With Hansen’s system we would be burning hydrocarbons into the

Scan page 7

dangerous breeder reactors, is required to kick-start the fission process.

Thorium does not solve the waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power. It is touted as a great green hope that “eats its own waste,” but it is hardly that. Thorium’s nuclear fuel cycle creates wastes at the front end with hazardous mine and mill tailings and at the tail end with long-lived decay products. Tho­ rium-232 (1/2 life of 14 billion years), technetium-99 (1/2 life of 200,000 yrs.), iodine-129, cesium-135 & 137, and strontium-190 would all pose a danger now and in the future.

Thorium-232 has a very high radiotoxicity, with a bone-surface dose 200 times higher than that of ura­ nium. Also, the process of breeding thorium up to uranium-235 emits lethal high-energy gamma radia­ tion to which processing workers could be exposed. Experimental thorium reactors have had trouble with loss of coolant, concrete structural failure due to high heat, fracturing of the fuel, hot spots in reactor cores, and radiation releases into the atmosphere. Given the government and the nuclear power industry’s perfor­ mance record, should anyone trust them to launch a new generation of thorium reactors?

China to lead the way?

Because China is supposedly the world leader in non-carbon energy investments, it represents the shining hope to Hansen in being the first to implement his plan.

As factory to the world, the nation has become the largest carbon emitter by cranking out consumer goods, loaded with embodied carbon, for the West, which has been successful in exporting a huge portion of its greenhouse gas emissions as a result. If it wants to continue playing this role, China has no choice but to continue its reliance upon hydrocarbons. It is still very dependent upon coal, by installing one megawatt per week of coal-fired power.

Also, China will be using a lot of shale gas, for which it is now paying $18/MBTU at the port of entry. There­ fore, it has invested heavily in the Eagleford Shale For­ mation in Texas. There are currently 17 permit appli­ cations for new LNG ports in the U.S. that will enable increased export to Asia. So how exactly will China’s leadership on fee and dividend manifest itself, consid­ ering its high-growth rate of 7%?

There are a number of things wrong with applying an exclusively financial solution to a problem of danger­ ous overuse and consumption. Hansen makes it clear that his plan will “allow the marketplace, not politi­ cians, to make investment decisions.” To our mind, the economic system is the entire cause of the problem.

In fact, one wonders if this is really about saving the planet for human habitation or more about money, since fee and dividend does not address the need for fundamental ecological and social change and ignores the enormous carbon footprint of the military as a blood-soaked procurement agent for oil ruthlessly taken from under the land of other people.

The question is: At what point in this process of charging fees and dispensing dividends would fossilfuel use and consequent emissions actually decline?

It is logically expected that the Energy Giants, if they accept the imposition of the fees, would immediately pass on the cost to their customers when charging for coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity. But would the manufacturers of goods and providers of services, who are at the next step in this cascade, actually reduce the amount of fossil fuels they use in their productive pro­ cesses, or simply pass on the increased cost of produc­ tion to their consumers—who would pay for it in the end? Knowing how the Carbon Barons cheat, can they be counted upon to accurately report production fig­ ures? This raises the question of whether not the fees would be fairly and honestly paid and collected. Myth of energy efficiency A large component of Hansen’s plan is conserva­ tion and energy efficiency. But would the increased discretionary income enable workers to afford ener­ gy-efficiency measures in their homes such as retro­ fitting appliances and lighting, heating, and cooling systems? Would it enable them to purchase expensive, resource-intensive, hybrid vehicles to replace the old gas-guzzling beaters they drive, and would it be good for the environment if they did?

The truth is the more energy that is saved, the more energy that is used over the long run. Nothing changes with attempts at energy efficiency under capitalism. This has been proven by the Jevons Paradox, which showed in the 19th century that improvements in the efficiency of the coal-fired steam engine only momen­ tarily lowered the demand for coal before consump­ tion shot up tenfold! That is because of the decline in the rate of profit and the need to sell ever more com­ modities.

