{"id":82468,"date":"2016-11-14T12:00:12","date_gmt":"2016-11-14T12:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=82468"},"modified":"2016-11-05T14:29:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-05T14:29:53","slug":"six-theses-on-saving-the-planet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/11\/six-theses-on-saving-the-planet\/","title":{"rendered":"Six Theses on Saving the Planet"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>3 Nov 2016 &#8211; <em>This paper is one of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/thenextsystem.org\/new-systems-possibilities-and-proposals\/\" >many proposals for a systemic alternative<\/a> we have published or will be publishing here at the Next System Project. We have commissioned these papers in order to facilitate an informed and comprehensive discussion of \u201cnew systems,\u201d and as part of this effort we have also created <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/thenextsystem.org\/next-system-project-comparative-framework\" >a comparative framework<\/a> which provides a basis for evaluating system proposals according to a common set of criteria.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-82470\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith-1024x469.jpg\" alt=\"six-theses-on-saving-the-planet-richard-smith\" width=\"700\" height=\"321\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith-1024x469.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith-300x138.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith-768x352.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Six-Theses-on-Saving-the-Planet-richard-smith.jpg 1296w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>New Beginnings: A reevaluation of global capitalist development <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, workers, trade unionists, radicals, and socialists have fought against the worst depredations of capitalist development: intensifying exploitation, increasing social polarization, persistent racism and sexism, deteriorating workplace health and safety conditions, environmental ravages, and relentless efforts to suppress democratic political gains under the iron heel of capital. Yet, even as we fight to hold onto the few gains we\u2019ve made, today, the engine of global capitalist development has thrown up a new and unprecedented threat, an existential threat to our very survival as a species. The engine of economic development that has brought unprecedented material gains, and revolutionized human life, now threatens to develop us to death, to drive us over the cliff to extinction, along with numberless other species. Excepting the threat of nuclear war, the runaway locomotive\u00a0of capitalist development is the greatest peril humanity has ever faced. This essay\u00a0addresses this threat and contends that there is no possible solution to our existential\u00a0crisis within the framework of any conceivable capitalism. It suggests that,\u00a0impossible as this may seem at present, only a revolutionary overthrow of the\u00a0existing social order, and the institution of a global eco-socialist democracy, has a\u00a0chance of preventing global ecological collapse and perhaps even our own extinction.\u00a0By \u201cglobal eco-socialist democracy,\u201d I mean a world economy composed\u00a0of communities and nations of self-governing, associated producer-consumers,\u00a0cooperatively managing their mostly planned, mostly publicly-owned, and globally\u00a0coordinated economies in the interests of the common good and future needs\u00a0of humanity, while leaving aside ample resources for the other species with which\u00a0we share this small blue planet to live out their lives to the full.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Racing to extinction <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s a scene early on in Stanley Kramer\u2019s great post-apocalyptic sci-fi drama\u00a0<em>On the Beach<\/em> (1959), where young men are hurtling their race cars around a course\u00a0at faster and faster speeds seemingly oblivious to danger. Indeed, as one by one\u00a0they crash and burn, the others just race on determined, apparently, to commit\u00a0suicide by crashing their cars at top speed. Why? Because in Kramer\u2019s film, set\u00a0in Australia, thermonuclear war has just obliterated the northern hemisphere.\u00a0Clouds of nuclear radiation are drifting toward the southern hemisphere and\u00a0soon radioactive fallout will rain down on Australia, dooming that population\u00a0as well. The government is handing out suicide pills. So what the hell. If you\u2019re\u00a0going to die, why not die doing something you enjoy instead of slowly succumbing\u00a0to radiation poisoning?<\/p>\n<p>To a stranger from another world, looking down on Earth today, our own situation\u00a0might appear not so different. Despite ever-more-alarming reports by our top\u00a0climate scientists, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),\u00a0by credible authorities including the World Bank, major insurers and others, all of\u00a0whom have told us in no uncertain terms that if we don\u2019t radically and immediately\u00a0start cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, temperatures could soar by\u00a0four or even six degrees Celsius by the end of this century. That would precipitate\u00a0global ecological collapse and the collapse of civilization: THE END. Nevertheless,\u00a0we seem inexplicably hell-bent on racing to collective suicide, cooking the\u00a0planet, and wiping out the ecological bases of human life on Earth.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s not that we don\u2019t know what we have to do to save ourselves: a recent poll\u00a0of forty countries found that large majorities of their peoples supported placing\u00a0limits on GHG emissions\u201369 percent in the US, 71 percent in China.<sup>1<\/sup> And it\u2019s\u00a0not that we lack the technical means to apply the brake on the race to collapse.\u00a0We don\u2019t need any technical miracles. Mostly what we have to do is just stop doing\u00a0what we\u2019re doing. And yet:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Instead of suppressing fossil fuel production, producers are frantically\u00a0pumping oil and gas from one end of the earth to the other.\u00a0They are opening new fields and inventing new technologies\u00a0to revive old fields, even as the world is glutted with oil, and prices\u00a0have fallen to their lowest level in decades. Coal production is\u00a0still climbing, not only in China and India but even in self-styled\u00a0\u201cgreen\u201d Germany.<sup>2<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Instead of minimizing fossil fuel consumption, consumers seem\u00a0bent on maximizing consumption: Global auto production is at\u00a0an all-time high and the world auto fleet surpassed one billion\u00a0in 2014. In the US, cheap fuel has only encouraged people to\u00a0drive more, consume more gasoline, and spend their fuel savings\u00a0on obese and overaccessorized gas-hog luxury trucks and SUVs\u00a0that get worse mileage than trucks in the 1950s.<sup>3<\/sup> We\u2019re burning\u00a0more fuel flying all over the world: As an ad for CheapOAir in\u00a0the New York subway reads, \u201cCheap Flights Make it Easy to Say,\u00a0Phuket . . . Let\u2019s Travel.\u201d Air travel is now the fastest-growing\u00a0source of global carbon dioxide emissions. We\u2019re burning more\u00a0fuels, especially coal, generating electricity to power the iPhones,\u00a0iPads, electric cars, and the Internet of Things. As temperatures\u00a0rise, we\u2019re burning still more fuel to cool off. Globally, we now consume more fossil fuel to run air conditioners than to heat our\u00a0homes. Scientists recently warned that based on present trends,\u00a0before the end of the century, the Middle East \u201ccould be hit by\u00a0waves of heat and humidity so severe that simply being outside\u00a0for several hours could threaten human life.\u201d<sup>4<\/sup> That\u2019s great news\u00a0for Carrier and Friedrich, at least in the near term, but do we\u00a0really want our children to burn up in some kind of planetary\u00a0auto-da-f\u00e9?<\/li>\n<li>Instead of responsibly imposing firm limits to emissions, governments\u00a0carry on in denial just like their peoples: Since the Rio\u00a0Summit in 1992, every annual Conference of the Parties (COP)\u00a0has ended in acrimony and abject failure to adopt binding limits\u00a0on CO2 emissions. As George Bush Sr. notoriously put it in\u00a0rejecting binding limits in his day: \u201cThe American way of life is\u00a0not up for negotiation.\u201d And, if the Americans, cumulatively the\u00a0biggest polluters by far, won\u2019t accept binding limits, why should\u00a0anyone else? Today we face the prospects of emissions soaring to\u00a0ever-higher levels and global temperatures breaking new records\u00a0year after year, with 2015 smashing the previous year\u2019s record in\u00a0the single biggest temperature increase in history. And yet, Paris\u00a0COP21 copped out again, by ending with soaring rhetoric, more\u00a0promises\u2013but all completely meaningless without legally binding\u00a0commitments to reduce GHG emissions.<\/li>\n<li>What\u2019s more, we\u2019re not just devouring fossil fuels. We\u2019re devouring\u00a0every resource on earth, seemingly as fast as we can, with\u00a0nary a thought for the needs of future generations, let alone other\u00a0life forms. We seize pastures and forests, steal the fish from the\u00a0mouths of seals and whales. Around the world, companies and\u00a0nations are racing to plunder the last readily accessible resources\u00a0on the planet and turn them all into \u201cproduct.\u201d<sup>5<\/sup> We\u2019re mining\u00a0the Arctic for minerals and oil, strip-mining ocean bottoms for\u00a0fish and more minerals, and, leveling tropical forests, from Indonesia\u00a0to Congo to the Amazon, to make cheap flooring and grow\u00a0biofuels to power those gas-hog GMC Sierras, Land Rovers and\u00a0Mercedes Benzes. Serious people are even contemplating mining\u00a0asteroids. From New York to Shanghai to Abu Dhabi, construction\u00a0companies are in a nonstop, twenty-four hour, seven\u00a0days a week frenzy, building airports, highways, useless vanity\u00a0skyscrapers, ever-more luxurious condos and McMansions, gilded\u00a0palaces and resorts finished with rare woods, exotic materials,<br \/>\nsumptuous furnishings, climate control, and more. In China\u2019scurrent manic Great Leap Forward, Chinese construction companies\u00a0poured 6.6 gigatons of cement in just three years, between\u00a02011 and 2014, building superfluous dams, highways, and \u201cghost\u00a0cities;\u201d whereas, American construction companies poured just\u00a04.5 gigatons over the entire twentieth century to build all of\u00a0America\u2019s infrastructure and cities.<sup>6<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Instead of inventing ways to minimize resource consumption,\u00a0our smartest companies work day and night to invent superfluous\u00a0\u201cneeds\u201d: endless iThings, 3-D printers, smart watches,\u00a0drones, hover boards, self-driving cars, virtual reality devices, the\u00a0Internet of Things, GoPros to film your entire life, Google Glass\u00a0to secretly film others, biometric shirts that track your heartbeat,\u00a0toilet seats that wash your butt, pointless \u201capps\u201d to waste your\u00a0time, and on and on.<sup>7<\/sup> Incessant invention of \u201cThneeds\u201d in the\u00a0ceaseless quest for \u201cthe next big thing.\u201d<sup>8<\/sup> At the end of the day, of\u00a0course, these are all just new ways to unnecessarily convert more\u00a0of nature into products.<\/li>\n<li>Instead of making products that we actually need to be durable,\u00a0long lasting, and recyclable, in order to conserve resources, top\u00a0companies like Apple assign their best and brightest engineers,\u00a0designers, and marketers to devise ways to make products wear\u00a0out, become obsolete, and dispose faster. We consume more, faster,\u00a0more often, and without purpose. From fashions to furniture,\u00a0cars to consumer electronics, most of our economy is geared to the production of waste: repetitive consumption by means of ever-faster cycles of designed and perceived obsolescence, with all\u00a0of it ending up, eventually, in ever-bigger trash mountains. As\u00a0an American retail analyst famously wrote in 1955: \u201cOur enormously\u00a0productive economy demands that we make consumption\u00a0our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods\u00a0into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfactions, our ego satisfactions,\u00a0in consumption\u2026 We need things consumed, burned\u00a0up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing pace.