Thursday, April 24, 2014

1394. What it Will Take to Tackle the Climate Crisis: A Push-the-Democrats View

By Sheila D. Collins, The Huffington Post, April 24, 2014
The latest report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms what is manifest to all but those blinded by ideology and short-term profits, but can it galvanize a response commensurate with the challenge? We may have only fifteen years to find out. Effective responses to societal crises such as this require both presidential leadership and arousal of publics and policymakers by the kinds of powerful social movements largely missing during the Obama presidency. For presidents like FDR and LBJ, crises, along with popular movements, have served as spurs to greatness in excess of prior promise.

Prospects for Presidential Leadership
Obama is no denier of climate change, and he is apparently concerned about his environmental legacy. Yet, his record, to date, is mixed at best. He has taken important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but has continued to support further fossil fuel development. Instead of taking planetary leadership in the race against climate change, the most powerful nation on earth, and nearly its highest per capital polluter, has scuttled binding international agreements for stricter fossil fuel controls.
Admittedly, Obama has faced a hostile Congress since the 2010 mid-term elections. Nonetheless, there are presidential options beyond the limited steps he has taken. He could call a Special Session of Congress to announce the findings of the IPCC report and, in view of its gravity, appoint by Executive Order a Special Bi-Partisan Commission on Climate Change with a short deadline to review the report, summarize research from a range of other reputable sources, and propose actions commensurate with the findings. In addition, the President, appropriate members of his administration and other national leaders could mount a series of Climate Change Alerts, using a variety of media -- internet, television, film, radio, newspapers, social media -- in order to educate and arouse one of the most ignorant of all publics on the realities of climate change. The climate crisis requires efforts comparable to -- and probably greater than -- the effort it took to fight the Great Depression, mobilize for World War II, or put a man on the moon. FDR, it should be remembered, asked for powers to fight the Depression as if it were a war emergency. With a new global treaty on climate change projected for 2015, there is still time for Obama to step up to the plate and become the leader the world needs.
Push from the Bottom
But if Obama is to act boldly, he needs to be pushed from below. Although FDR endorsed both old age and unemployment insurance prior to running for president, movements of the unemployed and the elderly played important roles in the struggle for Social Security, placing enormous pressure on Congress and the Administration. Moderate Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would not have embraced civil rights or waged a war on poverty unless proponents of these actions were on the move and in the streets. And let's not forget, that in the late 1960s and early 1970s it was pressure in the streets from environmentalists that helped to secure the Environmental Protection Act and the legislation that followed, even in a Republican administration.
In times like this environmentalists must renew that type of militancy, moving into high gear with new organizations like 350.org or older ones like Green peace and the Sierra Club that employ radical tactics, taking the reins of leadership from those who have largely confined their activities to lobbying, litigation and online petitions, just as the more radical Southern Leadership Conference and Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee eclipsed the older NAACP and Urban League. One may also hope that this crisis might evoke charismatic leadership that would do for climate change what Martin Luther King, Jr. did for civil rights. The women's and gay movements, too, were pushed forward by radical techniques.
An environmental movement on the march could take such actions as Save the Earth Vigils in Washington and throughout the nation, a massive march on Washington comparable to the great civil rights and anti-war measures of the 1960s and actions across the country that link local environmental hazards like fracking to the larger issue of climate change. Environmentalists could fight for a constitutional amendment to make a safe and sustainable environment a fundamental right, demonstrating how it is foundational to all other rights. Though this would be an uphill struggle, it would provide an aspirational moral framework that is valuable for both education and organizing. In recognizing such a right, the U.S. is an international outlier. Some 142 countries already have some rights-based environmental language in their constitutions.

There comes a time when an impending crisis can no longer be denied or ignored. That time could be too late to avert disaster; or it could be now. We write with hope that together -- an ominous scientific report, an aroused president and an invigorated, radicalized and expanded environmental movement can summon the strength to save the earth as we know it.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

1393. Are Paradigms, Theories, Methods Value Neutral?

By Kamran Nayeri, April 23, 2014


1. The problem
In this part of my discussion of Saral Sarkar’s essay and letter claiming natural causes for the Great Recession, I will focus on his proposition that paradigms, theories, and methods are value-neutral.   

Let’s begin with some of Saral’s statements. In his letter, he advises me: “[i]t is not good to label some people and their writings as bourgeois. Theories, explanations, assertions, etc. are either right or wrong.”  To understand the context, in my “Economics, Socialism and Ecology: A Critical Outline,” Part 1, I argued that economics is a bourgeois science primarily concerned with justification and maintenance of the capitalist system.  And, in my critical discussion of Saral’s essay, I protested Saral reliance on the wage-price spiral theory of inflation that place blame on workers for problems of the capitalist economy.  Long ago, Marx has discredited similar claims in his Wage, Price, and Profit (1865).  

Further, I have never simply dismissed paradigms, theories or methods by classifying them as bourgeois.  Witness my criticism on neoclassical and Keynesian theories in “Economics, Socialism, and Ecology,” Part 1.  As a trained political economist who spent 30 years in research and teaching at American universities, I could not have simply dismissed theorists and theories that I found distasteful to me for any reason. For my own approach to criticism in economic theory, Saral can review my The Role of Competition in Theories of Late Capitalist Development (1991) where I critically examine nine major post-World War II theorists of late development (unfortunately, it is currently not available online due to problems with Green Praxis website where it resides. However, it can be found at libraries in research universities).  

