Ralph welcomes civic activist, writer and filmmaker, Pete Davis, to discuss “Join or Die,” a film about why you should join a club—and why the fate of America depends on it.
This was yet another great program from the Ralph Nader Radio Hour! Where to go from the first segment on becoming involved in community issues in a meaningful way? First, as part of my curriculum in an independent study program at a community college in NY, I encluded Bowling Alone so the class could consider the long-term meaning of being part of a group(s) and what it meant to class members. Not to sound my own horn, but belonging, sometimes against the odds, has always appealed to me although my generation of baby boomers shied away from membership in groups, organizing, and working toward the common good. That reaction to joining came from the reaction of many boomers to the Vietnam War era. In terms of town meetings, I stopped going because of hostile reactions to points of view I took. I recently wrote about the latter in “Welcome to the Bluest of Blue States.”
The second segment on energy conservation, and in particular white roofs, was also excellent. It seems that in the case of wind farms, a solution to some of the effects of global climate destruction, there is pushback and its obvious that it’s fossil-fuel driven. Solar panels are yet another solution, but a recent inquiry came with about a $20,000 investment.
The first is with regard to Steve Sklar’s interview. Green energy is wonderful, but battery storage is a huge ethical issue, especially since Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red has revealed the truth about the bloodshed tied to cobalt mining in the Congo. How can we continue to use rechargeable batteries when we know the real-life consequences of doing so?
My second question is with regard to the writer and actors' strike. I have refused to continue to pay Netflix, AppleTV, and Disney+ since this began. Netflix continually reaches out to me to renew my monthly subscription, but I told them that I am waiting for a fair deal for the writers and actors. Since I am saving money, I would like to make a monthly donation to the strike fund of these determined workers. Is there a movement to encourage people to give their subscription money to striking workers rather than overpaid CEOs? How can I contribute?
Thank you! Your show is the best. I never miss an episode.
Thanks to Ralph for the shout out to Harry Kelber. Those interested in Harry's work can find his booklets here. Ideal for rank and file union members. http://www.laboreducator.org/mainmenu.htm
Thanks for your response, Klassic. I don't have the economic grounding to affirm or rebut your statements, except to say that perhaps the term "fiat currency" is symptomatic of the disconnect between mainstream economic thinking and the real world costs of actual resources and energy--money can be created by fiat, while energy and raw materials can't. But this is exactly the kind of conversations we should be having--getting into the nitty gritty of what can and can't be done to de-carbonize, in an atmosphere where too many people see the transition to renewables (again-a misnomer) in very vague, aspirational terms where we slay the fossil fuel dragon and then march boldly into a glorious green future.
I’ll give a practical example of pollution reduction which is based on informed macroeconomic policy. I think most of the RNRH listeners would agree that demilitarization is a good policy goal and it is one which would achieve tremendous environmental improvements. Warfare is thoroughly destructive environmentally in so many ways. Even without war, excessive militarization and production of tanks, jets, and so forth is extremely environmentally destructive even if those jets and tanks are never used as the manufacturing process alone is very destructive.
There are many reasons why the US government has supported militarization over the last few decades. Corporate welfare to ensure the survival and success of private companies is one reason. Neoconservative foreign policy goals are another reason. Another big reason is that militarization acts as a jobs program of sorts. Certainly militarization is sold to the American public as being a jobs program and there are white-collar and blue-collar jobs which come from militarization. One reason why the unemployment rate is relatively low right now is because of militarization.
Now, can demilitarization occur while maintaining, or improving, employment? The answer is yes, but this can only happen with a better public understanding of macroeconomics and better labor policy informed by a better understanding of economics. To achieve demilitarization, the military industry will have to be nationalized (the military industry is publicly funded anyway so this is hardly revolutionary thinking economically). As John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out in the 1970s, however, nationalization of the military industry can only be achieved if the idle labor from demilitarization is re-employed and that’ll likely have to come from the public sector. The good news is that with informed economic thinking, it is possible to maintain full employment with re-employed people working towards goals beneficial for the public such as employing people to work on public health goals, including the domestic, public manufacturing of necessary medications and other medical technology. Also, engineering and production resources can be utilized to work on new power generation sources if this is deemed to be necessary and beneficial.