\u201d<sup>9<\/sup>\u00a0As I have often said, back in Adam Smith\u2019s day, when both factories\u00a0and the human population were small, such a crazy economic\u00a0logic would not have mattered; but today, when everything is\u00a0produced in the millions and billions, then trashed and reproduced\u00a0the next day, it matters. A lot. Giles Slade, thinking about\u00a0the monuments the Egyptians left asks, after we collapse, \u201cWill\u00a0America\u2019s pyramids be pyramids of waste?\u201d<sup>10<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>What\u2019s going on here? <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Why are we cooking the climate, consuming the future? Why can\u2019t we slam on\u00a0the brakes before we barrel off the cliff to collapse? In my work I\u2019ve argued that\u00a0the problem is rooted in the very nature of our economic system. Large corporations\u00a0are destroying life on earth, but they can\u2019t help themselves, they can\u2019t change\u00a0enough to save the planet. So long as we live under this system, we have little\u00a0choice but to go along with destruction, to keep pouring on the gas instead of\u00a0slamming on the brakes. The only alternative\u2014impossible as this may seem\u2014is\u00a0to overthrow this global economic system and the governments of the one percent\u00a0that prop it up. We should replace them with a global economic democracy,\u00a0a radical bottom-up political democracy, an eco-socialist civilization. I\u2019m going to\u00a0restate my argument here in the form of six theses.<\/p>\n<p>The only alternative\u2014impossible as this\u00a0may seem\u2014is to overthrow this global\u00a0economic system and the governments of\u00a0the one percent that prop it up.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong> Capitalism is overwhelmingly the main driver of planetary ecological\u00a0collapse and it can\u2019t be reformed enough to save the humans.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>From the dawn of settled agriculture some ten millennia ago until the rise of\u00a0capitalism beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, most people lived\u00a0in completely or largely self-sufficient village farm communities. Peasant families\u00a0grew their own food, built their own houses, fabricated most of their own crude\u00a0tools, made their own clothes, and made do with animal power for farm work\u00a0and transportation. Productivity was low with little real change over centuries.\u00a0They produced mainly for direct use, not for market.<\/p>\n<p>Agrarian ruling classes, where these existed, extracted rents but spent them on\u00a0military arms and fortifications, and on conspicuous consumption, instead of\u00a0investing their rents back into improving production. They didn\u2019t need to divert\u00a0their surpluses to reinvestment in production because they produced most everything\u00a0they needed on their estates. Cities were small, markets and trade limited,\u00a0mostly to luxury goods, such as arms. Ruling classes competed militarily not\u00a0economically: they fought wars against one another to capture territory with\u00a0enserfed peasants. Wealth was counted in manors, farms, and rents\u2014not money\u00a0in the bank.<\/p>\n<p>Before the rise of capitalism, consumption and global population remained low\u00a0and grew slowly. The planet\u2019s human population did not likely reach one billion\u00a0until the nineteenth century. Given limited and fixed technology, as populations\u00a0grew, subsistence often became precarious. Peasants divided their allotments of\u00a0land into smaller parcels for their children. Over centuries, agrarian societies suffered \u00a0repeated cycles of slow growth to a point of dense population concentration, then collapse and famine, followed by revived growth as reduced populations\u00a0found abandoned lands to farm again. Thus precapitalist economies were often \u00a0characterized by cyclical crises of \u201cunderproduction.\u201d In some cases, relentless\u00a0surplus extraction combined with stagnant productivity and unscientific farm\u00a0management resulted in the permanent collapse of entire civilizations\u2013Mesopotamia,\u00a0the Mayans, and others.<sup>11<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>The transition to capitalism changed all that. From the mid-fifteenth century,\u00a0English peasants were gradually cleared off the land in waves of enclosure movements\u00a0and effectively proletarianized. In place of self-sufficiency, landlords and\u00a0their new capitalist farmers with hired labor began specializing in single crops\u2014like wheat, wool, or flax\u2014that they sold on the market. Everyone sold their specialized\u00a0commodity, be it wheat or labor power, and purchased their means of\u00a0subsistence. This new economy, based on specialized production for the market,\u00a0has shaped economic development up until today. Indeed, the rise of capitalism\u00a0was virtually synonymous with economic development. Producers were not free\u00a0to sell their commodity at whatever price they liked in the market because they\u00a0faced competition. Hell is other pig farmers. In order to compete, farmers needed\u00a0to increase the productivity of their farms. This forced them to seek cheaper inputs\u00a0and labor; to bring in new technology, crop patterns, and economies of scale; and to <em>develop the forces of production.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The tragedy of the commodity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Greater production called forth greater demand. In England, the capitalist agricultural\u00a0revolution of the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries entrained the Industrial\u00a0Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Commercial farmers\u00a0sought better tools, wool carders better machines, merchants better means of transport,\u00a0and so on. In this way, competition became the \u201cmotor\u201d of economic growth.\u00a0This engine of capitalist competition gave rise to an economy of permanent change,\u00a0of ceaseless technological revolution, of systematic application of science to production.\u00a0The results include the cotton gin, coal power, railways, oil power, motor\u00a0vehicles, medical advances, electricity, radio and TV, nuclear energy, the transistor, computers, the smartphone, GMOs, and Google Glass.<\/p>\n<p>Rising productivity and advances in medicine also propelled the \u201cdemographic revolution,\u201d\u00a0as the human population surged from one billion in 1800 to two billion by\u00a01927, and to three billion by 1960. In place of cycles of underproduction with the\u00a0ensuing collapse and famine, the capitalist mode of production has been characterized\u00a0by periodic crises of \u201coverproduction.\u201d Booms culminate in crises, collapse,\u00a0and the destruction of capital and labor, followed in turn by renewed growth based\u00a0on cheaper labor and capital, propelling another growth cycle. Along the way, capitalist\u00a0development has profoundly transformed our lives, for better and worse. The\u00a0relentlessly growing engine of economic development has become a monstrous\u00a0motor of ecological destruction\u2014strip mining the planet, leveling the last forests,\u00a0exhausting the last accessible minerals, wiping out fish stocks, drowning us in pollution,\u00a0and suffocating us in clouds of exhaust fumes\u2014producing commodities we\u00a0don\u2019t really need and should not be wasting resources to create in the first place.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong> Solutions to our ecological crisis are blindingly obvious and ready\u00a0at hand, but so long as we live under capitalism, we can\u2019t take the\u00a0obvious steps to prevent ecological collapse tomorrow because to\u00a0do so would precipitate economic collapse today.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>What to do? In my book, Green Capitalism: The God that Failed, I noted that since\u00a0the 1970s mainstream ecological economists have tried to deal with the problem\u00a0of capitalist growth in one of two ways. <sup>12<\/sup> The first approach, inspired by Herman\u00a0Daly\u2019s idea of a \u201csteady state economy\u201d and Serge Latouche\u2019s call for \u201cdegrowth,\u201d\u00a0imagined that capitalism could be reconstructed so it would stop growing, or\u00a0degrow, while continuing to develop internally.<sup>13<\/sup> The second approach, exemplified\u00a0by Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and other \u201csustainable development\u201d proponents,\u00a0conceived that capitalism could carry on growing more or less forever, but\u00a0that this growth could be rendered benign for the environment. This approach\u00a0proposes the forging of an eco-entrepreneur-led \u201cgreen industrial revolution\u201d and\u00a0introduces green subsidies, carbon taxes, and penalties for polluters to bring the\u00a0rest of industry on board.<\/p>\n<p>Pro or antigrowth, both approaches assume that capitalism is sufficiently malleable\u00a0so fundamentals can be \u201cinverted\u201d such that corporations can, in one way\u00a0or another, be induced to subordinate profit making to \u201csaving the earth.\u201d And\u00a0regardless of their different approaches, what unites both schools of thought is\u00a0their a priori rejection of alternatives to capitalism\u2014their rejection of any kind\u00a0of economic planning or socialism. That, I argued, is where the mainstream is wrong, because there is no possible solution to our crisis within the framework of\u00a0any conceivable capitalism.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why \u201csteady state\u201d and \u201cdegrowth\u201d are incompatible with a viable capitalist economy<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Against well-intentioned but misguided proponents of \u201csteady state\u201d and\u00a0\u201cdegrowth,\u201d including Herman Daly, Tim Jackson, and others, I argued that while\u00a0we certainly do need degrowth, the tendency toward growth would remain in\u00a0any conceivable capitalist economy, \u201cgreen\u201d or otherwise.<sup>14<\/sup> I noted that there are\u00a0some exceptions: private, family-owned or closely-held companies which don\u2019t\u00a0have to answer to shareholders, or public utilities where profits are guaranteed.\u00a0Such companies can carry on more or less in stasis, or even degrow, if they so\u00a0choose. But in the US, most companies are investor-owned corporations, owned\u00a0by mutual funds, investment banks, pension funds, and so on. For them, growth\u00a0is an inescapable requirement of day-to-day reproduction.<\/p>\n<p>Why? First, producers are dependent upon the market. They have to sell their\u00a0commodities to buy their own means of subsistence, the means of production,\u00a0and raw material inputs to stay in production. Second, competition drives economic\u00a0development. Competition forces producers, on pain of market failure, to\u00a0systematically cut costs, find cheaper inputs, innovate, bring in new technology,\u00a0and to reinvest much of their surpluses back into production (instead of wasting it on warfare and conspicuous consumption like their feudal predecessors). Third,\u00a0\u201cgrow or die\u201d is a law of survival in the marketplace. Companies face irresistible\u00a0and relentless pressure from shareholders to maximize profits. The company that\u00a0fails to meet Wall Street\u2019s expectations and regularly grow profits quarter after\u00a0quarter, risks seeing its shareholders sell their stock and go elsewhere as its stock\u00a0price falls. So CEOs have no choice but to constantly seek to grow sales, grow the\u00a0market. Bigger is also safer because wealthier companies can better take advantage\u00a0of economies of scale, dominate markets, and set market prices. In short, the\u00a0growth imperative is virtually an iron law of successful capitalist competition. It\u00a0is not \u201csubjective.\u201d It is not optional. It is not dispensable.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Why \u201cgreen capitalism\u201d can\u2019t save the world<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Against \u201cgreen capitalism\u201d theorists and proponents, I argued that companies\u00a0can\u2019t prioritize people and planet over profits because CEOs and corporate\u00a0boards are not responsible to society, they\u2019re responsible to private shareholders.\u00a0Corporations may embrace environmentalism so long as this increases profits\u00a0(by, for example, recycling, reducing waste, introducing \u201cgreen\u201d products and the\u00a0like). But saving the world requires more than recycling and installing LED light\u00a0bulbs. It requires that the pursuit of profits be systematically subordinated to ecological\u00a0concerns, and this they cannot do.<sup>15<\/sup> No corporate board can sacrifice earnings\u00a0let alone put itself out of business to save humans. As Milton Friedman wrote,\u00a0\u201cthere is one and only one social responsibility of business\u2014to use its resources\u00a0and engage in activities to increase its profits.\u201d<sup>16<\/sup> Indeed, that\u2019s their one and only\u00a0legal obligation.