Thus, our difference lies in the presumption of value-neutrality of paradigms, theories, and methods. Saral seems to assume that perhaps for reasons of “objectivity.”  I believe paradigms, theories, and methods are socially and historically condition, thus, they cannot be value-free. Why does this matter? Because as active participants in the realms of thought and society we must be able to pass judgment not just on this or that claim made by any given theorist but on entire schools of thought and categories of policy. In fact, this is is how Saral and I both became socialists in our youth.  This is also how we became ecological socialists later.  That is, by deciding to reject the capitalist system and its intellectual defenders. 

2. The case of natural limits to growth
Let’s cite another instance where Saral presumes paradigms, theories and methods are value neutral.  Defining a paradigm, Saral writes:

It is a framework made up of accepted basic facts and a basic theory, thesis or hypothesis, within which scientists, thinkers, policy makers etc. do further research or think further or lay down policy. They may lay down different policies, but all such policies remain within this framework. Example: In astronomy, there was a shift from the geocentric paradigm to the heliocentric paradigm Limits to growth as a paradigm pertains to areas such as economics, politics, social and social welfare policies. It is not the task of a paradigm to offer an ethical perspective for a good society.(emphasis in original). 

But examples he cites belie the view that paradigms, theories, and methods are value free.  Saral cites the intellectual transcendence from geocentrism to heliocentrism as an example of a paradigm shift in astronomy but does not recall how proponents of the latter were shunned and even prosecuted by the proponents of the former. In particular, has neglects the Catholic Churchs Inquisition against Galileo, a key proponent of heliocentrism, that is actually a textbook example of value-laden paradigm shifts in history and philosophy of science (see, for example, Robert Hollingers Introductionto the section on Science and Valuesin Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science, E.D. Klemke, R. Hollinger and A. D. Kline editors,  1988, p. 319).  The other example of value-laden paradigm shift Hollinger cites is Darwins theory of evolution that remains controversial hundred and fifty years since The Origins of Species

It is an unfortunate mistake that Saral cites limits to growth as a paradigm that bears on economics, politics, social and social welfare policiesbut again fails to acknowledge their ideological trappings of all these fields of inquiry.  As it is well known, social science and policy are eminently ideological because the social scientist and the policymaker cannot reasonably claim that they stand aloof from their subject matter. That is why heterodox economists in the United States have a hard time finding jobs in a profession dominated by the neoclassical orthodoxy. On this, let me cite James K. Galbraith who is quoted on page 1 of Richard Heinbergs The End of Growth (2011). Galbraith writes about the American economic profession (and I presume Heinberg agrees):

Leading active members of todays economics professionhave formed themselves into a kind of Politburo for correct economic thinking. As a general ruleas one might generally expect from a gentlemans clubthis has placed them on the wrong side of every important policy issue, and not recently but for decades. They predict disaster when none occurs. They deny the possibility of events that then happenThey oppose the most basic, decent and sensible reforms while offering placebos instead. They are always surprised when something untoward (like a recession) actually occurs. And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. They do not consider the possibility of a flaw in logic or theory. Rather, they simply change the subject. No one is dis-invited from presenting papers at a later annual meeting. And still, less is anyone from the outside invited in.(James K. Galbraith, quoted in Richard Heinberg, The End of Growth, New Society Publisher, 2011, p. 1).

3. Origin of value-neutrality in science
Let us focus on science where the presumption of value neutrality would be more likely.  The origin of the claim for value neutrality in science is in the so-called mechanical picture of the world and the scientific revolution, especially the epistemological and methodological revolution in science and philosophy inspired by its main architect, Renรจ Descartes.  Hollinger describes it as follows:

According to this view, we must make a sharp distinction between what is objective and what is subjective in order to acquire reliable (i.e., objective) knowledge of the world.by the use of reliable (rational) methods of inquiry. Since, according to the mechanical world picture, nature is a vast machine governed by quantitative laws and relationships, the objective features of the world turn out to be those featuresmatter, motion, and physical magnitudeswhich constitute the nuts and bolts of the machine, together with the laws governing it. Only such features of experience are truly objective

In sum, objectivity means both: (a) objective in the sense of being about what is objective, and (b) objective in the sense of arriving at objective truths by methods which themselves take no account of anything subjective,i.e., which are unbiased.(Hollinger, 1988, pp. 321-322).

4. Why presumption of value-neutrality in science is wrong
Hollinger then describes insuperabledifficulties of this value-neutral view of science. 

First of all, to paraphrase Woody Allen (Love and Death):  Objectivity is subjective, and subjectivity objective; at least the latter point is certainly true: the fact that I am (say) in pain is no less objective a fact about me than the fact that I weigh 160 pounds.

Second, the view being considered is, paradoxically, rooted in the notion that objective knowledgeis a rational reconstructionof the private, i.e. subjective,experiences of a collection of knowers (viz, out of those subjective experiences which represent the essence of the world). Modern epistemology is rooted in this conundrum.

Third, as M. Polanyi and others show, if we merely wanted objective truths, we (as a species) would devote virtually all our intellectual energy to study interstellar dust, and only a fraction of a microsecond studying  ourselves (or anything else for that matter) since, objectively speaking, human beings are of no cosmic significance in the objective order of things!  Obviously, no one would take this requirement on objectivity seriouslyWhat we are seeking are truths which are interesting, which are useful and valuable to us. In a word, knowledge, truth, and objectivity are (or are rooted in) values and human purposes. 