Something similar occurs with fossil fuel produc­ tion in efforts to lower carbon emissions at the well­ head and refinery. The Kazzoom-Brookes Postulate has demonstrated that if carbon intensity is margin­ ally decreased in the amount of carbon produced per barrel of oil, the savings are eventually wiped out by ramping up oil production. This would surely happen as more extreme forms of energy are exploited. The fee imposed on the Energy Giants would provide the incentive to do so, generating a vicious circle, espe­ cially since there are no means to stop them short of nationalizing their holdings, which is the only logical solution.

Consumerism under commodity production Under fee and dividend, people with a small car­ bon footprint—the vast majority—are expected to experience a net monetary gain. However, would the money go into savings for a more secure retirement or be spent to improve living conditions? If low-income working people had more money in their pocket to spend as they wish, would they actually cut back in hydrocarbon use?

Wouldn’t they be inclined to spend it on more goods and services just to improve their basic quality of life, which would lead to greater per capita consumption and fossil fuel use regardless of the increase in cost? After all, it takes fossil fuels to produce everything we consume in this society—food, clothing, shelter, phar­ maceuticals, transport, gadgetry, the toys that take up people’s leisure time, and the energy to power them.

If well-heeled, big consumers receive a lesser divi­ dend as a result of their profligacy, what’s to stop them from simply biting the bullet and paying more for the goods and services they consume, especially since it would be difficult to give up the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. “Sin now, pay later” would be the norm for those who can afford it. Yes, the afflu­ ent may turn off the lights more often when leaving (Above) September 2011 White House protest against XL Pipeline and Canadian tar-sands oil.

a room and switch to a more energy-efficient vehicle, but they still might drive around the block just to pick up a carton of milk instead of walking!

Despite the planetary crisis we face, everyone would still be subjected to the same pressure to con­ sume through the advertising barrage that artificially shapes false needs and desires in people. This is be­ cause capitalism requires the creation of markets for its commodities, which are designed to wear out, be­ come obsolete, and require replacement.

With Hansen’s system, we would still have an ex­ change economy that voraciously devours natural resources. Only a steady-state, zero-growth, use economy that recycles everything will allow us to sat­ isfy basic human needs while leading a satisfying and fulfilling life in harmony with nature. The gross overconsumption of raw materials, which is rampant in the industrial North, no longer needs to exist. As the production of clean technologies increases, they can be exported to improve the quality of life for people in the global South without the maldevelopment that China and India have gone through.

A crash program to transform production With Hansen’s plan, we would be burning hydro­ carbons into the indefinite future. There are differ­ ing views on how much we would need to leave in the ground to keep the climate from entering a stage of chaos. The International Energy Agency says two-thirds, while Bill McKibben advocates that three-fifths remain unused.

Both are unacceptable compromises. Even if we halt­ ed all emissions tomorrow, temperatures would still rise another 0.3 C. Consequently, more warming is in the pipeline due to the inertia of Earth’s natural sys­ tems. Therefore, all greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to zero from all sources as soon as possible to draw down carbon to a safe 300 to 325 ppm CO2 and cool down the planet. This is the only reasonable way to proceed. Thus, the solution is to leave all fossil fuels in the ground and wean our society completely off of them.

Rather than fiddling with financial schemes, getting a crash program of renewable energy up and run­ ning should be the top priority. This can be paid for by funds now given over to the war budget and imple­ mented through the equivalent of a wartime mobiliza­ tion similar to that of World War Two, when industry was completely retooled and rationing, recycling, and conservation were widely instituted. The implements of war can also be melted down and reused by ham­ mering swords into plowshares.

Only a workers and farmers government would be capable of launching such a massive undertaking. The entire productive apparatus, placed under democratic workers’ control, would have to be directed toward the retooling of industry for the green manufacture of wind turbines, photovoltaics, electric train locomo­ tives and carriages, and other necessities. This would occur along side the conversion to organic farming, which doesn’t need petrochemicals.

The enterprise would require the unleashing of tre­ mendous human creativity as well as collective and cooperative action. Revolutionary eco-socialists pre­ fer to fight for this because we do not believe that fee and dividend will bring down the Fossil Fuel Kingpins, whom Hansen considers guilty of crimes against na­ ture and humanity. Only working people and the op­ pressed, struggling independently in the streets, have the power to do that. n SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 2013 7