really new about “Capital” is the way it demolishes that most cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that we’re living in a meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved.

Update (April 27):   Sean McElwee on the impact of Capital.

Update (April 28):  More about Piketty's work from Heidi Moore and Rebecca Rosen.

And this is, perhaps, the most significant point. Piketty has identified the mechanism by which inequality accelerates over time (Solow calls it, simply, the "rich-get-richer dynamic"). But the consequences of that distribution are not merely economic but political: A concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, which in turn protects the concentration of power. That our political system is incapable of tempering Piketty's dynamic is not a bizarre coincidence but a direct result.

Update (April 30):  I'm starting to have difficulty just keeping up with all the discussion about Piketty's work.

Update (May 1):  Jesse Myerson has a solution for "r > g".  Distribute r to everyone.  Does that mean state ownership of everything?  Doesn't that mean replacing capitalism with socialism?

Update (May 3):  A summary of articles about Piketty's work.  And a look at an empire in decline.



Update (May 4):  Sean McElwee has a guide to debating conservative attacks on Piketty.

Update (May 6):  Another interview with Thomas Piketty.

Update (May 8):  Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman comments on Piketty's work.

Update (May 11):  Thomas Frank points out that as much as Piketty documents the growing imbalance between capital and labor, he overlooks the role of unions for addressing inequality. More democracy in the workplace directly counters the undemocratic force of concentrated wealth.  But allowing workers to organize is still a political choice--and the growing power of capital makes that increasingly difficult to achieve.

Update (May 23):  A story in the Financial Times raises questions about some of Piketty's data.

Update (May 24):  Where will we end up if growing inequality remains unchecked?

Update (May 27):  Reactions to the Financial Times article.

Update (June 1):  A short overview of Capital.

Update (June 2):  Matt Bruenig rebuts five misconceptions about Piketty's argument.  But Krugman points out that

inequality denial persists, for pretty much the same reasons that climate change denial persists: there are powerful groups with a strong interest in rejecting the facts, or at least creating a fog of doubt. Indeed, you can be sure that the claim “The Piketty numbers are all wrong” will be endlessly repeated even though that claim quickly collapsed under scrutiny.

Update (June 7):  The inequality discussion continues.  And even as the US reaches a new record in collective wealth, a report from the Economic Policy Institute addresses income inequality.

Update (June 28):  Noel Ortega of the New Economy Working Group says that Piketty overlooks the limits to economic growth.

At the center of the rapidly growing New Economy Movement are ecological balance, shared prosperity, and real democracy. If we can’t find a way to build all three, then the only economy worth measuring is the number of days we have left.

Fred Guerin agrees that we need to

ask the question whether we should continue advocating for a capitalist system that glorifies profit over people or start thinking about how to reorganize our economy around common goods such as the health and well-being of our present world.

Guerin disputes the idea that capitalism is the best we can hope for.

The fact is that though there are many manifestations of the capitalist system, the intentional logic of capitalism always was, and still is, the same: to protect and perpetuate the power, status and privilege of the few, while impoverishing everyone else.

Given this, you might think that we would seriously question anyone who asserts that capitalism best captures or reflects the essential capabilities, wants, desires or needs of human beings - or that it, in any way, helps to preserve or sustain the resources of the planet for future generations. If anything, capitalism has become the medium where what is worst in us is magnified and given legitimacy - materialism, greed, indifference to the suffering of others, deceitfulness and hubris - while diminishing the importance of justice, benevolence and environmental stewardship.

Update (October 19):  Luke Brinker criticizes Bill Gate's critique of Piketty.

Update (February 21, 2015):  Reflections by Piketty and the importance of emphasizing wealth inequality.

Update (February 8, 2017):  I like the ad for Pocket Piketty:

r Roine explains all things Piketty.

WEALTH ACCUMULATES, CAPITALISM REINFORCES INEQUALITY, WEALTH INEQUALITY IS  UNDEMOCRATIC.

Update (March 21, 2018): Paul Street writes about the Permanent Political Class.

Who will protect Americans from the American oligarchy? CNN and MSNBC shriek about our continuing vulnerability to evil Russian intrusion. They say nothing about how no steps are being taken to outlaw the controlling influence of nefarious homegrown American big money campaign funders, lobbyists, and, of course, corporate media.