Fourth, not only do knowledge, objectivity, and truthand thus methodologyturn out to be, or at least be grounded in, values; on some views they are or are grounded in, moral ideals. In any event, the search for knowledge expresses a value; and thus distinctions between reliable and unreliable knowledge claims, between good and bad methods, and so on, are partly normative judgments.(Hollinger, 1988, pp. 322-323). 

Thus, I cannot share Sarals view that paradigms, theories, and methods are value-neutral. In fact, they are eminently social, historical, hence value-laden. The question for the thinker and activist alike remains: on what side of history are you on?  Saral and I long ago decided this question by becoming socialist and later ecological socialists.  That is we chose to defend and promote a system of values. In fact, the future of humanity and much of life on Earth depends on whether the majority of humanity also decide on similar values and build alternative institutions to support it as opposed to the ideology of alienation, domination, and exploitation promoted by the capitalist world market. 

In the next segment of the critical discussion, I will take up Saral’s statement that “Bourgeois Malthus was right, while Marxist Marx was wrong.”  That is on the population question. 

To be continued…

Related posts:








Tuesday, April 22, 2014

1392. Book Review: Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal

By Linda Christmas, The Telegraph, July 16, 2009

Tristam Stuart’s exceptional book describes the hideous problem of food waste. The average UK household bins £8 of food each week and supermarket profligacy fills him with contempt. Instead of leaving the reader feeling impotent and gloomy, he offers a list of improvements from one end of the food chain to the other: from farmers through food producers, supermarkets and restaurants to consumers and governments. His action plan at the end of the book leaves the reader feeling that solutions, though not easy, are possible – and that such solutions could aid those facing famine and help Britain to meet international targets on climate change. Waste is an uplifting book.

It is also brave. Stuart has produced, for the first time, a league table of the amount of food waste generated by supermarkets. He does this by foraging through scant data, carefully explaining his methodology, and then states that if he’s got something wrong it is merely an argument for making the supermarkets release more accurate and complete data. “The Co-op is the best performing supermarket, 27 per cent more efficient than average. Sainsbury’s is the worst, apparently 14 per cent more wasteful than the average and 55 per cent worse than the Co-op. Morrisons and Tesco are about average and Waitrose and Asda are slightly more wasteful than average and around 47 per cent worse than the Co-op.”

The Co-op heads the list because it resists the temptation to overstock for the sake of a bountiful display. My local Co-op has scantily filled shelves and now that I know that this is part of their attempt to cut waste I shall applaud their less than laden shelves. Furthermore, the Co-op group has a policy for reducing the price of products near the sell-by date. Most supermarkets do this to some extent but none as much as they could. Similarly, most supermarkets donate surplus food to redistribution charities such as FareShare who then pass them to community centres and homeless shelters. Stuart feels they could give more and further reduce the tonnage going to landfill.

Stuart is concerned by the amount of food that ends up in landfill because the waste releases methane, a relatively damaging greenhouse gas. No food goes to landfill in South Korea and Taiwan. Those countries think we are mad. They feed their food waste to pigs. We did that until 2001 when the practice was banned by Britain and the EU after the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease that originated in a farm feeding swill to pigs. The farmer had not been observing the law and boiling the food waste to get rid of the pathogens. Stuart suggests that a temporary ban would have been enough, followed by stricter enforcement of sterilisation procedures. Instead the ban remains. Pig farmers are now going out of business because they have to use expensive feed instead of cheap swill.

Stuart admires the “Islands of Hope”, as he calls them – Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Their governments have chosen to make it mandatory for food businesses to reduce waste by 66 per cent. He would like to see the same policy here. Our Government prefers to nag the consumer and seek voluntary deals with businesses. Last month, after this book was completed, the Environment Secretary announced new initiatives to boost the Government’s “War on Waste”. These include proposals to increase alternatives to landfill, produce new packaging sizes to cater for the increasing numbers who live alone and to rethink “best before” and “sell by” labels which are a guarantee of quality rather than a guide to food safety.

Food waste is hardly a new issue. In recent years there has been widespread media coverage, but bite-sized articles and one-off programmes can be confusing or rejected as hype. This book offers a rigorous – there are 67 pages of endnotes and 48 pages of bibliography – and accessible A to Z of the issues and its author is so passionate about the subject that he motivates the reader to want to do something to help. Few of us will follow Stuart and become “freegans”, rummaging through the black sacks at supermarket backdoors and feasting on their cast-offs, and we will ignore his suggestion that if we don’t eat crusts we should not eat bread. None the less, each of us could easily buy less and not feel like cheapskates as we reach for the marked down items. We are helping and the financial climate invites us to be thrifty both as individuals and as a country.

*     *     *
By Tristram Stuart, TED.com, 2012

Western countries waste up to half of their food. This is an injustice Tristram Stuart has dedicated his career to fixing. In his newest book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal, Tristram shows how changing the systems that result in food waste could be one of the simplest ways to reduce pressure on the environment.

The winner of the international environmental award The Sophie Prize in 2011, Tristram is the founder of Feeding the 5000, a consciousness raising campaign where 5000 members of the public are given a free lunch using only ingredients that otherwise would have been wasted. Held in Trafalgar Square in 2009 and 2011, the event has also been held internationally.

In addition, Tristram works with a range of NGOs, governments, and private enterprises to tackle the global food waste scandal.

