Six Degrees of Separation

Meg Whitman, Republican Powerbroker with her husband

Damage after Superstorm Sandy

Coffee

This morning I woke to two seemingly disparate pieces of news.  But in the way of "six degrees of separation," I found them seemingly intertwined by the time I sat down with my coffee.

On the one hand, Meg Whitman, Republican powerhouse, billionaire and fundraiser comes out saying that she not only won't vote for Trump, she will vote for Clinton.  And not only will she vote for Clinton, she will donate to her. And not only will she donate to her, she will fundraise for her.  And not only that, Clinton made no policy concessions or promises to her when they spoke a month ago.  They just had a nice "chat."  You can see the story here.

On the other hand, Zillow comes out with a study based on their database of house values and NOAA's projections of sea level rise from climate change, allowing them to project losses of $882 billlion dollars to the housing market from sea level rise alone.  The real estate market is starting to take notice of climate change.  Finally.  It won't be long before homeowners are considering it in purchases.  And then the reality of climate change will sink in all the more firmly for Americans. Another thing pushing them to sit up and take notice sooner rather than later.  (Of course, this is later to anyone that has been paying attention.  But for those that have not, this is sooner.)  You can see this story here.

It looks to me like the climate message is reaching corporations like Zillow.

Zillow...that rang a bell.  That bell?  Hillary Clinton.  She mentioned Zillow and Trulia in her policy plans, some time ago.

• Benchmarking and transparency: While energy makes up a significant share of the operating costs of any building, prospective buyers and tenants have little ability to compare the energy costs of different properties. Cities and states across the country, from Atlanta to Austin, have created programs where commercial and multifamily residential buildings report on their energy use and benchmark it to other buildings of a similar class. This not only helps new buyers and tenants assess affordability but highlights the potential for efficiency improvements for existing owners.  Clinton would expand these successful local policies into a consistent national program.

• Energy efficient mortgages: Residential efficiency improvements, whether in new or existing homes, can significantly reduce a household’s monthly energy bills, yet federal mortgage agencies do not take this into account in determining the value and affordability of home loans they underwrite. Clinton would fix this shortcoming, and work with companies like Zillow and Trulia to make expected energy cost information easily available to prospective buyers.  (emphasis mine).  The Institute for Market Transformation estimates this measure alone would generate 83,000 jobs and save American households $1.3 billion a year on their energy bills by ensuring efficiency investments are accurately valued in the residential property market.  You can read the full text here. 

 Suddenly, my thoughts clicked.  Clinton is already in talks with Zillow and Trulia.  She is talking climate with them.  Already.

And then my thoughts turned to the left.  The frustration with incrementalism.  And no carbon price from Clinton.  I thought about my own belief that Clinton can leverage existing power systems, including corporations and military, to act on climate.  The news from yesterday that the federal government must now account for climate in every decision made.

Climate change is caused incrementally.  One carbon atom at a time.  It is sewn into every single part of our economy.  A price on carbon is the single most powerful policy tool we have to hit carbon at every point in our economy.  But we don't yet have a Congress that will hand one to Obama to sign.  Hillary may just get one, if we deliver.

But she won't put a carbon price in her platform.  Long ago, I said it was because she wasn't going to fly that red flag in front of the Republican bull she knew she would face.  But I was wrong.  It turns out she isn't facing down a Republican bull.  She is going to ride it into the ring.  And those Republicans, like Meg Whitman, will be able to do that because Hillary has judged the line of political viability almost perfectly.

What does this mean for us?  It means we MUST be informed on the various forms of carbon pricing.  It means we must get a progressive bloc into the Senate.  It means we must empower Sanders and Warren to lead that bloc and let them maneuver around the Schumers and the Whitmans.  It means that we must demonstrate that the political will is indeed there to deliver that carbon tax to her desk.  Not the cap and trade that Democratic and Republican establishment are more likely to favor.

But it also means that whether we succeed or fail at that, Hillary Clinton is harnessing the power brokers of today to implement climate action in every nook and cranny of our economy.  Even real estate.

President Obama's Case for Democracy

Authoritarianism

Or democracy.

Someone has to.

We have to understand who Trump's base is.

They are not stupid. They are not conservatives that have been duped.

They are authoritarians. Their world view is that might makes right. Literally. Please, stop and read that again. Their world view is that might makes right. If someone is stronger, if someone can demonstrate they can win, they are the best leader. This is the philosophical basis of what they believe.

It means when Trump asks Putin to hack Hillary Clinton, he is not trying to lose.

