******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
From his first sentence to his last, Dunlap emphasizes one point: “Industrial-scale renewable energy does nothing to remake exploitative relationships with the earth, and instead represents the renewal and expansion of the present capitalist order.” He isn’t talking about renewable or green energy in general, he’s talking about “industrial scale” shift in energy production as it is taking place now. Dunlap isn’t saying that renewable energy is bad: he is addressing the way in which it is usually being deployed. I believe that he is correct in his main point, and that we ought to take note. We in the general public commonly hear of matters such as the relative cost of coal versus wind, or the carbon footprint of wind turbine manufacturing, but only specialists listen to, or engage in, discussions about the institutional and social contexts and their impacts on the economy and on the environment. So far, much if not most of the transition to renewable energy has been done by, and to the benefit of, capitalist forces. Most of the generating capacity is controlled by the bourgeoisie. It tends to be concentrated into large wind and solar farms which feed large utilities, all operated for profit. Utilities retain control over the distribution system (the “grid”). Even when individual homeowners – never mind renters – decide to install photovoltaic or wind generating equipment, the government subsidies, which are provided mostly as tax credits and the availability of accelerated depreciation, favour the use of corporate middlemen, and the homeowners don’t get all of the benefits themselves. Someone who has installed solar or wind generation, seeking to sell extra power at peak generating hours to utilities, is often paid at wholesale rates, but pays retail rates when buying the same amount of power back; the accounting mechanisms establishing those rates are often of dubious validity. The utilities make their profits, even when the homeowner is the investor. As with subsidies in the realm of fossil fuels, the green energy legal, tax, and regulatory structures are intended to benefit producers, not consumers. The rest of us are supposed to wait for those benefits to trickle down. These processes are designed in such a way that they provide surpluses which nourish capitalism. Thus, they engender those things which are (not necessarily uniquely) the side effects of capitalism: human and environmental exploitation, war, pollution, and other such nasties. In other words, we might, perhaps, reduce the carbon footprint of power generation, but we still incur the consequences of capitalism in general. Those consequences, as Dunlap shows, may outweigh the good which might come from green energy. Even if we were somehow to survive global warming, we are likely to be killed by capitalism anyway. Thus, we can’t limit our activism to environmental causes alone, we must also work to surpass capitalism with a more sane and just system. Dunlap didn’t discuss alternatives, I presume, because they are the same alternatives (socialism et al) to which we are already committed. His essay isn’t about renewable energy, it’s a reminder that we can’t quit there. As a few examples of alternative policies, we might change tax policies to favour individuals and cooperatives over corporations in the provision of green energy subsidies; we might change the legal environment which allows the humans who manage and own corporations to avoid personal liability for their misdeeds such as pollution (yes, eliminating corporations entirely would be a good start!); we might change laws and codes to make community sharing of renewable power easier, and simplify the creation of renewable energy cooperatives; we might restrict the availability of subsidies so that they could not be used to enrich investors; and so on. We need regulatory environments which discourage the use of resources deleterious to the environment. (Many of the current schemes, such as some of the carbon markets, actually make capitalism more efficient, and encourage increased non-renewable resource use. Bad.) These kinds of things, if properly done, would help promote green policies without unnecessarily feeding the capitalist monster. (I’m not holding my breath, but I can hope and dream.) As important as these things are, we ought to remember that there is much, probably more, to be gained from the reduction of energy consumption (as opposed to producing energy in better ways). If you spend an extra dollar on an LED light bulb, you reduce the cost of the necessary solar panels by several times that amount. Fuel-efficient vehicles can save a lot of energy; mass transit and re-introduction of railroads can save even more. Proper planning, permitting, and zoning can lead to more efficient (and more pleasant) cities and towns. And so on... The biggest gains require changes in society itself, they attack the capitalist system. They require control over production by the people, not by the unfettered pursuit of profit. They require a better way of governance. War is one of the biggest consumers of energy and other resources, and one of the largest causes of environmental degradation – never mind the human cost. Eisenhower hinted at the opportunity cost of war in terms of equipment, but it is more than that: a fighter jet can use thousands of pounds of fuel per hour. How many homes would that heat? Conservation, in all its various forms, would yield far more than new forms of generation. There is no profit to a capitalist from oil left in the ground; there is no capital accumulation from coal unmined. Reduction of consumption would give us even more: we’d need fewer solar panels, fewer wind turbines. With mass transit and decent railroads and better cities, there would be less energy used, and more free time for the people. A capitalist might not be able to afford to send his used car to Mars: maybe it would only go to the Moon. It should be unsurprising that the most important way to reduce environmental damage – conservation – is ignored in a capitalist system. (Musk is a darling among capitalist environmentalists, because electric is better than fossil fuel. But we hardly hear about the environmental problems attendant to the batteries and other components. I must acknowledge, however, that it was clever of him to meld solar power and battery powered vehicles: the lithium cells which are no longer good enough for a Tesla can profitably be installed into a home. But what will we do when those in homes start to wear out?) Certainly some problems are technical, and socialism won’t strike at their roots. Not only wind towers use heavy metals. Semiconductor manufacturing (including the creation of most photovoltaic cells) is capital intensive, subject to significant economies of scale which make small, locally managed factories impractical or at least quite problematic. It takes a lot of extraction to garner the quantities of rare earth metals needed to make flat panel and other displays. Maybe recycling is feasible, but it won’t for a long time be feasible in a capitalist system. Too long. Yes we need solar and wind and other ways to prevent continued environmental destruction. But a necessary adjunct to those technologies must be the restructuring of society itself. Note: It once was the case that a solar cell had to be used for from three to five years to recover the energy needed for its manufacture; maybe the numbers are different nowadays. After that interval, the power generated is carbon free. We could, theoretically, create a system, with only renewable power used to manufacture the equipment, that the entire manufacturing cycle is carbon neutral. Similarly, we could, theoretically, create an environment where all of the rare earths and other toxic or scarce constituents might be recycled. Note that scrap steel and aluminum, even in today’s economic system, displace a lot of mining which would otherwise be needed to supply industrial needs. Of course, this would entail moving away from the market pricing of such materials. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 07:40:33AM -0700, DW via Marxism wrote: > Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 07:40:33 -0700 > From: DW via Marxism <[email protected]> > To: michael marking <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] End the “Green” Delusions: Industrial-scale > Renewable Energy is Fossil Fuel+ > > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3797-end-the-green-delusions-industrial-scale-renewable-energy-is-fossil-fuel > >[...] _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