American Democracy?

A study by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University examines the evidence for four theories of American politics.  Who has the most influence--average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups, or business-oriented interest groups?  It is probably not a surprise that elites and business groups have the most influence while the rest of us have essentially none.

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Update (April 26):  Michael Lind discusses the Gilens/Page study.

Update (June 22):  In a discussion on the relevance of Marx for today's politics, Sean McElwee argues that the political left needs to focus on the working class.  He notes Gilens and Page observed that "[t]he preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites".  And quotes Steinbeck:  "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Education and persuasion remain major components of the socialist project.

The implications of ideology are important and numerous. The left must not fall into the trap of believing that all Americans actually do share our views, but that a conspiracy of the wealthy, or the power of GOP framing, or the influence of money are preventing us from succeeding. To some extent, these things may indeed harm the left, but widespread ideology — the automatic assumption of capitalism’s unmitigated merit, for example — is just as big a problem. We must win the war of ideas before we can win the war of democracy.

Update (July 11, 2015):  In a paper called "Political Powerlessness", Nicholas Stephanopoulos incorporates Gilens' data to illustrate the "predicted likelihood of Federal policy change versus group support for policy change".  Finally, things are looking up for rich, white guys.

Update (September 2):  Sean McElwee reports on a paper by Larry Bartels that describes the governments of other "democratic" countries as being unresponsive to public opinion on social issues.

Update (December 4, 2015):  A paper by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright reports on a survey of wealthy individuals showing how their values and policy priorities differ from the general public.

We find that they are extremely active politically and that they are much more conservative than the American public as a whole with respect to important policies concerning taxation, economic regulation, and especially social welfare programs. Variation within this wealthy group suggests that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wealthholders (people with $40 million or more in net worth) may tend to hold still more conservative views that are even more distinct from those of the general public. We suggest that these distinctive policy preferences may help account for why certain public policies in the United States appear to deviate from what the majority of US citizens wants the government to do. If this is so, it raises serious issues for democratic theory.

Update (January 31, 2016):  An interview with Tova Wang and Nick Nyhart about the report "Democracy at a Crossroads: How the One Percent Is Silencing Our Voices".

Update (December 17, 2018):  A study from the University of California and Columbia University finds that staff for Republicans in Congress tend to overestimate how conservative constituents are. 

This stunning misperception can largely be explained by the disproportionate attention lawmakers and their aides lavish on donors and special interest groups.

Mitigating Climate Change

A draft for the last part of the Fifth Assessment Report from IPCC states that a lot can be done to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but we're running out of time to act to prevent 2 degrees Celsius of warming.

Update (April 9):  Nafeez Ahmed reports that the British environmental organization Biofuelwatch is critical of IPCC recommendations in the draft mitigation report.

Dr Rachel Smolker, co-director of Biofuelwatch, said that the report's embrace of "largely untested" and "very risky" technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), will "exacerbate" climate change, agricultural problems, water scarcity, soil erosion and energy challenges, "rather than improving them."

The same concern was expressed with the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

Update (April 11):  An interview with economist Benoit Lefevre about the IPCC report.

Update (April 13):  Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change is officially released. Articles in the Washington Post and by Reuters and BBC cover the story.  The Guardian emphasizes the idea that avoiding catastrophe is still affordable if governments act now.

Update (April 14):  Lindsay Abrams offers the top ten ways to prevent catastrophic climate change:

1. Switch to renewables

2. Put a price on carbon

3. Take the carbon out of the atmosphere

4. Build greener buildings

5. Plan better cities

6. Bring industry in line

7. Set standards for cars and trucks

8. Make better use of land

9. Live greener, be greener

10. Cooperate internationally

Update (April 16):  Some good news, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped ten percent from 2005 to 2012.

Update (April 19):  Paul Krugman discusses the IPCC's assessment that climate mitigation would reduce economic growth by only 0.06 percent.

What’s behind this economic optimism? To a large extent, it reflects a technological revolution many people don’t know about, the incredible recent decline in the cost of renewable energy, solar power in particular.