<sup>17<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>Climate scientists tell us that if we hope to contain global warming within two\u00a0degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, we are going to have to suppress fossil\u00a0fuel burning by 7-10 percent per year every year from 2015 through 2050, by\u00a0which time fossil fuels need to be nearly phased out.<sup>18<\/sup>But how could we ever do\u00a0this in capitalism, in an economy based on huge investor-owned corporations?\u00a0Imagine Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil telling his investors: \u201cSorry, but to\u00a0save the planet, we cannot grow profits next year and we have to cut production\u00a0(and thus profits) by 7-10 percent next year and every year thereafter, for the\u00a0next three and a half decades, by which time we will be basically out of business.\u201d\u00a0How long would it take your retirement fund to dump that stock? Imagine the\u00a0impact cutting fossil fuel use by 7-10 percent every year for decades would have\u00a0across the economy. This would rapidly bankrupt the auto industry, the aircraft\u00a0and airlines industries, tourism, petrochemicals, agricultural chemicals and agribusiness,\u00a0synthetic fibers, textiles, plastics of every sort, construction, and more.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><em>This is the ultimate fatal choice of\u00a0capitalism: we have to destroy our children\u2019s\u00a0tomorrow to hang on to our jobs today.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>What company is going to commit economic suicide to save the planet? And,\u00a0what unions would support degrowth, let alone massive layoffs?<\/p>\n<p>And what government? Last summer, California\u2019s eco-governor Jerry Brown and\u00a0the California Senate Democrats proposed legislation to cut the state\u2019s petroleum\u00a0use by 50 percent by 2030, in line with IPCC\u2019s target of cutting emissions\u00a0by 90 percent by 2050. Great. But the oil industry hollered bloody murder. The\u00a0Western States Petroleum Association said that a 50 percent mandate would\u00a0mean job losses, increased fuel and electricity costs. Advertisements by the oil\u00a0industry asserted \u201cthat it could lead to fuel rationing and bans on sport utility\u00a0vehicles,\u201d reported <em>The New York Times<\/em>.<sup>19<\/sup> Facing revolt in the State Assembly,\u00a0erstwhile green Governor Brown dropped the plan, sacrificing the planet to economic\u00a0growth like capitalist governments everywhere.<sup>20<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>In point of fact, the oil companies were right: If California cuts fossil fuel consumption\u00a0by 50 percent, masses of workers in affected industries would have to\u00a0be laid off, gasoline would have to be rationed, gas-hog SUVs and bloated pickup\u00a0trucks would have to be banned, and more. Yet if we\u2019re going to save humans,\u00a0<em>we have to do just that. At the end of the day, the only way to suppress fossil fuel consumption\u00a0is to suppress fossil fuel consumption: mandate cuts, impose rationing, ban\u00a0production of gas-hog vehicles, and so on.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The problem is, under capitalism, these measures would mean economic collapseand mass unemployment. On this point, the Chamber of Commerce and\u00a0National Association of Manufacturers are right, and progrowth, promarket\u00a0environmentalists are wrong: cutting GHG emissions means cutting jobs. Given\u00a0capitalism, there is just no way around this conundrum. That\u2019s why I contend that\u00a0to save humans, we need a different economic system. We need a system that\u00a0can enable us to radically restructure the economy, save humans and whales, and\u00a0create new employment for all those excessed workers in industries we need to\u00a0retrench and close down.<\/p>\n<p>We all know what we have to do. It\u2019s completely obvious. We need to radically\u00a0suppress GHG emissions and production of fossil fuels, stop deforestation, overfishing,\u00a0and pillaging the planet to make products we don\u2019t need. And we need\u00a0to stop dumping all manner of pollution and toxics everywhere. None of these\u00a0problems require any big technological breakthroughs. As I\u2019ve said: mostly we\u00a0just have to stop doing what we\u2019re doing. The problem is we can\u2019t seem to stop,\u00a0or even slow down. While global warming will kill us in the long run, stopping\u00a0overconsumption will kill us in the short run because it would precipitate economic\u00a0collapse, mass unemployment, and starvation. This is the ultimate fatal\u00a0choice of capitalism: we have to destroy our children\u2019s tomorrow to hang on to\u00a0our jobs today. Ask your average six year-old what\u2019s wrong with this picture.<\/p>\n<p>I claim that the only way to prevent overshoot and collapse is to enforce a massive\u00a0economic contraction in the industrialized economies, to retrench production\u00a0across a broad range of unnecessary, resource-hogging, wasteful, and polluting\u00a0industries, even shutting down the worst.<sup>21<\/sup> Corporations aren\u2019t necessarily evil.\u00a0They just can\u2019t help themselves\u2014they\u2019re doing what they\u2019re supposed to do for\u00a0the benefit of their owners. But this means that, so long as the global economy\u00a0is based on capitalist private and corporate property, and competitive production\u00a0for the market, we\u2019re doomed to collective social suicide. No amount of tinkering\u00a0with the market can apply the brake to the drive to global ecological collapse.\u00a0We can\u2019t shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be\u00a0solved by individual choice in the marketplace. They require collective democratic\u00a0control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment.\u00a0And they require national and international economic planning to reorganize\u00a0the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends. If humanity is to\u00a0save itself, we have no choice but to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a\u00a0democratically planned socialist economy.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li><strong> If capitalism can\u2019t help but destroy the world, then what choice is\u00a0there but to socialize most of the world\u2019s industrial economies and\u00a0plan them directly for the common good?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>For better or worse, we are well into the Anthropocene. Nature doesn\u2019t run the\u00a0Earth anymore. We do. Humans are now the main drivers of climate change,\u00a0land use changes, and species extinction. Our actions will determine whether\u00a0our species survives beyond this century. We are, as some religious traditions\u00a0say, \u201cone people on one planet.\u201d If so, we better start acting like it. If we want to\u00a0save humans, we need to make conscious and collective decisions about how we impact nature.<\/p>\n<p>Since the rise of capitalism 300 years ago, more and more of the world has come\u00a0to be run on the basis of market anarchy, on Adam Smith\u2019s maxim that every\u00a0individual should just seek his\/her own economic self-interest. \u201cLook out for\u00a0Number One\u201d and the \u201cpublic interest\u201d and the \u201ccommon good,\u201d Smith said,\u00a0would take care of itself.<sup>22<\/sup> Well, that hasn\u2019t worked out so well.<\/p>\n<p>The problems we face, the problems of \u201cplanet management,\u201d can\u2019t be solved\u00a0by individual choice in the marketplace. <em>They require conscious rational planning,\u00a0international cooperation, and collective democratic control over the economy\u2013not market\u00a0anarchy.<\/em> Climate scientists tell us we need a global plan to suppress fossil fuel\u00a0emissions, and we need it NOW.<sup>23<\/sup> Ocean scientists tell us we need a global Five-Year Plan to save the oceans.<sup>24<\/sup> We need rational, comprehensive, legally binding\u00a0plans to save the world\u2019s remaining forests, to protect and restore rivers, lakes, and\u00a0fisheries, to save millions of imperiled species around the globe, and to conserve\u00a0natural resources of all kinds.<\/p>\n<p>And we need a plan to save humans. We need to prioritize the needs of humanity, the environment, other species, and future generations. Private, self-interested\u00a0corporations can\u2019t do that. The only way to do this is with public control over\u00a0planning at all levels, investment, and technological change. I don\u2019t pretend to\u00a0have a roadmap to save the world. Besides, there are plenty of economists, scientists,\u00a0engineers, and others out there who are far more qualified and better placed than myself to work out the parameters and details of small-to-large-scale economic planning. Moreover, planning a world economy is hardly the task of a\u00a0few people. This is going to require the creativity and input of a world of peoples.\u00a0Yet we have to begin somewhere. Leaving aside for the moment the very large\u00a0question of how such a planning process might actually work (see points four and\u00a0five below), for what it\u2019s worth I would suggest any rational sustainable economic\u00a0planning \u201cto do\u201d list would have to include at least the following:<\/p>\n<p><strong>What would we have to do to save the planet?<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong> We would have to radically suppress fossil fuel consumption in the industrialized\u00a0nations across the economy from energy generation to transportation,\u00a0manufacturing, agriculture, and services.<\/strong> Globally, on average, electricity generation\u00a0and heating account for around 25 percent of GHG emissions; industry\u00a021 percent; transportation 14 percent; and agriculture, forestry, and other land\u00a0use (mainly deforestation) 24 percent.<sup>25<\/sup> This means we not only need to rapidly\u00a0phase out fossil fuel-powered utilities and enforce a shift to renewables, but we\u00a0also need to suppress manufacturing (by, for example, terminating production of\u00a0nonessentials such as useless novelties, pointless luxuries, disposable products,\u00a0and destructive military products, among other things). We would have to limit\u00a0construction (to, say, socially necessary essentials instead of endless luxury condo\u00a0towers). We would have to cashier fossil fuel-dependent industrial agriculture\u00a0and replace it with organic farming. We would have to halt deforestation worldwide\u00a0and implement programs of reforestation. We would have to sharply reduce\u00a0motor vehicle use, air travel (currently the two fastest growing sources of CO2\u00a0emissions), and other GHG emitting services.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>If we don\u2019t have any technical miracles to enable us to grow our economies without\u00a0consuming more resources including fossil fuels, then our only option is to bring\u00a0economic growth to a halt in the industrialized economies. This would mean industrial\u00a0closures and retrenchments across the economy.<sup>26<\/sup> Companies like ExxonMobil,\u00a0General Motors, Boeing, Apple, Monsanto, United Airlines, and other producers\u00a0of unsustainable and destructive products and services can hardly be expected to\u00a0put themselves out of business and throw their workers on the streets. They would\u00a0have to be nationalized or socialized, bought out or expropriated, so that they could\u00a0be decommissioned, retrenched, or repurposed. Their excessed employees could\u00a0be reemployed in socially beneficial, ecologically sustainable (and hopefully more\u00a0personally fulfilling) lines of work. I\u2019m fully aware that to propose what amounts\u00a0to substantial deindustrialization of the northern hemisphere sounds extreme. No\u00a0doubt. But global heating of four to six degrees Celsius by the end of this century\u00a0is more extreme\u2014and impossible for us to reverse.<sup>27<\/sup> So which is it to be? We save\u00a0General Motors and ExxonMobil for a few decades or we save humans? These are\u00a0the sorts of questions we as a society need to be discussing.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong> We would have to \u201ccontract and converge\u201d production around a globally\u00a0sustainable and hopefully happy average that can provide a dignified living\u00a0standard for all the world\u2019s peoples.<\/strong> To effect such a balance, we would have\u00a0to slam the brakes on out-of-control growth in the Global North. We would\u00a0need to retrench or shut down unnecessary, resource-hogging, wasteful, polluting\u00a0industries like fossil fuels, autos, aircraft and airlines, shipping, chemicals,\u00a0bottled water, processed foods, pharmaceuticals, and so on. We would have to\u00a0discontinue harmful processes like industrial agriculture, fishing, and logging. We\u00a0would have to close down many services\u2013the banking industry, Wall Street, the\u00a0credit card, retail, public relations, and advertising \u201cindustries\u201d\u2014built to underwrite\u00a0and promote overconsumption. We would have to abolish the military-surveillance-police state industrial complex, and all its manufacturers, as this is just a\u00a0total waste that\u2019s only purpose is global domination, state terrorism, destruction\u00a0abroad, and repression at home. We can\u2019t build decent societies anywhere when\u00a0so much of social surplus is squandered on such waste.