Monday, April 21, 2014

1391.Following the Market: California’s Thirsting Farmland

By Stephanie Storm, The New York Times, April 20, 2014

FIREBAUGH, Calif. — This summer, Todd Allen’s only crop will be Pima cotton.
He and his brother, Joel, usually also grow cantaloupes and, later in the season, winter wheat on about 600 acres or so. But this year, they and hundreds of others will get no water from the reservoirs that sustain farming in the Central Valley, where much of the nation’s fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables are grown.
Mr. Allen says he will give his cotton crop just “one shot of water when it gets to a certain height.”
So they will forgo melons. And a question mark hangs over winter wheat.
Heading into the third year of a prolonged drought, the Allens are among the many California farmers forced to make dire choices that could leave as much as 800,000 acres, or about 7 percent of the state’s cropland, fallow. While some think that estimate may be inflated so early in the planting season, the consensus is that drier and drier seasons are on the horizon.

A recent report on prospective planting from the federal Department of Agriculture forecast a 20 percent decline in California’s rice crop and a 35 percent decline in cotton this year from last year’s crop.
The decisions by farmers like the Allens will translate directly into higher prices at the grocery store.
Anywhere between one-third and one-half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables are grown in California, meaning Americans are facing higher prices on melons, broccoli, baby greens, almonds and other popular crops.
Last year, when growers struggled with low water allocations from the state’s two largest water systems, the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, vegetable prices were 3 percent higher and fruits cost 2 percent more, according to the agricultural department. It expects similar price increases this year.
And while this is not the state’s worst drought on record (that was in the 1920s), there are greater demands today on what water there is. A booming population and a sharp increase in lucrative crops like berries and nuts that require more water strain the system. In addition, environmental laws put into effect after the last major drought, in the 1970s, to protect fish and wildlife habitats have reduced the amount of water going to farmers.
All told, more than three million acres of the nine million acres of irrigated farmland in the state will get no surface water this year other than rain, which has been scarce.
“So while we may have more water than we did in other droughts, it has to stretch further,” said Jay Lund, an engineering professor specializing in water resources and environmental planning and management at the University of California, Davis. He said this drought will rank somewhere between the third- to the sixth-worst on record.
Rain did arrive at the end of last month, brightening fields and pastures along the coast and in the Central Valley and adding a few inches to the state’s depleted reservoirs.
“It’s been good for vegetation and kept the dust down, but it’s not enough to have a serious impact on our overall situation,” said Robert Roach, assistant commissioner of agriculture in Monterey County.
Farmers rely on a variety of sources depending on the location of their fields. In the Central Valley, most farmers contract to receive a specified amount of water from either the federal Central Valley Project or the State Water Project. But in drought years like this one, they may not receive a full allotment or even any water at all.
The state has already pledged $687 million to address the drought, with the federal government committing an additional $200 million. But much of that money will be used to improve the infrastructure for water collection and distribution — it cannot make rain.
And on April 1, state and federal water and environmental officials announced that they would start pumping to capture some of the rain that had fallen recently in reservoirs, an attempt to respond to widespread criticism that environmental regulations aimed at protecting habitats and fish like salmon and smelt were allowing water to flow into the Pacific.
But officials said any captured water would most likely be put in storage in anticipation of a dry 2015. “Those that have a zero allocation applied to them right now, even if we have an improvement in the hydrology here in the near future, we don’t see that those numbers would go off zero,” said David Murillo, regional director of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
Tensions have been high over the water allocations to farmers, with signs reading “Congress created this dust bowl” and “Politicians are responsible for the drought” lining Interstate 5 through the heart of the Central Valley.
“The fish are more important than our farms,” said Stephen F. Patricio, president of Westside Produce, which processes and markets melons.
The scarcity of water is driving up the price week to week. One grower who sold extra water for $1,500 an acre-foot about a month ago was offered $2,500 more recently. (An acre-foot is the amount it takes to cover one acre of ground a foot deep in water, or 325,851 gallons). “This sort of thing is causing some hard feelings because some of the families that have farmed here forever can’t afford to buy water while investors without any real ties to the land are driving up the price,” Mr. Patricio said.
Several insurance and pension funds have snapped up land in the Central and Pajaro Valleys and replaced traditional crops like spinach, melons and asparagus with ones requiring more water, like avocados, nuts and berries, which command premium prices thanks to soaring demand from baby boomers and the international market. The region produces twice as many almonds, roughly two billion pounds, as it did in 2006.
The boom in nut trees, water managers in the valleys say, has strained the state’s water resources even further. Brian Lockwood, senior hydrologist at the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, pointed to the strawberry fields that have largely displaced the apple orchards that used to be major producers in the Pajaro Valley.
“Apples need about a half acre-foot of water per acre, whereas strawberries take two or more acre-feet,” Mr. Lockwood said. “You can’t blame growers for seeking better-paying crops, but it has quadrupled water use per acre.”
Thus, strawberry farmers like Miguel Ramos are working to use water “reclaimed” from municipal waste water for their plants, which are just beginning to produce fruit. Mr. Ramos also is experimenting with growing strawberry plants in a medium derived from coconut fiber, which requires much less water.
Nut farmers defend their use of water, pointing out that they have a decades-long investment. “I am not a water hog,” said Ron Fisher, founder and chief executive of the Fisher Nut Company in Modesto, one of the 10 largest nut businesses in the country.
He will get three-quarters of his normal allotment from a water district, plus more from a contract he bought four years ago. “I lost money on it in the first two years, but last year and this year, it’s paying off,” Mr. Fisher said.
He also has wells on the 1,000 acres of almond trees he owns. The company also processes and markets nuts from other growers. The well water, however, is higher in sodium and boron than is ideal. The trees “will tolerate it, but we may see some stunting and reduction in productivity,” he said.
Applications to drill new, deeper wells have increased tremendously, according to water district managers. But wells, which can cost from $500,000 to $1 million to drill, are only a stopgap measure, as Greg Beccio, owner of Happy Boy Farms, an organic business, knows.
Last year, he got a reduced allocation of water from the Chowchilla Water District, which supplies several parcels he farms, so he began relying more heavily on wells. One, however, ran dry, in part because his neighbors were punching deeper wells into the ground. A crop of butternut squash on 15 acres yielded only half what it should have, he said.
This year, he plans instead to plant some tomatoes, melons and other crops in the Pajaro, which is a little less dry.
But he will still rely heavily on his wells — which means higher expenses. “Each well has its own P.G. & E. bill, remember,” Rod Braga, chief executive of Braga Fresh Family Farms, said, referring to Pacific Gas & Electric company.
Braga is a large grower of crops traditional to the Salinas Valley like celery, spinach, broccoli and iceberg lettuce, as well as things like chard, kale and beets. All of its water comes from wells that are fed by aquifers, which in turn are fed by two reservoirs that are county projects.