A side benefit of all of this is, of course, de-corporatization in general. Now, policy like this will require significant public spending by the US federal government, there is no doubt about it. However, the ability to fund this is completely feasible without new taxes on the public if the public is fully employed. This type of spending will not cause inflation or other economic maladies for reasons that are explained in the book by Stephanie Kelton that I recommended previously.
There is a deeper issue to consider. In basic sociological terms, we are living in the culture of late capitalism, with all of the individualistic pressures that were mentioned in the show. This means the question of how to make change is debated. But any view informed by Marx will include the basic fact that ideas follow experiences, not the other way around. So trying to get ahead of that large structural force that is manifesting as late stage capitalist culture is difficult if not impossible. It is good to try but these efforts need sound theory. If they cannot understand how change happens, they get the wrong answer -- this is Marx's basic critique of Hegel. Real change requires a structural change in how we organize production, and that seems to require revolution.
Re the interview with Scott Sklar--White roofs is maybe a good idea, or maybe not--see some of the other comments. However the whole discussion was simply another manifestation of the widespread and growing consensus (including growing corporate endorsement of what they see as the next big growth sector) that a transition to solar and wind is THE way forward. A consensus that rests on a whole set of unexamined assumptions, and blindness to the energy and resource limitations that will make this transition unlikely to succeed, and in an environmental sense, disasterous. Many experts are questioning whether so-called renewables (they're not--being made entirely of non-renewable resources) will ever be capable of generating enough energy to run current levels of economic activity, let alone the increased levels predicted for the near future. The devastating environmental impact of building this new "green" infrastructure will be monumental, further compromising a biosphere already crippled by 200 years of industrial development. Further depletion of already depleted resources will make the necessary constant replacement of this infrastructure as it ages more and more expensive. Furthermore, can our debt ridden economy even pay for a project on this massive scale, unlike anything ever attempted before?
For these and many other reasons, we need to question this consensus--we need to know what makes sense for us to hope for and work for as humanity and the planet undergoes a transition that is an event in the history of life itself. Our fall back narratives of corporate malfeasance and greed are not remotely adequate to understanding this watershed in the evolution of life.
I'm writing this to encourage Ralph and his co-hosts to use their forum to begin exploring these vital questions--now is the time to stop talking so much about why we must de-carbonise, and start thinking seriously about how we de-carbonise, from both a practical and a philosophic point of view. Here are a couple sources of data informed critical thinking on these issues--The Post Carbon Institute, and then the podcaster, writer and teacher with expertise in many relevant fields, Nate Hagens. Hagens especially would make a great guest for the program.
Finally, just let me say that none of this is either an overt or implicit, stealth argument for continued fossil fuel use. We must de-carbonise. The question is to what end--to perpetuate our ecocidal way of life sans carbon, or to create a space in which a thousand different answers to the fundamental questions of humanity's relationship with the biosphere can bloom.
“Furthermore, can our debt ridden economy even pay for a project on this massive scale, unlike anything ever attempted before?”
The answer to this question is undoubtedly ‘yes’. This is because the US federal government is not debt-ridden. To say that the US federal government is debt-ridden is to pretend that the US is not using a sovereign fiat currency, which it is most certainly is using, and, thus, claims about a debt crisis and claims the US federal government must enact austerity policies are false. A federal government push to fund alternative power generation methods is completely feasible.
Now, whether the US federal government should be pushing increased consumption, whether with existing energy sources or with alternatives, is a different matter, but whatever the solution is, the US federal government can fund reform policies. In fact, without even getting into reformed energy policy itself, the US federal government will have to ensure full employment for the electorate to even consider moving away from fossil fuels and, of course, consumption itself. Full employment will not happen with austerity economics.
In summary, your policy suggestions should not be grounded in myths that the US federal government has a limited ability to fund environmental reforms and the requisite labor and other economic reforms needed to realize environmental reforms. There is absolutely no need for a ‘balanced budget’ at the federal level. In fact, trying to achieve such a goal will lead to even further environmental and economic decay for the public. If you would like to understand more of what I’m saying, I suggest Stephanie Kelton’s ‘Deficit Myth’ book.
Ralph, I feel compelled to let you know that there is a different story than the one your guest proposed regarding wind turbines and their impact of whale death, one that says . Your guest is vested in renewable energy and hardly an impartial voice although I don't don't his claim that ships account for much of the deaths. Some of those ships are from wind industry boat traffic and now there is a documentary by environmental activists and NOAA scientists showing the decibels emitted by wind vessels are driving whales off course into danger. The following two links revert to reporting done by Michael Shellenberger, a man I whole heartedly respect who you and your readers might know from his (along with several other journalists) ongoing campaign of awareness again government censorship. Incidentally, would make a great guest on your show.