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>At the same time, we would be obliged to redirect considerable resources to\u00a0ramping up sustainable development in the Global South. We, in the North,\u00a0have a responsibility to help the South build basic infrastructure, electrification,\u00a0sanitation systems, public schools, health care, and so on. We would help their\u00a0citizens achieve a comfortable material standard of living without repeating all\u00a0the disastrous wastes of capitalist consumerism in the North. After all, we owe\u00a0them a huge debt: much of the poverty of the South is the result of decades and\u00a0centuries of the industrialized North looting their resources. If we just stop this,\u00a0the South can use its natural resource wealth for its own sustainable development.<\/p>\n<p>For example, China\u2019s stupendously wasteful overproduction and overconstruction\u00a0since the 1990s has been heavily and, in recent years, almost entirely dependent\u00a0upon importing vast quantities of iron ore, coal, oil, lumber, and other raw\u00a0materials from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Australia. The result is extensive\u00a0ecological destruction from New Guinea to Congo to Peru. If China were to\u00a0abandon this staggering waste, Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans could use\u00a0those resources for themselves, instead of shipping them to China in exchange for\u00a0disposable plastic junk and payoffs to dictators.<sup>28<\/sup> If Brazil were to stop leveling\u00a0its forest to produce lumber and hamburgers for overconsuming Americans and\u00a0Europeans, Brazilians could grow their own food and build quality housing for\u00a0themselves, instead of living on pennies in shanties. But Brazilians also need and\u00a0deserve aid from the industrialized North to offset the loss of income from those\u00a0exports of hamburgers and lumber. Other countries face even tougher choices.\u00a0Oil revenues provide about half of Venezuelan government revenue, and nearly\u00a0one hundred percent of government revenue in the Oil Belt, from Libya to Saudi\u00a0Arabia. If we have to suppress global oil production to save humans, then entire\u00a0economies are going to have to be reconstructed. These are huge challenges, no\u00a0doubt. But, again, what\u2019s the alternative?<\/p>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li><strong> We would have to revolutionize the production of the goods and services to\u00a0minimize resource consumption and produce things to be durable, rebuildable,\u00a0recyclable, and shareable, instead of disposable.<\/strong> We\u2019re seven going on nine\u00a0or ten billion people on one small planet with depleted resources. We won\u2019t survive\u00a0for much longer with a global economy geared to consuming more resources\u00a0per capita. We need an economy geared to minimizing resource consumption per\u00a0capita, while producing enough material goods and services for all of humanity\u00a0to live a comfortable if not extravagant lifestyle, with enough left over for future\u00a0generations, other flora and fauna. This will require a socially and ecologically\u00a0rational approach to production.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Instead of products designed to be used up, worn out, and tossed as quickly as\u00a0possible, we need to produce shoes that can be re-soled, stylish but well-made and\u00a0long-lasting clothes, durable and repairable appliances, and upgradeable smartphones.\u00a0We need to phase out the private car in favor of shared vehicles, bicycles,\u00a0and public transportation.<sup>29<\/sup> And, we need to make basic cars that last decades\u00a0and can be easily rebuilt (like those old VW Beetles). We need to erect buildings\u00a0engineered to last centuries, like the old cities of Europe. We need to discontinue\u00a0harmful processes like industrial agriculture, fishing, and logging. Here again,\u00a0such deindustrialization and restructuring would cashier not just factories here\u00a0and there, but in some cases entire industries. This would eliminate pointless\u00a0luxuries (like the luxury handbag industrial complex), wasteful disposables (\u201cfast\u00a0fashion,\u201d iPhones 6, 7, 8), and others.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li><strong> We need to steer investments into things society does need like renewable\u00a0energy, organic farming, public transportation, public water systems, environmental\u00a0remediation, public health, and quality schools.<\/strong> All these priorities\u00a0would be commonsensical in an economy not distorted by the profit motive.\u00a0Why would anyone want to waste money on bottled water if the municipal water\u00a0supplies were better quality, as they used to be in New York and other American\u00a0cities?<sup>30<\/sup> Why would anyone want to waste hours slogging through vehicular traffic\u00a0to get to work or to the airport, if they had the option of convenient, comfortable,\u00a0clean, and efficient public transport, as in so many European cities? And so\u00a0on. We have more than enough social wealth to restructure our economies along\u00a0these lines. It\u2019s just that it\u2019s wasted on wars, subsidies to undeserving oil companies,\u00a0tax giveaways to the rich, and more. Just the trillions of dollars alone that\u00a0the US government has thrown away on its criminal wars in the Middle East\u00a0since 1991 could easily have paid for converting the entire country to renewable\u00a0energy, to say nothing of the losses in lives and damage that bombing half-adozen\u00a0countries over more than a decade has cost.<sup>31<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong> We need to devise a rational and systematic approach to handling and eliminating\u00a0waste and toxics as far as possible.<\/strong> The solution to waste is obvious: stop\u00a0making it. We need to: abolish production of disposable products (save for critical\u00a0uses, like medical) and most packaging, bring back refillable containers, generalize\u00a0mandatory composting, recycling, and so on.<sup>32<\/sup> As for toxics, here too, we\u00a0need to stop making so many chemicals, most of which are produced for trivial\u00a0purposes we can do without. Some of which, like pesticides, are deliberately toxic\u00a0and should be banned altogether. In general, as I discussed in my book, society\u00a0should enshrine and live by the precautionary principle already elaborated by\u00a0scientists, doctors, and grassroots antitoxics organizations. Groups like the Safer\u00a0Chemicals Healthy Families call for safer substitutes and solutions, a phase-out\u00a0of persistent bioaccumulative or highly toxic chemicals, publication of full right-to-know ingredients, participation of workers and communities in decisions on\u00a0chemicals, publication of comprehensive safety data on all chemicals, and insistence\u00a0on the immediate priority protection of communities and workers in the\u00a0event of any threat.<sup>33<\/sup> Again, such rational reorganization of the economy in the\u00a0interests of public health requires the visible hand of planning, not the invisible\u00a0hand of market anarchy.<\/li>\n<li><strong> If we have to shut down harmful industries then we have to provide equivalent\u00a0jobs for all those displaced workers, not only because this is a moral\u00a0imperative but also because, without guaranteed employment elsewhere,\u00a0those workers can\u2019t support the huge structural changes we need to make to\u00a0save the humans.<\/strong> Most environmentalists loathe mentioning the job implications that \u201cgetting off oil\u201d really means. The reality is that, given capitalism, any\u00a0retrenchment, let alone mass industrial closures would mean large-scale unemployment.\u00a0That\u2019s why the environmental movement has such difficulty talking\u00a0to workers who intuitively grasp the connection. And yet, if we don\u2019t close down\u00a0masses of polluting industries, we\u2019re doomed. I contend that the only way to deal\u00a0with this contradiction is to take it head on, to concede that radical restructuring\u00a0will mean massive displacement. Only an eco-socialist economy can immediately\u00a0and rationally provide alternative employment for excessed workers in unsustainable\u00a0polluting industries.<sup>34<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Furthermore, happily in my view, this is not \u201causterity.\u201d This is a huge opportunity\u00a0to replace alienated commodification with worthwhile, interesting, and\u00a0self-fulfilling work. The truth is that the vast majority of workers in this country\u00a0are employed in alienating, often dangerous, and harmful work. The transition\u00a0to eco-socialism presents the opportunity to abolish all manner of idiotic jobs:\u00a0banking and advertising, assembly line manufacturing, arms production, and\u00a0more. Moreover, since most of our current production is preoccupied with the\u00a0output of useless or harmful products, ceasing production of all this opens the\u00a0way to a shortened workday and reduced workweek. In other words, managed\u00a0deindustrialization opens the way to the emancipation of labor instead of austerity\u00a0and mass unemployment as under capitalism.\u00a0To restate my thesis: We can\u2019t reorganize, reprioritize, and restructure the world\u00a0industrial economy in a rational and sustainable manner, <em>unless we do so directly\u00a0and deliberately.<\/em> An economy that is mostly planned and publicly owned can\u00a0achieve this transition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Planning can\u2019t work?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Of course, it has been a standard shibboleth of capitalist economists, from Milton\u00a0Friedman to Paul Krugman, that economic planning \u201ccan\u2019t work.\u201d Business editors\u00a0never tire of recalling the failures of Soviet central planning as proof of this\u00a0thesis. I don\u2019t buy that. Planning for whom by whom? I have argued that the failures\u00a0of Stalinist planning prove nothing about the potentials of planning per se\u00a0because in the Stalinist states planning was of, by, and for the party-bureaucracy.<sup>35<\/sup>\u00a0These were totalitarian states, not democracies. Central planners shut workers\u00a0and everyone else completely out of the planning process, and dictated production\u00a0targets and quotas from the top down. There were no ways for workers to\u00a0input their knowledge and creativity to the planning process, and no incentive\u00a0for them to want to do so. As Soviet workers used to say, \u201cWe pretend to work\u00a0and they pretend to pay us.\u201d Given these contradictions, it\u2019s surprising if planning\u00a0worked at all. Planning will only be rational and efficient when it\u2019s in everyone\u2019s\u00a0interests, and when there are material or other rewards and costs. I don\u2019t see why\u00a0such a system can\u2019t be structured.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Governments \u201ccan\u2019t pick winners\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Likewise, for years after the 2011 bankruptcy of solar startup Solyndra\u00a0Corporation, bankrolled by the Obama administration, hardly a week passed\u00a0that <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em> editors failed to remind their readers of this demonstrated\u00a0proof that government can\u2019t pick winners.<sup>36<\/sup> But as I pointed out, Solyndra didn\u2019t\u00a0fail because solar is a losing technology, it failed because, ironically, capitalist\u00a0Solyndra could not compete against lower-cost, state-owned, state-directed, and\u00a0state-subsidized competitors in China.<sup>37<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>Besides, since when do capitalists have a crystal ball? CEOs and corporate boards\u00a0bet on \u201closer\u201d technologies and products all the time. Look at the recent collapse\u00a0of electric car startup Fisker Automotive and Better Place, the Israeli electric\u00a0vehicle charging and battery swapping stations venture (both went bankrupt in\u00a02013). These join a long list of misplaced private bets from Sony\u2019s Betamax to\u00a0Ford\u2019s Edsel, Tucker Automobile to DeLorean Motor Company, and all the way\u00a0back to White Star Lines Titanic and the Tulip mania. CEOs and boards not\u00a0only pick losing technology and products, they also lose money for their shareholders\u00a0and even drive perfectly successful companies into bankruptcy every day.