Those reservoirs, which rely on rainwater and snow melt for replenishment, were depleted completely last year, and they are not fully recharged now. And so, Mr. Braga has noticed that his well level has dropped a bit. “We rely on rainwater and two little reservoirs,” he said. “This year, we’re doing all right, but next year is going to be bleak.”

Friday, April 18, 2014

1390. Climate Change: Salvation Gets Cheap

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times, April 17, 2014

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which pools the efforts of scientists around the globe, has begun releasing draft chapters from its latest assessment, and, for the most part, the reading is as grim as you might expect. We are still on the road to catastrophe without major policy changes.
But there is one piece of the assessment that is surprisingly, if conditionally, upbeat: Its take on the economics of mitigation. Even as the report calls for drastic action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, it asserts that the economic impact of such drastic action would be surprisingly small. In fact, even under the most ambitious goals the assessment considers, the estimated reduction in economic growth would basically amount to a rounding error, around 0.06 percent per year.
What’s behind this economic optimism? To a large extent, it reflects a technological revolution many people don’t know about, the incredible recent decline in the cost of renewable energy, solar power in particular.
Before I get to that revolution, however, let’s talk for a minute about the overall relationship between economic growth and the environment.
Other things equal, more G.D.P. tends to mean more pollution. What transformed China into the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases? Explosive economic growth. But other things don’t have to be equal. There’s no necessary one-to-one relationship between growth and pollution.
People on both the left and the right often fail to understand this point. (I hate it when pundits try to make every issue into a case of “both sides are wrong,” but, in this case, it happens to be true.) On the left, you sometimes find environmentalists asserting that to save the planet we must give up on the idea of an ever-growing economy; on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth. But there’s no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the environment.
Let me add that free-market advocates seem to experience a peculiar loss of faith whenever the subject of the environment comes up. They normally trumpet their belief that the magic of the market can surmount all obstacles — that the private sector’s flexibility and talent for innovation can easily cope with limiting factors like scarcity of land or minerals. But suggest the possibility of market-friendly environmental measures, like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, and they suddenly assert that the private sector would be unable to cope, that the costs would be immense. Funny how that works.
The sensible position on the economics of climate change has always been that it’s like the economics of everything else — that if we give corporations and individuals an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they will respond. What form would that response take? Until a few years ago, the best guess was that it would proceed on many fronts, involving everything from better insulation and more fuel-efficient cars to increased use of nuclear power.
One front many people didn’t take too seriously, however, was renewable energy. Sure, cap-and-trade might make more room for wind and the sun, but how important could such sources really end up being? And I have to admit that I shared that skepticism. If truth be told, I thought of the idea that wind and sun could be major players as hippie-dippy wishful thinking.
The climate change panel, in its usual deadpan prose, notes that “many RE [renewable energy] technologies have demonstrated substantial performance improvements and cost reductions” since it released its last assessment, back in 2007. The Department of Energy is willing to display a bit more open enthusiasm; it titled a report on clean energy released last year “Revolution Now.” That sounds like hyperbole, but you realize that it isn’t when you learn that the price of solar panels has fallen more than 75 percent just since 2008.
Thanks to this technological leap forward, the climate panel can talk about “decarbonizing” electricity generation as a realistic goal — and since coal-fired power plants are a very large part of the climate problem, that’s a big part of the solution right there.
It’s even possible that decarbonizing will take place without special encouragement, but we can’t and shouldn’t count on that. The point, instead, is that drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are now within fairly easy reach.

So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong? Oh, wait.