He's not making mistakes.

His call for Russia to hack Clinton is adept.

His supporters are not conservatives. They are authoritarians.

They see this statement as highlighting Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to Putin. And the world. This highlights, to them, HER weakness.

When Trump attacks McCain for being unworthy, it's because he didn't escape. When he gets rich by scam and bankruptcy, he is not showing weakness. He is showing strength to his base. Every time we are disgusted and wonder when they will get it, we are misunderstanding that they DO get it.

Trump is dangerous. We are on a giant playground. And the bullies are looking to their ring leader. And we have to do the hardest thing of all. We have to speak up to say that's wrong, together.

Conservatives. Moderates. Liberals. Progressives.

We must speak up to defend the weaker. Because weakness is not wrongness and being the strongest bully is NOT okay.

And when Obama cries over the deaths of children, he is right. When children die from gun wounds, they are not wrong because their bodies are not stronger than bullets. When people suffer and die because fossil fuel companies act with impunity, they do not simply deserve it.  When the people of Flint are stricken with lead poisoning, the Governor is not right simply because he could get away with it.  

Weakness is not wrongness.  Tears are a sign of compassion.  Compromise is GOOD.  

And when we cannot find perfection in a single candidate, when we get into the messy imperfect world of the politics of democracy and compromises, and we don't get our way on every single thing, we are not wrong.

We are right.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Why Booing Elizabeth Warren Matters

Elizabeth Warren

As I have said before, I am soooo relieved that Elizabeth Warren was not the VP pick.

Don't get me wrong.  Elizabeth Warren is fantastic.  She is the perfect combination of brilliant and compassionate and forceful.

In fact, that is exactly why I am glad she isn't the VP pick.

Chuck Schumer

We are going to get a majority of the Senate this Fall.  At least that is the plan.  When we do, Senator Chuck Schumer, from my own great state of New York, will likely be Senate Majority Leader.

If you want to talk about establishment Democratic Party, this is your man. You want to talk about support for fracking?  Here you go.  You want to talk ties to Wall Street?  Chuck Schumer is your guy.  

But with Warren and Sanders in the Senate, with the force of the Bernie movement behind them, they can lead a progressive bloc of senators to champion the causes most dear to the left.

Bernie Sanders has rallied a power base that has now pushed the Democratic platform to include a WWII-scale mobilization against climate change, calling for a price on carbon.  Will it be the cap and trade once supported by the party establisment, including Chuck Schumer?  Or will it be a carbon tax that is simple, straight forward and not prone to loop holes that benefit corporations?

Warren.  Here is a woman that has focused primarily on attacking unfair economic practices.  Up until this year, very little, other than a supportive nod, came from her on climate.  But now, the climate movement has managed to be heard more loudly, within the country and party, but, too, by the left, by Warren.  Yes.  We have a woman focused on economic justice beginning to truly incorporate climate justice into her paradigm.  Man, oh, man, do I want her in the Senate leading that progressive bloc.

But will she lead the progressive bloc?  Well, her power, and Sanders' power, depend on demonstrating that they have the power to lead the left.  Warren is known as a fundraiser extraordinaire.  That gives her great clout.  And Sanders?  Well he just ran a successful campaign, if you hadn't heard.

But what if they cannot demonstrate that they lead that left bloc?

It is NOW that the left must rally behind their leaders.  The left has entrusted them with power, for very good reason.  If they withdraw it now, all their efforts will be lost.  And the party establishment, in the form of Chuck Schumer, can look away.

Bernie Sanders

I was very glad to see Bernie Sanders manage the speech last night at the Democratic Convention.  It was a tough job to hold that power in the face of those ready to ditch it.

But he knows, and Warren knows that once you gain power in a party, you don't then tear the party apart and end with none.

Thank goodness 90% of Bernie supporters know this.  The 10%? It is up to us to make clear, we are not with them.

Power shifts and climate action

The left is pissed. Done accepting half efforts. We are spiraling ever faster to huge economic collapse and climate destruction. We have been sold a bill of goods over and over and the left just doesn’t want to take it anymore. Corporations keep calling the shots and lining their pockets by controlling who gets elected and the decisions they make. Hillary can’t be trusted. If she is building a grid, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. If she is putting up solar, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. These are not enough. Hillary needs to stop taking corporate dollars today. Sanders and Warren are selling out too. These are the calls from the left. But here is the thing. If we have any hope of weakening or ending corporatism, it will not be with Trump at our helm.