\u00a0Consider the misadventures of JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Washington\u00a0Mutual, Enron, WorldCom, Pan American Airways, and Swissair. Who knows\u00a0if Twitter or Tesla Motors or Amazon or Zynga will ever make money?<sup>38<\/sup> Government-backed Solyndra lost $535 million. But when Jamie Dimon lost two\u00a0billion dollars for JP Morgan Chase, I don\u2019t recall the <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em> howling\u00a0that capitalists \u201ccan\u2019t pick winners.\u201d When Enron collapsed, I don\u2019t recall hearing\u00a0any blanket condemnation of the \u201cinevitable incompetence\u201d of the private sector.\u00a0When Royal Dutch Shell abandoned its fool\u2019s errand Arctic drilling adventure\u00a0in September 2015, conceding it picked a massive loser and wasted seven billion\u00a0dollars of shareholders\u2019 money in the process, the<em> Wall Street Journal<\/em> declined to\u00a0blame Shell\u2019s CEO allowing that \u201cbacking away from the arctic is a step in the\u00a0right direction.\u201d<sup>39<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>So much for the free market\u2019s unerring wisdom in \u201cpicking winners.\u201d Hypocrisy\u00a0is stock and trade of capitalists, lazy media, and fact-averse capitalist economists\u00a0who want to make the facts fit their simpleminded model, no matter the truth.\u00a0That\u2019s why it\u2019s entirely in character that the <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em> has never, to my\u00a0knowledge, bothered to applaud government when it picked<em> indisputable winners<\/em>:\u00a0when government-funded and government-directed applied research produced\u00a0nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, radar, rockets, the jet engine, the transistor, the\u00a0microchip, the internet, GPS, and crucial breakthroughs in biotechnology; when\u00a0government scientists and industries launched the Apollo spacecraft that put\u00a0men on the moon; when government-developed and produced ballistic missiles\u00a0terrorized the Soviets and government-designed and operated bombers bombed\u00a0the Reds in Korea and Vietnam to \u201ccontain communism\u201d and secure American dominane of the Free World for corporate subscribers of the <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>\u00a0to exploit\u2013where then was the<em> cri de coeur<\/em> that \u201cgovernment can\u2019t pick winners?\u201d (I\u00a0certainly wouldn\u2019t support all those inventions or their uses but there\u2019s no doubt\u00a0they were \u201cwinners\u201d in the terms of those who ordered them produced.) And\u00a0when, after an<em> eight-year long<\/em>, mind-bogglingly difficult, complex, and risky 150\u00a0million-mile journey, NASA\u2019s government-built <em>Curiosity<\/em> space ship landed a\u00a0(government-built) state of the art science lab the size of a Mini Cooper within a\u00a0mile and a half of its target on the surface of <em>Mars<\/em>, and then immediately set off\u00a0to explore its new neighborhood, even the Ayn-Rand-loving, government-hating\u00a0Republicans in Congress were awed into silence. As David Sirota\u2019s headline\u00a0in Salon.com read on August 13, 2012 just after Curiosity set down on the red\u00a0planet: \u201cLesson from Mars: Government works!\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Capitalist planning sure works<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, I point out that within their own enterprises, capitalists hardly\u00a0dispute the potentials of rational planning at all. Just the opposite. Today, the\u00a0revenues of the world\u2019s largest corporations are bigger than many national economies.\u00a0According to the Institute for Policy Studies, fifty-one of the world\u2019s one\u00a0hundred largest economic entities are corporations, the rest countries.<sup>40<\/sup> Aside\u00a0from banks, which don\u2019t produce anything, most of the top companies are oil and\u00a0auto companies. ExxonMobil, SinoPec (China), and BP have revenues greater\u00a0than all but the top twenty-nine nations. Large multinational companies operate\u00a0in dozens of countries with\u00a0hundreds of thousands of employees. Walmart has\u00a02.2 million employees.<sup>41<\/sup><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><em>We can\u2019t reorganize, reprioritize, restructure\u00a0the world industrial economy in\u00a0a rational and sustainable manner, unless\u00a0we do so directly and deliberately.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Consider this one: Boeing Aircraft arguably represents the pinnacle of high-tech\u00a0manufacturing technology today. The 787 Dreamliner is the most technologically\u00a0sophisticated, manufactured product in the world. As many as fifty big\u00a0companies contribute to producing its main components\u2013the fuselage, engine,\u00a0airframe, bulkhead, and tires. Subcontractors send components from Japan,\u00a0Italy, Korea, Germany, China, the UK, Sweden, France, and other countries.\u00a0Airplane production is systematically planned, coordinated, tightly sequenced,\u00a0and choreographed. Every minute and dollar is counted. Waste and inefficiency\u00a0is fanatically rooted out. Production is rigorously precise, disciplined, and efficient.\u00a0Besides production, Boeing manages crew training, maintenance, repair,\u00a0and upgrading of thousands of aircrafts around the world. Then, there are offices\u00a0for product development, sales, personnel and government regulation management,\u00a0and more. Boeing\u2019s ultra high tech and far-flung operations are all \u201ccentrally\u00a0planned,\u201d coordinated, and managed from its corporate head offices, as with\u00a0every large company. If companies with revenues greater than the GDPs of most\u00a0countries can rationally and efficiently plan their economies, why can\u2019t nations?\u00a0Why can\u2019t we rationally plan the world industrial economy for the needs of the\u00a0world\u2019s peoples? Of course, planning a national economy and coordinating global\u00a0economies is rather more difficult than planning production, sale, and maintenance\u00a0of airplanes. But I don\u2019t see any technological barrier to this. Besides, we\u00a0don\u2019t have a choice. It\u2019s plan or die. If we don\u2019t rationally plan our major industrial\u00a0economies for the needs of people and planet, if, instead, we continue to let market\u00a0anarchy and profit maximization guide our global economic life, the result\u00a0will be collective human suicide.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Saving small producers<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In arguing for large-scale industrial planning as the only feasible alternative to\u00a0unplanned market anarchy, I am not at all saying that we should nationalize family\u00a0farms, farmers\u2019 markets, artisans, groceries, bakeries, local restaurants, repair\u00a0shops, worker cooperatives, and similar small businesses. Small producers aren\u2019t\u00a0destroying the world. But large-scale corporations are destroying the world. If we\u00a0want to save humans, the corporations would have to be nationalized, socialized,\u00a0completely reorganized. Many must be closed down, others scaled back, and still\u00a0others repurposed. But I don\u2019t see any reason why small-scale, local, independent\u00a0producers cannot carry on more or less as they are, within the framework of a\u00a0larger planned economy. They would have to work within the limits of what\u2019s sustainable,\u00a0obey pollution limits, and resource conservation mandates. They would\u00a0also be forbidden to grow beyond reasonable, agreed upon maximum sizes. But\u00a0other than that, I don\u2019t see a problem with letting small owner-operators and\u00a0cooperatives remain. We don\u2019t need to plan the entire economy and we have bigger\u00a0problems to worry about.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li><strong> Rational planning requires democracy.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>I contend that the only way to plan the economy for the common good is if we\u00a0do it ourselves, democratically. Solar or coal? Frack the planet or work our way\u00a0off fossil fuels? Drench the world\u2019s farms in toxic pesticides or return to organic\u00a0agriculture? Public transportation or private cars as the mainstay? Let\u2019s put such\u00a0questions up for a vote. <em>Shouldn\u2019t everyone have a say in decisions that affect us all?\u00a0<\/em>Isn\u2019t that the essential idea of democracy? The problem with capitalism is that the\u00a0economy isn\u2019t up for a vote, but it needs to be. Huge decisions that affect all of us,\u00a0and millions of other species\u2013even the fate of life on earth\u2014are <em>private<\/em> decisions,\u00a0made by corporate boards on behalf of self-interested investors. Polls show that\u00a093 percent of Americans want GMO labeling on foods and 57 percent think\u00a0that such foods are unsafe to eat.<sup>42<\/sup> But they don\u2019t get to vote on whether we get\u00a0GMOs in our food or whether GMOS are labeled. Well, why not? The House\u00a0of Representatives, which claims to represent and express the views of the electorate,\u00a0passed a bill to prevent mandatory labeling so that food companies don\u2019t\u00a0have to disclose if GMOs are in their products.<sup>43<\/sup> This is capitalist \u201cdemocracy.\u201d\u00a0In capitalist democracies, politicians more often than not represent the interests\u00a0of the companies and the rich, who fund their campaigns, bribe and gift them\u00a0with fancy vacations and whatnot, instead of the wishes of the electorate who\u00a0contribute little to campaign finance. This is the corruption of capitalist democracy.\u00a0Polls show that 69 percent of Americans, 71 percent of Chinese, 77 percent\u00a0of Nigerians, and 88 percent of Brazilians want binding limits imposed on CO2\u00a0emissions.<sup>44<\/sup> But corporations don\u2019t want binding limits so they bribe or browbeat\u00a0\u201cour\u201d politicians to get what they want. What kind of democracy is this? Why\u00a0don\u2019t we get to vote on these questions? Why can\u2019t we have national referenda\u00a0on such questions? We don\u2019t have to be experts to make such decisions. Corporate\u00a0boards aren\u2019t composed of experts. They\u2019re composed of major investors and\u00a0prominent, often politically-connected VIPs. Corporate boards decide and vote\u00a0on what they want to do, then hire experts to figure out how to get it done. Why\u00a0can\u2019t society do the same, but in the interest of the common good instead of Wall\u00a0Street investors?<\/p>\n<p><strong>How do we know people would vote for the common good?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>We don\u2019t. After all, people vote against their own interests in elections all the\u00a0time. Yet, on closer inspection, it\u2019s not so surprising given the limited choices\u00a0they\u2019re offered in capitalist democracy. What we see is that<em> in the abstract<\/em>, people\u00a0would vote their conscience on environmental issues: 69 percent of Americans\u00a0favor binding limits on CO2 emissions and 93 percent want GMO labeling. This\u00a0shows, I believe, that people have pretty good instincts about the environment.\u00a0But when the issue is framed as a choice between environment versus jobs and\u00a0other pocketbook issues, people very often vote for the economy and against the\u00a0environment. For example, in 2012 Californians voted on Proposition 37, which\u00a0would have required labeling of GMO content in foods and, if passed, California\u00a0would have been the first state to require such labeling. Despite polls showing\u00a0that huge majorities favored labeling, it was narrowly defeated, with pro-labeling\u00a0voters garnering only 48.6 percent of the vote. Why was it defeated? Initiatives\u00a0can win or lose for a variety of reasons. But in this case it is probably not irrelevant\u00a0that opponents, including Monsanto, E.I. Dupont, BASF Plant Science, and\u00a0other industries, outspent the pro-labeling forces by more than five to one: $46\u00a0million versus $9.2 million. The opponents spent massively on disingenuous propaganda\u00a0ads claiming the bill would increase family grocery costs by as much as $400 per year. This is a common pattern with a long history.<sup>45<\/sup> Yet, even so, it was\u00a0only barely defeated.<sup>46<\/sup> The initiative process is direct democracy in action. But\u00a0when corporate interests are free to spend unlimited money to influence voting,\u00a0and especially when jobs or living standards are threatened, democracy is sabotaged.\u00a0If we want democracy to work, we would have to have exclusively public\u00a0funding of elections and referenda balloting, free and open debate on issues, and\u00a0zero tolerance for Fox News and similar propaganda machines\u2013and we need an\u00a0economy in which workers in industries that need to be cashiered to save the\u00a0planet are guaranteed other comparable jobs.