Tina, I believe Shellenberger is one of the pro-nuclear "environmentalists" who Ralph engaged with when the pro-nuclear film "Pandora's Promise" came out in 2013.
Love your show. I must however alert you to the bogus claims for reflective roofing.
Ask yourself: where does the heat go once it bounces off a white roof? A bit on physics might tell you it just doesn’t disappear. Remember conservation of energy?
That heat and all that light that bounces off a white roof must go somewhere. As a neighbor living next to and slightly above a row of white roofs I can tell you. It goes right into my living room.
The professor just didn’t do his homework. Everything else about solar panels and energy savings is smart and scientific.
But they don’t justify the white roofs boondoggle. To cool your house you needn’t pollute your neighbors.
The incident, and therefore reflected (from a white roof) light has spectral content essentially identical to that which is incident, which is to say, of a 5900K blackbody. As the earth's atmosphere is essentially transparent in the spectral regime encompassing ca 99% of the solar spectrum, the reflected light simply leaves without causing appreciable heating. By contrast, a black(body) roof would absorb all the incident energy, heating it up. The hot roof then radiates like a ca 300K blackbody, with its peak spectral radiance at ca 14 micrometers, corresponding to the maximum absorbtivity of carbon dioxide. This results in the atmosphere becomming warmer. This phenomenon has a name; perhaps you have heard it: the "greenhouse effect".
If it bounces back into the open sky (instead of onto some other object), wouldn't that heat be radiated out? So if we had more white roofs, more heat would be radiate back out of the Earth system wouldn't it? Although yes it seems some would just be reflected onto other surfaces, so how roofs are angled would have to be a factor.
I also thought, "what if you live in a cold climate and really want the heat retained in your house?" Certainly would help in the winter instead of paying bigger oil and gas bills, no?
This was yet another great program from the Ralph Nader Radio Hour! Where to go from the first segment on becoming involved in community issues in a meaningful way? First, as part of my curriculum in an independent study program at a community college in NY, I encluded Bowling Alone so the class could consider the long-term meaning of being part of a group(s) and what it meant to class members. Not to sound my own horn, but belonging, sometimes against the odds, has always appealed to me although my generation of baby boomers shied away from membership in groups, organizing, and working toward the common good. That reaction to joining came from the reaction of many boomers to the Vietnam War era. In terms of town meetings, I stopped going because of hostile reactions to points of view I took. I recently wrote about the latter in “Welcome to the Bluest of Blue States.”
The second segment on energy conservation, and in particular white roofs, was also excellent. It seems that in the case of wind farms, a solution to some of the effects of global climate destruction, there is pushback and its obvious that it’s fossil-fuel driven. Solar panels are yet another solution, but a recent inquiry came with about a $20,000 investment.
I have two comments.
The first is with regard to Steve Sklar’s interview. Green energy is wonderful, but battery storage is a huge ethical issue, especially since Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red has revealed the truth about the bloodshed tied to cobalt mining in the Congo. How can we continue to use rechargeable batteries when we know the real-life consequences of doing so?
My second question is with regard to the writer and actors' strike. I have refused to continue to pay Netflix, AppleTV, and Disney+ since this began. Netflix continually reaches out to me to renew my monthly subscription, but I told them that I am waiting for a fair deal for the writers and actors. Since I am saving money, I would like to make a monthly donation to the strike fund of these determined workers. Is there a movement to encourage people to give their subscription money to striking workers rather than overpaid CEOs? How can I contribute?
Thank you! Your show is the best. I never miss an episode.
Gerry Chidiac
Prince George, BC, Canada
Thanks to Ralph for the shout out to Harry Kelber. Those interested in Harry's work can find his booklets here. Ideal for rank and file union members. http://www.laboreducator.org/mainmenu.htm
Thanks for your response, Klassic. I don't have the economic grounding to affirm or rebut your statements, except to say that perhaps the term "fiat currency" is symptomatic of the disconnect between mainstream economic thinking and the real world costs of actual resources and energy--money can be created by fiat, while energy and raw materials can't. But this is exactly the kind of conversations we should be having--getting into the nitty gritty of what can and can't be done to de-carbonize, in an atmosphere where too many people see the transition to renewables (again-a misnomer) in very vague, aspirational terms where we slay the fossil fuel dragon and then march boldly into a glorious green future.