There is great precedent for an upwelling of democratic revolt being harnessed for grabbing power for totalitarian rule. (Arab Spring being a very recent example). Sanders did a very good job of forcing a shift without allowing himself to be used to destroy the vast coalitions we have for holding the Democratic Party together. If he had failed at that, we would have a fractured polity...the kind that cannot hold together to keep out someone like Trump. There are precedents for multiparty countries leaving power to a plurality that is far to the right. (Thinking the Nazi Party).

I think it is a very hopeful sign that Sanders was able to become so popular and use that to push the party platform, push Clinton left and increase the power of progressives within the party.

I am so relieved that Warren was not the VP pick, though.

She is becoming the most powerful Democrat in Washington, perhaps after Clinton, perhaps not. But most likely, her power within the Party has, or soon will, eclipse Schumer. He may end up Senate Majority Leader. But she will lead a powerful progressive voting block. She will not be impotent, tied to the VP's desk.

You know what worries me, always has? The progressives, like Warren, have never put climate at the top of the list. That's true of Sanders too. But, during this election, they have begun to really shift to bring that issue into their repertoire. Why? Well, you and me and every climate voter. And Senator Whitehouse. And the Pope. And COP21. And, yes, Obama. (And, of course, millions of others). You know, those half measures that the left doesn’t want to stand for anymore... The climate movement has worked hard for those measures, and they, in turn, have pressured the rest of the powerbrokers to respond and address climate.

Hillary Clinton is likely reading the politics exactly right to navigate all of the different political powers and pressures for getting climate action. And some of that has been in what the left dismisses as symbolic and temporary.

The progressives are finally putting climate further to the top. The moderates are working with, and I think glad to have the progressives building political will for the shift to the left. (I believe they are Democrats because they support a lot of the same ideals progressives do. And they are moderates because they are utterly pragmatic in achieving those ideals. They are very likely thrilled to have an upwelling of voices for progressive action. I know Obama asked again and again for people to demand climate action from him so he could deliver). The left is frustrated at exactly the moment that it may have actually achieved what was nearly impossible. They have pushed the progressive agenda further than it’s been in many decades. And they have done it without fracturing the Party. Not only that, the climate movement has pushed itself to greater prominence among the Progressives. We are on the verge of instituting the Clean Power Plan (all we need is to fill that Supreme Court seat). We are on the verge of upping the standards for transport and housing. We can have the grid that can make 100% carbon free energy a reality. And if we do this right, we can have a Congress that will deliver a carbon tax to President Clinton’s desk in the Oval Office.

Climate Policy and the Democratic Party Platform

[This Note was published in edited form as a guest blog on Greg Laden’s blog at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2... ] It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon…for VP and for policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate, and carbon cutting policy, is part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What two or three or four policy platforms will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

It comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders has made it plain that he will allow nuclear licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. This isn’t quite the reality of allowing licenses to lapse. The reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance ends up economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won't be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017's maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it's done. You can't just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means that we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn't support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

My favorite story about Gandhi--"With Your Help"

The following excerpt is from the book Patience, by Eknath Easwaran.

“Freeing yourself from instinctive, reflex reactions will enrich all your relationships – even with those who oppose you. When you are kind to a foe, he ceases to be a foe. In time, he may even turn out to be a friend.

“Gandhi’s life was filled with such relationships. Once, during Gandhi’s campaigns for the rights of Indians in South Africa, he came before the head of the Transvaal government, General Jan Smuts. Gandhi had already developed the essentials of his later style, and it is easy to picture him sitting before this able Boer soldier and informing him quietly: ‘I want you to know I intend to fight against your government.’

“Smuts must have thought he was hearing things. ‘You have come here to tell me that?’ he laughs. ‘Is there anything more you want to say?’

“‘Yes,’ says Gandhi. ‘I am going to win.’

“Smuts was astonished. ‘Well,’ he says at last, ‘and how are you going to do this?’

“Gandhi smiles, ‘With your help.’

“Years later Smuts admitted, not without humor, that this is exactly what Gandhi did.

By his courage and by the inward toughness that allowed him to stick it out without yielding and without retaliation, Gandhi managed at last to win the general’s respect and friendship. Indeed, in 1939, on Gandhi’s seventieth birthday, Smuts returned a pair of sandals that Gandhi had made while imprisoned in South Africa and had given to him in 1914. ‘I have worn these sandals for many a summer since then,’ Smuts said, ‘even though I may feel that I am not worthy to stand in the shoes of so great a man.'”

http://www.easwaran.org/blog/2013/09/20/gandhis-sandals/