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Planet Democracy: Creating institutions of economic democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>We would have to establish democratic institutions to plan and manage our social\u00a0economy: planning boards at local, regional, national, continental, and international\u00a0levels. Those would have to include not just workers, the direct producers,\u00a0but entire communities, consumers, farmers, peasants\u2014everyone. As a rule, the\u00a0more direct the democracy, the closer it reflects the will of the citizenry. And\u00a0direct democracy need not be limited to local economies or issues. Many referenda\u00a0can and must be national, even global, because they deal with universal,\u00a0planet-wide issues. We need a global vote on the very biggest questions: Should\u00a0we build more coal-fired power plants or close them down and shift to renewable\u00a0power? Should we abolish large gas-hog luxury cars and, to the extent that we\u00a0need cars at all, revive the equivalent of 1960s VW Beetles, Citroen 2CVs, and\u00a0Fiat 500s? Should we fish the oceans to extinction or stop this plunder and manage them sustainably? Should we cut down the Amazon forest to grow soybeans\u00a0or conserve and restore it? And if we choose to preserve the forest, how will we\u00a0reemploy the farmers who currently grow soy beans and cattle there? These sorts\u00a0of questions need to be addressed at the global as well as local levels. We have\u00a0computers and the Internet. Google\u2019s Larry Schmidt said the entire world will\u00a0be online by 2020. We have plenty of models: the Paris Commune, the Russian soviets (workers councils) of 1917-19, Poland\u2019s Solidarity trade union in 1980-81, Brazil\u2019s participatory planning, La Via Campesina, and others.<sup>47<\/sup> Direct democracy at the base and delegated authority with right of recall for higher level planning boards. What\u2019s so difficult about that? Surprisingly, we even have a working example of something like a proto-socialist planning model right here in the US.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The example of public regulation of utilities<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As Greg Palast, Jarrold Oppenheim, and Theo MacGregor described in <em>Democracy and Regulation: How the Public Can Govern Essential Services<\/em>, it is a curious and ironic fact that the US may be the world\u2019s leading champion of the free market, but it nonetheless possesses a large and indispensable sector of the economy that is not governed by the free market, but, instead, democratically, by public oversight\u2013and that is utilities, the provision of electricity, heating fuel, water and sewerage, and local telephone service. Not only that, but these are the most efficient and cheapest utility systems in the world. The authors write:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">Unique in the world (with the exception of Canada), every aspect of US regulation is wide open to the public. There are no secret meetings, no secret documents. Any and all citizens and groups are invited to take part: individuals, industrial customers, government agencies, consumer groups, trade unions, the utility itself, even its competitors. Everyone affected by the outcome has a right to make their case openly, to ask questions of government and utilities, to read all financial and operating records in detail. In public forums, with all information open to all citizens, the principles of social dialogue and transparency come to life. It is an extraordinary exercise in democracy\u2013and it works\u2026 Another little known fact is that, despite the recent experiments with markets in electricity [the authors published this book in 2003, just three years after the Enron privatization debacle], the US holds to the strictest, most elaborate and detailed system of regulation anywhere: private utilities\u2019 profits are capped, investments directed or vetoed by public agencies. Privately owned utilities are directed to reduce prices for the poor, fund environmentally friendly investments, protect community employment, and open themselves to physical and financial inspection\u2026 Americans,\u00a0while strongly attached to private property and ownership, demand\u00a0stern and exacting government control over vital utility services.<sup>48<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>The authors are careful to note that this is \u201cno regulatory Garden of Eden.\u201d It has\u00a0many failings: regulation is constantly under attack by promoters of market pricing,\u00a0and the public interest and the profit motive of investor-owned utilities often conflict\u00a0with negative consequences for the public. But even so, this long-established\u00a0and indisputably successful example of democratic public regulation of large-scale\u00a0industries offers us a real-world practical example of something like a \u201cproto-socialism.\u201d\u00a0I see no obvious reason something like this model of democracy and\u00a0transparency could not be scaled up to encompass the entire industrial economy.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, we would have to do much more than just regulate industries. We\u00a0would have to completely reorganize and reprioritize the whole economy, indeed\u00a0the whole global industrial economy. This means not just regulating but restructuring:\u00a0retrenching and closing down resource consuming and polluting industries,\u00a0shifting resources out of them, and starting up new industries. Those are\u00a0huge tasks, beyond the scope of even the biggest corporations. So who else could\u00a0do this but self-organized masses of citizens, the whole society acting in concert,\u00a0democratically? Obviously, many issues can be decided at local levels. Others, like\u00a0closing down the coal industry or repurposing the auto industry, require largescale\u00a0planning at regional, national, or international levels. Some, like global\u00a0warming, ocean acidification, and deforestation, would require extensive international\u00a0coordination, virtually global planning. I don\u2019t see why that\u2019s not doable\u2013\u00a0absent the profit motive. We have the United Nations Climate Convention that\u00a0meets annually and is charged with regulating GHG emissions. It fails to do so\u00a0every year, not because it lacks knowledge of what to do, but only because it lacks\u00a0enforcement powers. We need to give it enforcement powers.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"5\">\n<li><strong> Democracy requires rough socioeconomic equality.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>When in the midst of the Great Depression that great \u201cPeople\u2019s Lawyer,\u201d Supreme\u00a0Court Justice Louis Brandeis, said \u201cWe can either have democracy in this country or\u00a0we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can\u2019t have both,\u201d\u00a0he was more right than he knew. Today we have by far the greatest concentration\u00a0of wealth in history. Not just the 1 percent. Worldwide, Oxfam found that just\u00a080 individuals own as much wealth as the bottom half, 3.6 billion, of the world\u2019s\u00a0population.<sup>49<\/sup> So it\u2019s hardly surprising that today we have the weakest and most\u00a0corrupt democracies since the Gilded Age.<\/p>\n<p>I contend that if we want a real democracy, we would have to abolish \u201cthe great\u00a0wealth concentrated in the hands of the few.\u201d That means we would have to\u00a0abolish not just capitalist private property in the means of production, but also\u00a0extremes of income, exorbitant salaries, accumulated wealth, great property, and\u00a0inheritance. The only way to prevent the corruption of democracy is to make it\u00a0impossible to materially gain, by creating a society with neither rich nor poor. If\u00a0it\u2019s illegal to be rich, then there\u2019s little or no incentive to be corrupt. Brandeis was\u00a0right: we will never have a real democracy until we establish a reasonable socioeconomic\u00a0equality as the foundation. And if we can\u2019t replace capitalism with a\u00a0real economic democracy, I don\u2019t see how we can avoid ecological collapse.<\/p>\n<p>Does that mean we would all have to dress in blue Mao suits and dine in communal\u00a0mess halls? Hardly. Lots of studies, notably Wilkinson and Pickett\u2019s <em>Spirit Level<\/em>,\u00a0have shown that people are happier, life is better, there\u2019s less crime and violence,\u00a0and fewer mental health problems in societies that are more equal, where income\u00a0differences are small and concentrated wealth is limited.<sup>50<\/sup> Gandhi was right in\u00a0saying that \u201cthe world has enough for everyone\u2019s needs, but not everyone\u2019s greed.\u201d\u00a0We don\u2019t have five planets to provide the resources for the whole world to live the\u00a0kind of wasteful consumerist lifestyle that middle and upper class Americans enjoy.\u00a0But we have more than enough wealth to provide every human being on the planet\u00a0with safe water and sanitation, quality food, housing, public transportation, great\u00a0schools and healthcare, all the authentic necessities. These should all be guaranteed\u00a0as a matter of right. Indeed, most of these were already declared as such in the\u00a0United Nations\u2019 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Article 22<\/strong> Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security\u00a0and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international\u00a0co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of\u00a0each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his\u00a0dignity and the free development of his personality.<br \/>\n<strong>Article 23<\/strong> (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,\u00a0to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against\u00a0unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to\u00a0equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and\u00a0favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence\u00a0worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means\u00a0of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade\u00a0unions for the protection of his interests.<br \/>\n<strong>Article 24<\/strong> Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable\u00a0limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.<br \/>\n<strong>Article 25<\/strong> (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for\u00a0the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,\u00a0clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the\u00a0right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,\u00a0old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his\u00a0control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and\u00a0assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the\u00a0same social protection.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The promise of eco-socialism<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Freeing ourselves from the toil of producing unnecessary and harmful commodities\u00a0would free us to shorten the workday, to enjoy the leisure promised but never\u00a0delivered by capitalism, to <em>redefine the meaning of the standard of living to connote\u00a0a way of life that is actually richer, while consuming less<\/em>. In a society in which we\u00a0can all easily secure our basic necessities and live comfortably, in which we are all\u00a0guaranteed employment and a basic income, we can, all of us, realize our fullest\u00a0potential instead of wasting our lives in mindless drudgery and shopping. Artists\u00a0can do art instead of advertising. Carpenters like myself can build beautiful, substantial,\u00a0and aesthetically pleasing housing for people who need it, instead of for\u00a0the vanity of those who already have too much. Scientists and inventors can build\u00a0a better world instead of the next iThing or killer drone. Wall Street bankers can\u00a0abandon their lives of crime and find socially worthwhile work, so they no longer\u00a0have to be afraid to tell their children what they do all day. We can all build a\u00a0beautiful world to pass on to our children, while leaving space and resources for\u00a0the wonderful life forms with which we share this amazing blue planet. This is\u00a0the potential of eco-socialism.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"6\">\n<li><strong> Impossible? Perhaps, but what\u2019s the alternative?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The \u201cplanetary emergency\u201d we face is no joke. As Jared Diamond reminds us in\u00a0his book Collapse, in the past civilizations collapsed individually whereas today we\u00a0face the prospect of planet-wide ecological collapse, the collapse of civilization,\u00a0and perhaps even our own extinction.