I’ll give a practical example of pollution reduction which is based on informed macroeconomic policy. I think most of the RNRH listeners would agree that demilitarization is a good policy goal and it is one which would achieve tremendous environmental improvements. Warfare is thoroughly destructive environmentally in so many ways. Even without war, excessive militarization and production of tanks, jets, and so forth is extremely environmentally destructive even if those jets and tanks are never used as the manufacturing process alone is very destructive.
There are many reasons why the US government has supported militarization over the last few decades. Corporate welfare to ensure the survival and success of private companies is one reason. Neoconservative foreign policy goals are another reason. Another big reason is that militarization acts as a jobs program of sorts. Certainly militarization is sold to the American public as being a jobs program and there are white-collar and blue-collar jobs which come from militarization. One reason why the unemployment rate is relatively low right now is because of militarization.
Now, can demilitarization occur while maintaining, or improving, employment? The answer is yes, but this can only happen with a better public understanding of macroeconomics and better labor policy informed by a better understanding of economics. To achieve demilitarization, the military industry will have to be nationalized (the military industry is publicly funded anyway so this is hardly revolutionary thinking economically). As John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out in the 1970s, however, nationalization of the military industry can only be achieved if the idle labor from demilitarization is re-employed and that’ll likely have to come from the public sector. The good news is that with informed economic thinking, it is possible to maintain full employment with re-employed people working towards goals beneficial for the public such as employing people to work on public health goals, including the domestic, public manufacturing of necessary medications and other medical technology. Also, engineering and production resources can be utilized to work on new power generation sources if this is deemed to be necessary and beneficial.
A side benefit of all of this is, of course, de-corporatization in general. Now, policy like this will require significant public spending by the US federal government, there is no doubt about it. However, the ability to fund this is completely feasible without new taxes on the public if the public is fully employed. This type of spending will not cause inflation or other economic maladies for reasons that are explained in the book by Stephanie Kelton that I recommended previously.
There is a deeper issue to consider. In basic sociological terms, we are living in the culture of late capitalism, with all of the individualistic pressures that were mentioned in the show. This means the question of how to make change is debated. But any view informed by Marx will include the basic fact that ideas follow experiences, not the other way around. So trying to get ahead of that large structural force that is manifesting as late stage capitalist culture is difficult if not impossible. It is good to try but these efforts need sound theory. If they cannot understand how change happens, they get the wrong answer -- this is Marx's basic critique of Hegel. Real change requires a structural change in how we organize production, and that seems to require revolution.
Re the interview with Scott Sklar--White roofs is maybe a good idea, or maybe not--see some of the other comments. However the whole discussion was simply another manifestation of the widespread and growing consensus (including growing corporate endorsement of what they see as the next big growth sector) that a transition to solar and wind is THE way forward. A consensus that rests on a whole set of unexamined assumptions, and blindness to the energy and resource limitations that will make this transition unlikely to succeed, and in an environmental sense, disasterous. Many experts are questioning whether so-called renewables (they're not--being made entirely of non-renewable resources) will ever be capable of generating enough energy to run current levels of economic activity, let alone the increased levels predicted for the near future. The devastating environmental impact of building this new "green" infrastructure will be monumental, further compromising a biosphere already crippled by 200 years of industrial development. Further depletion of already depleted resources will make the necessary constant replacement of this infrastructure as it ages more and more expensive. Furthermore, can our debt ridden economy even pay for a project on this massive scale, unlike anything ever attempted before?
For these and many other reasons, we need to question this consensus--we need to know what makes sense for us to hope for and work for as humanity and the planet undergoes a transition that is an event in the history of life itself. Our fall back narratives of corporate malfeasance and greed are not remotely adequate to understanding this watershed in the evolution of life.
I'm writing this to encourage Ralph and his co-hosts to use their forum to begin exploring these vital questions--now is the time to stop talking so much about why we must de-carbonise, and start thinking seriously about how we de-carbonise, from both a practical and a philosophic point of view. Here are a couple sources of data informed critical thinking on these issues--The Post Carbon Institute, and then the podcaster, writer and teacher with expertise in many relevant fields, Nate Hagens. Hagens especially would make a great guest for the program.