1389. Capitalism and the Dalai Lama

By Arthur C. Brooks, The New York Times, April 17, 2014

WHAT can Washington, D.C., learn from a Buddhist monk?
In early 2013, I traveled with two colleagues to Dharamsala, India, to meet with the Dalai Lama. His Holiness has lived there since being driven from his Tibetan homeland by the Chinese government in 1959. From his outpost in the Himalayan foothills, he anchored the Tibetan government until 2011 and continues to serve as a spiritual shepherd for hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.
Very early one morning during the visit, I was invited to meditate with the monks. About an hour had passed when hunger pangs began, but I worked hard to ignore them. It seemed to me that such earthly concerns had no place in the superconscious atmosphere of the monastery.
Incorrect. Not a minute later, a basket of freshly baked bread made its way down the silent line, followed by a jar of peanut butter with a single knife. We ate breakfast in silence, and resumed our meditation. This, I soon learned, is the Dalai Lama in a nutshell: transcendence and pragmatism together. Higher consciousness and utter practicality rolled into one.
That same duality was on display in February when the Dalai Lama joined a two-day summit at my institution, the American Enterprise Institute. At first, his visit caused confusion. Some people couldn’t imagine why he would visit us; as Vanity Fair asked in a headline, “Why Was the Dalai Lama Hanging Out with the Right-Wing American Enterprise Institute?”
There was no dissonance, though, because the Dalai Lama’s teaching defies freighted ideological labels. During our discussions, he returned over and over to two practical yet transcendent points. First, his secret to human flourishing is the development of every individual. In his own words: “Where does a happy world start? From government? No. From United Nations? No. From individual.”
But his second message made it abundantly clear that he did not advocate an every-man-for-himself economy. He insisted that while free enterprise could be a blessing, it was not guaranteed to be so. Markets are instrumental, not intrinsic, for human flourishing. As with any tool, wielding capitalism for good requires deep moral awareness. Only activities motivated by a concern for others’ well-being, he declared, could be truly “constructive.”
Tibetan Buddhists actually count wealth among the four factors in a happy life, along with worldly satisfaction, spirituality and enlightenment. Money per se is not evil. For the Dalai Lama, the key question is whether “we utilize our favorable circumstances, such as our good health or wealth, in positive ways, in helping others.” There is much for Americans to absorb here. Advocates of free enterprise must remember that the system’s moral core is neither profits nor efficiency. It is creating opportunity for individuals who need it the most.
Historically, free enterprise has done this to astonishing effect. In a remarkable paper, Maxim Pinkovskiy of M.I.T. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University calculate that the fraction of the world’s population living on a dollar a day — after adjusting for inflation — plummeted by 80 percent between 1970 and 2006. This is history’s greatest antipoverty achievement.

But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers’ generation at the same point in their lives. That was before the financial crisis, the Great Recession, and years of federal policies that have done a great deal for the wealthy and well-connected but little to lift up the bottom half.
The solution does not lie in the dubious “fair share” class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. It entails pruning back outmoded licensing laws that restrain low-income entrepreneurs. And it means creating real solutions — not just proposing market distortions — for people who cannot find jobs that pay enough to support their families.
In other words, Washington needs to be more like the Dalai Lama. Without abandoning principles, we need practical policies based on moral empathy. Tackling these issues may offend entrenched interests, but this is immaterial. It must be done. And temporary political discomfort pales in comparison with the suffering that vulnerable people bear every day.
At one point in our summit, I deviated from the suffering of the poor and queried the Dalai Lama about discomfort in his own life. “Your Holiness,” I asked, “what gives you suffering?” I expected something quotably profound, perhaps about the loss of his homeland. Instead, he thought for a moment, loosened his maroon robe slightly, and once again married the practical with the rhapsodic.

“Right now,” he said, “I am a little hot.”
Arthur C. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute.