<sup>51<\/sup> What gives us an edge here is that capitalism\u00a0has no solution whatsoever to this crisis. Capitalism\u2019s answer to every problem\u00a0is more of the same growth and overconsumption that has wrecked the planet\u00a0and the climate in the first place. There can never be a market solution to our crisis\u00a0because every \u201csolution\u201d has to be subordinated to maximizing growth, or companies\u00a0can\u2019t stay in business. What difference does it make if Germany gets almost\u00a030 percent of its electricity from solar and wind, when German industry uses this\u00a0power to manufacture millions of global warmers, and gratuitously filthy diesels\u00a0to boot? Automobiles are Germany\u2019s leading export, the bigger the better. What\u00a0does it matter if Apple powers all of its operations in China with \u201c100 percent\u00a0renewable energy\u201d when what it manufactures in China is ecologically disastrously\u00a0costly disposable products\u2013billions of iPhones, iPads, and the rest? If Apple really\u00a0wanted to save the world, it would stop producing disposable products and produce\u00a0durable phones and computers that could last for decades, that could be\u00a0easily rebuilt, upgraded, and be totally recyclable. But of course, that would put\u00a0them out of business in a hurry. This is why green capitalism can only go so far. As\u00a0one-by-one all the pro-market stratagems\u2014the cap and trades, carbon taxes, the\u00a0REDDs, and the \u201cgreen growth\u201d delusions of perpetual growth without perpetually\u00a0growing resource consumption\u2014are all revealed to be counterproductive or, at\u00a0best, too feeble to effect the radical suppression of resource consumption and pollution\u00a0we need to make, I believe people will be more open to radical alternatives.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019re living in one of those pivotal world-changing moments in history. Indeed,\u00a0it\u2019s no exaggeration to say that this is the most critical moment in human history.\u00a0Capitalism has had a good 300-year run. But economic systems come and go,\u00a0as do governments. There is no gainsaying the magnitude of the changes we are\u00a0going to have to make to save ourselves. There is no doubt that closing the book\u00a0on capitalism and moving on to a higher stage of civilization\u2013eco-socialism\u2013by\u00a0replacing the culture of \u201cpossessive individualism\u201d with a culture of sharing, community\u00a0and love, is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. We may very\u00a0well fail. But what other choice do we have but to try? The Australians in Stanley\u00a0Kramer\u2019s dystopian film had no alternative. They were doomed no matter what\u00a0they did. But we still have a chance, indeed a huge opportunity to make a better\u00a0world. Difficult as it may be to think of completely reordering our economic lives,\u00a0I just cannot believe that humanity is going to commit collective eco-suicide just to save capitalism.<\/p>\n<p><strong>ENDNOTES:<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Sewell Chan, \u201cPoll finds Global Consensus on the Need to Curb Emissions,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>,\u00a0November 6, 2015.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Germany shut down its nuclear power plants, but replaced their electricity generation mainly\u00a0with coal-fired power plants to power its industries. Auto manufacturing is the country\u2019s leading\u00a0export. And, with car companies, it\u2019s \u201cbig car big profit, small car small profit.\u201d So the Germans\u00a0burn coal to produce gas guzzlers. Brilliant! Indeed, Germany\u2019s government is even demolishing\u00a0actual solar-, wind-, and biogas-powered ancient (not to mention beautifully restored and upgraded)\u00a0medieval villages, to unearth the filthy brown lignite coal buried beneath them, in their drive\u00a0to replace nuclear power with coal. Stunningly brilliant! See: Tony Paterson, \u201cGreen Village to be\u00a0Bulldozed and Mined for Lignite in Germany\u2019s Quest for Non-nuclear Fuel,\u201d<em> The Independent<\/em>,\u00a0September 29, 2014, http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/environment\/green-living\/green-village-tobe-<br \/>\nbulldozed-and-mined-for-lignite-in-germanys-quest-for-non-nuclear-fuel-9760091.html.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Trucks in 1950 got 8.4 mpg whereas in 2010 they got 6.4 mpg. See: http:\/\/www.eia.gov\/totalenergy\/<br \/>\ndata\/annual\/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0208. Demand for fuel-efficient cars is falling; sales of GM\u2019s\u00a0plug-in hybrid Volt fell 35 percent in the first half of 2015. The top three selling vehicles in 2014\u00a0were the GMC Sierra, the Dodge Ram, and Ford\u2019s F-Series truck\u2013fuel economy disasters. What\u2019s\u00a0more, hybrid\/electric powered cars like the Prius and Leaf account for an infinitesimal and falling\u00a0percentage of new car sales, barely 2.8 percent in the US in the first half of 2015, down almost a\u00a0full percentage point from 3.6 percent in 2014. See: Mike Ramsey and Christina Rogers, \u201cSurging\u00a0Demand for Pickups Tests new EPA Rules,\u201d <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, August 4, 2015.It hardly matters anyway since electric cars are really mostly coal-oil-gas powered as fossil fuels\u00a0dominate electricity production and are expected to do so for many decades. In the US in 2014, 67\u00a0percent of electricity was produced by fossil fuels and another 19 percent by nuclear. See: \u201cWhat\u00a0is US Electricity Generation by Energy Source,\u201d last modified March 31, 2015, https:\/\/www.eia.gov\/tools\/faqs\/faq.cfm?id=427&amp;t=3. In China, which is the world\u2019s largest car market, virtually all\u00a0cars are fossil fuel-powered. Same in India.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>John Schwartz, \u201cDeadly Heat is Forecast in Persian Gulf by 2100,\u201d New York Times, October 26,\u00a02015, based on a report by Jeremy S. Pal and Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, \u201cFuture Temperature in Southwest\u00a0Asia Projected to Exceed a Threshold for Human Adaptability,\u201d<em> Nature Climate Change<\/em> 6\u00a0(October 26, 2015): 1-4.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Michael T. Klare, <em>The Race for What\u2019s Left: The Global Scramble for the World\u2019s Last Resources<\/em> (New\u00a0York: Picador, 2012); Ugo Bardi, <em>Extracted: How the Quest for Mineral Wealth is Plundering the\u00a0Planet<\/em> (White River Junction: Chelsea Green, 2014); Craig Simons, <em>Devouring Dragon: How\u00a0China\u2019s Rise Threatens Our Natural World<\/em> (New York: St. Martins, 2013); Elizabeth C. Economy\u00a0and Michael Levi, <em>By All Means Necessary: How China\u2019s Resource Quest is Changing the World<\/em> (New\u00a0York: Oxford, 2015); Simon Romero, \u201cCountries Rush for Upper Hand in Antartica,\u201d<em> New York\u00a0Times,<\/em> December 29, 2015.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>6.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>China\u2019s astounding resource overconsumption is in a class by itself. To understand why, see my\u00a0\u201cChina\u2019s Communist Capitalist Ecological Apocalypse,\u201d <em>Real-World Economics Review<\/em> 71 (June\u00a02015): 19-63, http:\/\/www.paecon.net\/PAEReview\/issue71\/Smith71.pdf.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>7.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Helen Lewis, \u201cNever Mind the Pointless Apps\u2013Our Best Minds Should be Solving Real Problems,\u201d\u00a0Guardian, November 11, 2015, http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2015\/nov\/11\/laundry-ninjas-free-market-science; Hu Yongqi, \u201cAs Phone Sales Cool, HTC Bets on VR Devices,\u201d\u00a0<em>China Daily<\/em>, January 5, 2016, http:\/\/www.chinadaily.com.cn\/business\/tech\/2016-01\/05\/content_22932829.htm; Gao Yuan, \u201cVirtual Reality, the Next Big Thing for Future-minded Tech\u00a0Firms,\u201d <em>China Daily<\/em>, January 5, 2016, http:\/\/usa.chinadaily.com.cn\/epaper\/2016-01\/05\/content_22941357.htm.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>8.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Yuan, \u201cVirtual Reality, the Next Big Thing for Future-minded Tech Firms;\u201d Yongqi, \u201cAs Phone\u00a0Sales Cool, HTC bet on VR devices;\u201d \u201cThneeds\u201d is from Dr. Seuss\u2019s<em> The Lorax<\/em> (New York: Random\u00a0House, 1971), which, remains, in my humble opinion, the greatest environmental book ever\u00a0written.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>9.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Retailing consultant Victor Lebow quoted by Vance Packard in his brilliant and sardonic classic\u00a0<em>The Waste Makers<\/em> (Philadelphia: David McKay, 1960), 24.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>10.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Giles Slade, <em>Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America<\/em> (Boston: Harvard, 2006), 7.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>11.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Warren O. Ault,<em> Open-Field Farming in Medieval England<\/em> (London: George Allen &amp; Unwin,\u00a01972); Alan Mayhew,<em> Rural Settlement and Farming in Germany<\/em> (New York: Barnes &amp; Noble,\u00a01973); B.H. Slicher Van Bath, <em>The Agrarian History of Western Europe A.D. 500-1850<\/em> (London:\u00a0Edward Arnold, 1963); Jack Goody, et al., <em>Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe\u00a01200-1800<\/em> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Robert Brenner, <em>The Brenner Debate<\/em>,\u00a0T.H. Aston and C.H.E. Philpin eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>12.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>For more information see: Richard Smith, <em>Green Capitalism: The God That Failed<\/em> (World Economic\u00a0Association Press, 2015), http:\/\/www.worldeconomicsassociation.org\/downloads\/green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>13.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Herman Daly, <em>Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development<\/em> (Boston: Beacon, 1996);\u00a0Serge Latouche, <em>Farewell to Growth<\/em> (Cambridge: Polity, 2009).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>14, 26.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith, <em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 2.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>15.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith, <em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 3.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>16.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Milton Friedman, \u201cThe Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,\u201d<em> The New York\u00a0Times Magazine<\/em>, September 13, 1970.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>17.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>On the responsibilities of corporations, see Joel Bakan, <em>The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of\u00a0Profit and Power<\/em> (New York: Free Press, 2004).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>18.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), <em>Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.<\/em><br \/>\n<em>Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental\u00a0Panel on Climate Change<\/em> (Geneva: IPCC, 2014), http:\/\/www.ipcc.ch.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>19.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Adam Nagourney, \u201cCalifornia Democrats Drop Plan for 50 Percent Oil Cut,\u201d <em>New York Times<\/em>,\u00a0September 10, 2015.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>20.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Brent Kendall and Amy Harder, \u201cIndustry, States set to Fight EPA Greenhouse Gas Rules,\u201d <em>Wall\u00a0Street Journal<\/em>, August 9, 2015.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>21.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith, <em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 4; See also: Smith, \u201cChina\u2019s Communist-capitalist Ecological\u00a0Apocalypse,\u201d http:\/\/www.paecon.net\/PAEReview\/issue71\/Smith71.pdf.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>22.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith, <em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 1.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>23.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>IPCC, <em>Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>24.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Jenna Iacurci, \u201cReport Calls for Five-year Plan to Save World\u2019s Over-fished Oceans,\u201d <em>Nature\u00a0World News,<\/em> June 24, 2014, http:\/\/www.natureworldnews.com\/articles\/7735\/20140624\/reportcalls-<br \/>\nfor-five-year-plan-to-save-worlds-over-fished-oceans.htm; Also: J.