Finally, just let me say that none of this is either an overt or implicit, stealth argument for continued fossil fuel use. We must de-carbonise. The question is to what end--to perpetuate our ecocidal way of life sans carbon, or to create a space in which a thousand different answers to the fundamental questions of humanity's relationship with the biosphere can bloom.
Mark,
“Furthermore, can our debt ridden economy even pay for a project on this massive scale, unlike anything ever attempted before?”
The answer to this question is undoubtedly ‘yes’. This is because the US federal government is not debt-ridden. To say that the US federal government is debt-ridden is to pretend that the US is not using a sovereign fiat currency, which it is most certainly is using, and, thus, claims about a debt crisis and claims the US federal government must enact austerity policies are false. A federal government push to fund alternative power generation methods is completely feasible.
Now, whether the US federal government should be pushing increased consumption, whether with existing energy sources or with alternatives, is a different matter, but whatever the solution is, the US federal government can fund reform policies. In fact, without even getting into reformed energy policy itself, the US federal government will have to ensure full employment for the electorate to even consider moving away from fossil fuels and, of course, consumption itself. Full employment will not happen with austerity economics.
In summary, your policy suggestions should not be grounded in myths that the US federal government has a limited ability to fund environmental reforms and the requisite labor and other economic reforms needed to realize environmental reforms. There is absolutely no need for a ‘balanced budget’ at the federal level. In fact, trying to achieve such a goal will lead to even further environmental and economic decay for the public. If you would like to understand more of what I’m saying, I suggest Stephanie Kelton’s ‘Deficit Myth’ book.
Ralph, I feel compelled to let you know that there is a different story than the one your guest proposed regarding wind turbines and their impact of whale death, one that says . Your guest is vested in renewable energy and hardly an impartial voice although I don't don't his claim that ships account for much of the deaths. Some of those ships are from wind industry boat traffic and now there is a documentary by environmental activists and NOAA scientists showing the decibels emitted by wind vessels are driving whales off course into danger. The following two links revert to reporting done by Michael Shellenberger, a man I whole heartedly respect who you and your readers might know from his (along with several other journalists) ongoing campaign of awareness again government censorship. Incidentally, would make a great guest on your show.
https://public.substack.com/p/why-this-documentary-may-save-the?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://public.substack.com/p/facebook-censors-accurate-information?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Tina, I believe Shellenberger is one of the pro-nuclear "environmentalists" who Ralph engaged with when the pro-nuclear film "Pandora's Promise" came out in 2013.
Thank you. I will give it a look, even though it's ten years old at this point.
Sorry part of my response was cut off before I pressed send.
It should read, " one that says.... the noise from turbines registers much louder and more disturbing to whales than anyone had imagined."
Ralph,
Love your show. I must however alert you to the bogus claims for reflective roofing.
Ask yourself: where does the heat go once it bounces off a white roof? A bit on physics might tell you it just doesn’t disappear. Remember conservation of energy?
That heat and all that light that bounces off a white roof must go somewhere. As a neighbor living next to and slightly above a row of white roofs I can tell you. It goes right into my living room.
The professor just didn’t do his homework. Everything else about solar panels and energy savings is smart and scientific.
But they don’t justify the white roofs boondoggle. To cool your house you needn’t pollute your neighbors.
I have pictures if interested.
The incident, and therefore reflected (from a white roof) light has spectral content essentially identical to that which is incident, which is to say, of a 5900K blackbody. As the earth's atmosphere is essentially transparent in the spectral regime encompassing ca 99% of the solar spectrum, the reflected light simply leaves without causing appreciable heating. By contrast, a black(body) roof would absorb all the incident energy, heating it up. The hot roof then radiates like a ca 300K blackbody, with its peak spectral radiance at ca 14 micrometers, corresponding to the maximum absorbtivity of carbon dioxide. This results in the atmosphere becomming warmer. This phenomenon has a name; perhaps you have heard it: the "greenhouse effect".
If it bounces back into the open sky (instead of onto some other object), wouldn't that heat be radiated out? So if we had more white roofs, more heat would be radiate back out of the Earth system wouldn't it? Although yes it seems some would just be reflected onto other surfaces, so how roofs are angled would have to be a factor.
I also thought, "what if you live in a cold climate and really want the heat retained in your house?" Certainly would help in the winter instead of paying bigger oil and gas bills, no?
For that we employ an old technology called "insulation".