“The Truth is the Whole” HSPH, May 23, 2015 Jonathan Latham, PhD Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project Solving Climate Change with a Favourite.

“The Truth is the Whole”HSPH, May 23, 2015

Jonathan Latham, PhDExecutive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project

Solving Climate Change with a FavouriteLevins Concept:

Broadening the Question

The underlying assumption of broadening the question is that in a fair society operating on an abundant planet, all honest needs can be met.

Ours Is an Abundant Planet

“Worth $669 Billion”?

What do corporations really fear ifit’s not the cost of climate ‘solutions’?

Could it be subsidies?

Worth $1900 billion (1998)

The Middlemen

1) Direct payments (e.g. tax breaks, loans, credit guarantees)

2) Accounting loopholes and offshore accounts

3) Legal frameworks: Intellectual Property (monopolies)

4) Low wages

5) Infrastructure (eg irrigation)

Nomenclature of Subsidies

1) That if all perverse subsidies were removed the ability of large corporations (but not small ones) to operate would disappear

2) That it takes a lot more resources to operate the corporate model. Probably, the farmer on the hill uses in the order of 95% less resources.

3) That what applies to the food system also applies to most other sectors of the economy

Conclusion: the fear of subsidy removal is a plausible explanation of corporate climate opposition

Some Propositions:

1) Climate change can be mostly solved without dismantling the market economy. 2) Solving climate change does not require installing a green dictatorship: it requires and assumes democratic governance3) Solving climate change this way will also solve many other pollution/resource depletion problems4) Solving climate change will also solve many of the political problems we have5) Solving climate change does require the dismantling of large corporations 6) Solving climate change will reduce/eliminate income and asset inequality

Implications

The political/carbon cycle

Political power/size/influence

Side effects = Chemical use, GHGs/pollution, inequality,

Subsidies

Profit

1) That the efforts of the current climate movement are misdirected (not just the negotiations). The climate movement is currently attacking symptoms (350.org) and infrastructure (divestment, KXL) not the deep cause (which is demand)2) Targeting subsidies is a coherent approach and a whole and (almost) complete strategy for social change3) It naturally suggests grassroots alliances, eg with the food movement4) It leads to obvious tactics (local subsidies, national subsidies) 5) It brings people onboard (because it makes sense)6) Creates a political opportunity (no sacrifices necessary?)7) It will require a large social movement

Strategic Implications for Climate Campaigning: Taking on a big challenge versus being “realistic”

[email protected]