The climate change panel, in its usual deadpan prose, notes that “many RE [renewable energy] technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions” since it released its last assessment, back in 2007. The Department of Energy is willing to display a bit more open enthusiasm; it titled a report on clean energy released last year “Revolution Now.” That sounds like hyperbole, but you realize that it isn’t when you learn that the price of solar panels has fallen more than 75 percent just since 2008.

So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait.

Update (April 23):  Naomi Klein on the obstacles to stopping climate change and Brad Plummer concludes that the 2 degree Celsius goal may be unobtainable.

Update (April 26):  An interview with Dale Jamieson about his book Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed and What it Means for Our Future.

Update (June 8):  A rebounding economy has lead to a 2.39 percent increase in US carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 to 2013.

Update (July 4, 2015):  Looks like carbon sequestration just can't compete with renewable energy technology.

Update (August 12, 2015):  Joe Romm discusses research indicating that "geoengineering" (better described as "climate intervention") can't prevent catastrophic damage to the oceans if we wait too long to stop carbon dioxide emissions.

Update (June 17, 2019):  I found this video before, but I've been reminded how important quantification is for understanding mitigation. Jennifer Wilcox suggests that $20 billion (0.1 percent GNP) could build 200 "artificial forests" (at $100 per ton of carbon dioxide--"hard to do") which would remove 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (about 5 percent of U.S. emissions) and if powered by wind (otherwise net capture is one-third as much) would require an area the size of New Jersey.

Update (June 22, 2019):  Carbon Engineering has plans to start building it's first commercial carbon capture plant in 2021. It should be operational in a few years. CNBC reports it would take 40,000 such plants to fully remove the world's current carbon dioxide emissions. Zero net emissions would leave the atmospheric concentration unchanged.

Update (July 5, 2019):  A report published in Science calls forest restoration "our most effective climate change solution".

[T]here is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover, which could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon in areas that would naturally support woodlands and forests.

Planting 1 trillion trees at a cost of $300 billion has the potential to reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by 25 percent. But time to plant and mature, as well as ongoing deforestation are major obstacles.

Update (July 27, 2019):  Or, maybe hemp can save us.

Update (August 31, 2019):  Keith Spencer warns "that technology simply cannot solve the problems that it created".

Climate change is a political problem with a political solution. ... If the political will existed among the citizenry, the republic could certainly organize itself to solve the climate crisis. ... Yet our civilization has been collectively hypnotized by the tech industry into believing that everything can be solved by more gadgetry and more money thrown at the tech sector.

Unfortunately, Silicon Valley’s brand of magical thinking has so poisoned us that few are capable of seeing the notion of a technological fix for climate change as a farce. Capitalism treats the environment as an externality and insatiably creates waste and pollution. That’s a doctrine that is incompatible with the survival of life on Earth.

Update (November 10, 2019):  It's always interesting to learn about research into more efficient methods of carbon capture. But here's the kicker: through their new company the researchers "hope to develop a pilot-scale plant within the next few years".

Security and Survival

In articles adapted from a speech for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Noam Chomsky argues that government secrecy has more to do with securing state power from public scrutiny.  U.S. actions like the drone program, secretly conducted, amount to state terrorism and actually undermine our security by increasing the risk of retaliation.

Chomsky goes on to note that the threat of nuclear war still exists.  Avoiding destruction so far has sometimes been just a matter of luck.  The U.S. is projected to spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next 30 years.  And then government inaction regarding climate change further undermines security.  The heightened push for oil and gas production could well be a "death-knell for the species".  Securing profits overrides any rational concern for our well-being.

To put it bluntly, in the moral calculus of today's capitalism, a bigger bonus tomorrow outweighs the fate of one's grandchildren.

Update (July 1):  Chomsky further describes the "driving forces in policy formation" as that of "securing state power from the domestic population and securing concentrated private power".

Update (July 11):  I'm not aware of a transcript, but a Durham Castle lecture titled "Surviving the 21st Century" also elaborates on these same themes.

Update (August 5):  More from Chomsky about nuclear weapons and national security.

Update (April 27, 2017):  Noam Chomsky's lecture on "The Prospects for Survival".