-P. Gattuso et al., \u201cContrasting Futures for Ocean and Society from Different Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Scenarios,\u201d Science 349, 6243 (July 3, 2015).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>25.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) 2.0, accessed May 2014,\u00a0http:\/\/cait.wri.org.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>27.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>World Bank,<em> Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4\u00b0 Warmer World Must be Avoided<\/em> (Washington DC:\u00a0World Bank, 2012), http:\/\/documents.worldbank.org\/curated\/en\/2012\/11\/17097815\/turndown-<br \/>\nheat-4\u00b0c-warmer-world-must-avoided; Mark Lynas, <em>Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter<\/em><br \/>\n<em>Planet<\/em> (Washington DC: National Geographic, 2008).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>28.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>See Smith, \u201cChina\u2019s Communist-capitalist Ecological Apocalypse.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>29.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>\u201cGermany Opens Bicycle-only Autobahn,\u201d <em>Bicyling<\/em>, December 29, 2015, http:\/\/www.bicycling.com\/culture\/advocacy\/germany-opens-bicycle-only-autobahn.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>30.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Consumer Reports, \u201cBottled Water: $346 per Year. Tap Water: 48 Cents. Any questions?\u201d <em>Consumer\u00a0Reports News<\/em>, July 12, 2011, http:\/\/www.consumerreports.org\/cro\/news\/2011\/07\/bottledwater-346-per-year-tap-water-48-cents-any-questions\/index.htm.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>31.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. \u201c100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS)\u00a0All-sector Energy Roadmaps to the 50 United States,\u201d <em>Energy &amp; Environment Science<\/em> 8 (2015):\u00a02093-2117, http:\/\/web.stanford.edu\/group\/efmh\/jacobson\/Articles\/I\/USStatesWWS.pdf; Eliot Chang, \u201cInfographic: How Much Would it Cost for the Entire Planet to Switch to Renewable Energy?\u201d <em>Inhabitat<\/em> (and the sources cited therein), September 24, 2013, accessed January 8, 2016,<br \/>\nhttp:\/\/inhabitat.com\/infographic-how-much-would-it-cost-for-the-entire-planet-to-switch-torenewable-energy\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>32.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Mark Z. Jacobson, et al. \u201c100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS)\u00a0All-sector Energy Roadmaps to the 50 United States,\u201d <em>Energy &amp; Environment Science<\/em> 8 (2015):\u00a02093-2117, http:\/\/web.stanford.edu\/group\/efmh\/jacobson\/Articles\/I\/USStatesWWS.pdf; Eliot<br \/>\nChang, \u201cInfographic: How Much Would it Cost for the Entire Planet to Switch to Renewable<br \/>\nEnergy?\u201d Inhabitat (and the sources cited therein), September 24, 2013, accessed January 8, 2016,<br \/>\nhttp:\/\/inhabitat.com\/infographic-how-much-would-it-cost-for-the-entire-planet-to-switch-torenewable-<br \/>\nenergy\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>33.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>See the Louisville Charter for Safer Chemicals, http:\/\/smartpolicyreform.org\/the-charter\/the-louisville-charter; Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, http:\/\/www.saferchemicals.org; Smith,\u00a0<em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 2.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>34.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>For more detail, see Smith,<em> Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 4.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>35.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith,<em> Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 5.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>36.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>For example, \u201cThe Solyndra Economy,\u201d <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, October 11, 2011, http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/SB10001424052970204524604576610972882349418.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>37.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Smith, <em>Green Capitalism<\/em>, chapter 5.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>38.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Matt Egan, \u201c16 Firms Worth Billions Despite Losing Money,\u201d <em>CNN Money<\/em>, January 23, 2015,\u00a0http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2015\/01\/23\/investing\/shazam-tech-startups-lose-money\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>39.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Helen Thomas, \u2018Why Shell Has Gone Cold in the Arctic,\u201d <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, September 28,\u00a02015.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>40.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>John Cavanaugh and Sarah Anderson, \u201cTop 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power,\u201d Institute\u00a0for Policy Studies, 2010, http:\/\/www.ips-dc.org\/top_200_the_rise_of_corporate_global_power\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>41.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Walmart, Company Facts, corporate.walmart.com\/newsroom\/company-facts.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>42.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Monica Anderson, \u201cAmid debate over labeling GM foods, most Americans believe they\u2019re unsafe\u00a0to eat,\u201d Pew Research Center, Facttank, August 11, 2015, http:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/facttank\/2015\/08\/11\/amid-debate-over-labeling-gm-foods-most-americans-believe-theyre-unsafe\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>43.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Mary Clare Jalonick, \u201cHouse Passes Bill to Prevent Mandatory GMO Food Labeling,\u201d <em>Associated\u00a0Press<\/em>, July 23, 2015, http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/rundown\/house-passes-bill-prevent-mandatory-gmo-food-labeling\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>44.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Sewell Chan, \u201cPoll Finds Global Consensus on a Need to Tackle Climate Change.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>45.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>See Carl Lutrin and Allen Settle, \u201cThe Public and Ecology: the Role of Initiatives in California\u2019s\u00a0Environmental Politics,\u201d<em> Western Political Science Quarterly<\/em> 28.2 (June 1975): 352-371.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>46.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>For the industry-backed opponents see Jeffrey M. Smith\u2019s speech on GMOs, Chemtrails Conference,\u00a0August 17, 2012, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=P5B62cbwP_E; For the pro-labeling forces see: Stacy Malkan, \u201cStatement about Bogus Economic Analysis\u00a0of GMO Labeling Costs \u2013 Yes on Prop 37,\u201d August 31, 2012, http:\/\/www.carighttoknow.org\/cost_statement; Also: Common Dreams Staff, \u201cPesticide Giants Pour Millions into Campaign to\u00a0Defeat California Prop. 37,\u201d CommonDreams.org, October 4, 2012, http:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/news\/2012\/10\/04\/pesticide-giants-pour-millions-campaign-defeat-californias-prop-37.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>47.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>For example, Poland\u2019s Solidarity trade union opposed the Polish Communist Party\u2019s monopoly of\u00a0the economy by proposing a comprehensive economic program of socialist economy based around\u00a0\u201csocial,\u201d state, cooperative, private, and mixed enterprises operating in a mixed economy in which\u00a0\u201csocialized planning should be operated on the principle that the final decision belongs to the\u00a0representative, not executive bodies.\u201d From: Network of Solidarity Organizations in Leading Factories,\u00a0Position on Social and Economic <em>Reform of the Country<\/em> (1981), p. 4, quoted in Horst Brand,\u00a0\u201cSolidarity\u2019s Proposals for Reforming Poland\u2019s Economy,\u201d<em> Monthly Labor Review<\/em> (May 1982):\u00a043-46. Unfortunately, Solidarity never got to try out these reforms because it was crushed and its\u00a0leaders jailed for years, after which capitalism was restored in Poland.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>48.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Greg Palast, Jerrold Oppenheim, and Theo MacGregor, <em>Democracy and Regulation: How the Public\u00a0can Govern Essential Services<\/em> (London: Pluto, 2003), 1-4 (italics are my own). On page 98, the\u00a0authors point out yet another irony of this system of public regulation, namely that it was created\u00a0by private companies as the lesser evil to fend off the threat of nationalization: \u201cModern US utility\u00a0regulation is pretty much the invention of American Telephone &amp; Telegraph Company (AT&amp;T)\u00a0and the National Electric Light Association (NELA) \u2013 the investor-owned telephone and electric\u00a0industries at the turn of the twentieth century. They saw regulation as protection against Populist\u00a0and Progressive movements that, since the economic panic of 1873 and later disruptions, had galvanized\u00a0anti-corporate farmer and labor organizations. By the turn of the twentieth-century, these\u00a0movements had galvanized considerable public support for governmental ownership of utilities\u2026\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>49.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Mona Chalabi, \u201cMeet The 80 People Who Are As Rich As Half The World,\u201d <em>FiveThirtyEight<\/em>,\u00a0January 18, 2015, http:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/datalab\/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-ashalf-the-world\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>50.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, <em>The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger\u00a0<\/em>(London: Bloomsbury, 2011).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>51.<\/td>\n<td>\u2191<\/td>\n<td>Jared Diamond,<em> Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed<\/em> (London: Penguin, 2011).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>__________________________________________<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Richard-Smith-5-150x150.jpg\" ><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-82469\" src=\"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Richard-Smith-5-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"richard-smith-5-150x150\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a>Richard Smith is a founding member of System Change Not Climate Change (systemchangenotclimatechange.org). He is the author of Green Capitalism: the God that Failed (World Economic Association Press, 2015), available as an ebook and paperback on Amazon. His new book, China\u2019s Engine of Ecological Collapse, will be released by Verso in 2017. He has published articles on the Chinese revolution, China\u2019s transition to capitalism, and capitalist development and China\u2019s environment for Against the Current, New Left Review, Monthly Review and The Ecologist. He has written about capitalism and capitalist economic theory and the environment for the Journal of Ecological Economics, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Real-World Economics Review, Truthout.org, Adbusters and other media. He wrote his UCLA History PhD thesis on China\u2019s class structure and the contradictions of market reform in China, and held postdoctoral appointments at the East-West Center in Honolulu and at Rutgers University New Brunswick.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/thenextsystem.org\/six-theses-on-saving-the-planet\/\" >Go to Original \u2013 thenextsystem.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>From the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, workers, trade unionists, radicals, and socialists have fought against the worst depredations of capitalist development: intensifying exploitation, increasing social polarization, persistent racism and sexism, deteriorating workplace health and safety conditions, environmental ravages, and relentless efforts to suppress democratic political gains under the iron heel of capital.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[238],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-paradigm-changes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}