1388. Gabriel Garcรญa Mรกrquez, Conjurer of Literary Magic, Dies at 87

By Jonathan Kandell, The New York Times, April 17, 2014
Gabriel Garcรญa Mรกrquez
Gabriel Garcรญa Mรกrquez, the Colombian novelist whose “One Hundred Years of Solitude” established him as a giant of 20th-century literature, died on Thursday at his home in Mexico City. He was 87.
Cristรณbal Pera, his former editor at Random House, confirmed the death. Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez learned he had lymphatic cancer in 1999, and a brother said in 2012 that he had developed senile dementia.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez, who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1982, wrote fiction rooted in a mythical Latin American landscape of his own creation, but his appeal was universal. His books were translated into dozens of languages. He was among a select roster of canonical writers — Dickens, Tolstoy and Hemingway among them — who were embraced both by critics and by a mass audience.
“Each new work of his is received by expectant critics and readers as an event of world importance,” the Swedish Academy of Letters said in awarding him the Nobel.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez was a master of the literary genre known as magical realism, in which the miraculous and the real converge. In his novels and stories, storms rage for years, flowers drift from the skies, tyrants survive for centuries, priests levitate and corpses fail to decompose. And, more plausibly, lovers rekindle their passion after a half-century apart.
Magical realism, he said, sprang from Latin America’s history of vicious dictators and romantic revolutionaries, of long years of hunger, illness and violence. In accepting his Nobel, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez said: “Poets and beggars, musicians and prophets, warriors and scoundrels, all creatures of that unbridled reality, we have had to ask but little of imagination. For our crucial problem has been a lack of conventional means to render our lives believable.”
Like many Latin American intellectuals and artists, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez felt impelled to speak out on the political issues of his day. He viewed the world from a left-wing perspective, bitterly opposing Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the right-wing Chilean dictator, and unswervingly supporting Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Castro became such a close friend that Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez showed him drafts of his unpublished books.
No draft had more impact than the one for “One Hundred Years of Solitude.” Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez’s editor began reading it at home one rainy day, and as he read page after page by this unknown Colombian author, his excitement grew. Soon he called the Argentine novelist Tomรกs Eloy Martรญnez and summoned him urgently to the home.
Mr. Eloy Martinez remembered entering the foyer with wet shoes and encountering pages strewn across the floor by the editor in his eagerness to read through the work. They were the first pages of a book that in 1967 would vault Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez onto the world stage. He later authorized an English translation, by Gregory Rabassa. In Spanish or English, readers were tantalized from its opening sentences:
“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Col. Aureliano Buendรญa was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice. At that time Macondo was a village of 20 adobe houses built on the bank of a river of clear water that ran along a bed of polished stones, which were white and enormous, like prehistoric eggs. The world was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point.”
“One Hundred Years of Solitude” would sell tens of millions of copies. The Chilean poet Pablo Neruda called it “the greatest revelation in the Spanish language since ‘Don Quixote.’ ” The novelist William Kennedy hailed it as “the first piece of literature since the Book of Genesis that should be required reading for the entire human race.”
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez was rattled by the praise. He grew to hate “One Hundred Years of Solitude,” he said in interviews, because he feared his subsequent work would not measure up to it in readers’ eyes. He need not have worried. Almost all his 15 other novels and short-story collections were lionized by critics and devoured by readers.
Lived With His Grandparents
Gabriel Garcรญa Mรกrquez was born in Aracataca, a small town near Colombia’s Caribbean coast, on March 6, 1927, the eldest child of Luisa Santiaga Mรกrquez and Gabriel Elijio Garcรญa. His father, a postal clerk, telegraph operator and itinerant pharmacist, could barely support his wife and 12 children; Gabriel, the eldest, spent his early childhood living in the large, ramshackle house of his maternal grandparents. The house influenced his writing; it seemed inhabited, he said, by the ghosts his grandmother conjured in the stories she told.
His maternal grandfather, Nicolรกs Mรกrquez Mejรญa, a retired army colonel, was also an influence — “the most important figure of my life,” Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez said. The grandfather bore a marked resemblance to Colonel Buendรญa, the protagonist of “One Hundred Years of Solitude,” and the book’s mythical village of Macondo draws heavily on Aracataca.
In his 2002 memoir, “Living to Tell the Tale,” Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez recalled a river trip back to Aracataca in 1950, his first trip there since childhood.
“The first thing that struck me,” he wrote, “was the silence. A material silence I could have identified blindfolded among all the silences in the world. The reverberation of the heat was so intense that you seemed to be looking at everything through undulating glass. As far as the eye could see there was no recollection of human life, nothing that was not covered by a faint sprinkling of burning dust.”
Much of his fiction unfolds in or near Macondo, just as William Faulkner, whom he admired, invented Yoknapatawpha County as the Mississippi setting for some of his own novels.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez moved to Bogotรก as a teenager. He studied law there but never received a degree; he turned instead to journalism. The late 1940s and early ’50s in Colombia were a period of civil strife known as La Violencia. The ideological causes were nebulous, but the savagery was stark, as many as 300,000 deaths. La Violencia would become the background for several of his novels.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez eked out a living writing for newspapers in Cartagena and then Barranquilla, where he lived in the garret of a brothel and saw a future in literature. “It was a bohemian life: finish at the paper at 1 in the morning, then write a poem or a short story until about 3, then go out to have a beer,” he said in an interview in 1996. “When you went home at dawn, ladies who were going to Mass would cross to the other side of the street for fear that you were either drunk or intending to mug or rape them.”
He read intensely — the Americans Hemingway, Faulkner, Twain and Melville; the Europeans Dickens, Tolstoy, Proust, Kafka and Virginia Woolf.
“I cannot imagine how anyone could even think of writing a novel without having at least a vague of idea of the 10,000 years of literature that have gone before,” Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez said. But, he added, “I’ve never tried to imitate authors I’ve admired. On the contrary, I’ve done all I could not to imitate them.”
As a journalist he scored a scoop when he interviewed a sailor who had been portrayed by the Colombian government as the heroic survivor of a navy destroyer lost at sea. The sailor admitted to him that the ship had been carrying a heavy load of contraband household goods, which unloosed during a storm and caused the ship to list enough to sink. His report, in 1955, infuriated Gen. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, the country’s dictator, and Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez fled to Europe. He spent two years there as a foreign correspondent.

Unimpressed by Europe
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez was less impressed by Western Europe than many Latin American writers, who looked to the Old World as their cultural fountainhead. His dispatches often reflected his belief that Europeans were patronizing toward Latin America even though their own societies were in decline.
He echoed these convictions in his Nobel address. Europeans, he said, “insist on measuring us with the yardstick that they use for themselves, forgetting that the ravages of life are not the same for all, and that the quest for our own identity is just as arduous and bloody for us as it was for them.”
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez lost his job when his newspaper was shut down by the Rojas Pinilla regime. Stranded in Paris, he scavenged and sold bottles to survive, but he managed to begin a short novel, “In Evil Hour.”
While working on that book he took time off in 1957 to complete another short novel, “No One Writes to the Colonel,” about an impoverished retired army officer, not unlike the author’s grandfather, who waits endlessly for a letter replying to his requests for a military pension. It was published to acclaim four years later. (“In Evil Hour” was also published in the early 1960s.)
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez alternated between journalism and fiction in the late 1950s. (A multipart newspaper series on a sailor lost at sea for 10 days was later published in book form as “The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor.”) While working for newspapers and magazines in Venezuela, he wrote a short-story collection, “Big Mama’s Funeral,” which is set in Macondo and incorporates the kind of magical elements he would master in “One Hundred Years of Solitude.” From 1959 to 1961 he supported the Castro revolution and wrote for Prensa Latina, the official Cuban press agency.
In 1961 he moved to Mexico City, where he would live on and off for the rest of his life. It was there, in 1965, after a four-year dry spell in which he wrote no fiction, that Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez began “One Hundred Years of Solitude.” The inspiration for it, he said, came to him while he was driving to Acapulco.
Returning home, he began an almost undistracted 18 months of writing while his wife, Mercedes, looked after the household. “When I was finished writing,” he recalled, “my wife said: ‘Did you really finish it? We owe $12,000.’ ”
With the book’s publication in 1967, in Buenos Aires, the family never owed a penny again. “One Hundred Years of Solitude” was sold out within days.
In following the rise and fall of the Buendรญa family through several generations of war and peace, affluence and poverty, the novel seemed to many critics and readers the defining saga of Latin America’s social and political history.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez made no claim to have invented magical realism; he pointed out that elements of it had appeared before in Latin American literature. But no one before him had used the style with such artistry, exuberance and power. Magical realism would soon inspire writers on both sides of the Atlantic, most notably Isabel Allende in Chile and Salman Rushdie in Britain.
“Reality is also the myths of the common people,” Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez told an interviewer. “I realized that reality isn’t just the police that kill people, but also everything that forms part of the life of the common people.”
In 1973, when General Pinochet overthrew Chile’s democratically elected Marxist president, Salvador Allende, who committed suicide, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez vowed never to write as long as General Pinochet remained in power.
The Pinochet dictatorship lasted 17 years, but Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez released himself from his vow well before it ended. “I never thought he’d last so long,” he said in a 1997 interview with The Washington Post. “Time convinced me I was wrong. What I was doing was allowing Pinochet to stop me from writing, which means I had submitted to voluntary censorship.”
In 1975 he published his next novel, “The Autumn of the Patriarch,” about a dictator in a phantasmagorical Latin American state who rules for so many decades that nobody can recall what life was like before him. As he had predicted, some critics faulted the work for not matching the artistry of “One Hundred Years of Solitude.” But others raved about it, and it became a global best seller. He called it his best novel.
In “Chronicle of a Death Foretold,” published in 1981, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez used journalistic techniques to tell a story, apparently drawn from a real incident, in which the brothers of a woman who has lost her virginity murder the man responsible, Santiago Nasar. The brothers announce their intention to avenge their family honor, but because of a variety of odd circumstances, Nasar remains unaware of his impending fate.
“Love in the Time of Cholera,” published in 1985, was Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez’s most romantic novel, the story of the resumption of a passionate relationship between a recently widowed septuagenarian and the lover she had broken with more than 50 years before.
“The General in His Labyrinth,” published in 1989, combined imagination with historical fact to conjure up the last days of Simรณn Bolรญvar, the father of South America’s independence from Spain. The portrait of the aging Bolรญvar as a flatulent philanderer, abandoned and ridiculed by his onetime followers, aroused controversy on a continent that viewed him as South America’s version of George Washington. But Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez said that his depiction had been drawn from a careful perusal of Bolรญvar’s personal letters.
As his fame grew, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez — or Gabo, as he was called by friends — enjoyed a lifestyle he would have found inconceivable in his struggling youth. He kept homes in Mexico City, Barcelona, Paris and Cartagena, on Colombia’s Caribbean coast. Recognizable by his bushy mustache, he dressed fastidiously, preferring a white monotone encompassing linen suits, shirts, shoes and even watchbands.
Devoted to the Left
He contributed his prestige, time and money to left-wing causes. He helped finance a Venezuelan political party. He was a strong defender of the Sandinistas, the leftist revolutionaries who took power in Nicaragua.
For more than three decades the State Department denied Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez a visa to travel in the United States, supposedly because he had been a member of the Colombian Communist Party in the 1950s but almost certainly because of his continuing espousal of left-wing causes and his friendship with Mr. Castro. The ban was rescinded in 1995 after President Bill Clinton invited him to Martha’s Vineyard.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez’s ties to Mr. Castro troubled some intellectuals and human rights advocates. Susan Sontag wrote in the 1980s, “To me it’s scandalous that a writer of such enormous talent be a spokesperson for a government which has put more people in jail (proportionately to its population) than any other government in the world.”
He attributed the criticism to what he called Americans’ “almost pornographic obsession with Castro.” But he became sensitive enough about the issue to intercede on behalf of jailed Cuban dissidents.
After receiving his cancer diagnosis in 1999, Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez devoted most of his subsequent writing to his memoirs. One exception was the novella “Memories of My Melancholy Whores,” about the love affair between a 90-year-old man and a 14-year-old prostitute, published in 2004.
In July 2012, his brother, Jaime, was quoted as saying that Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez had senile dementia and had stopped writing. Mr. Pera, the author’s editor at Random House Mondadori, said at the time that Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez had been working on a novel, “We’ll See Each Other in August,” but that no publication date had been scheduled. The author seemed disinclined to have it published, Mr. Pera said: “He told me, ‘This far along I don’t need to publish more.’ ”
Dozens of television and film adaptations were made of Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez’s works, but none achieved the critical or commercial success of his writing, and he declined requests for the movie rights to “One Hundred Years of Solitude.” The novel’s readers, he once said, “always imagine the characters as they want, as their aunt or their grandfather, and the moment you bring that to the screen, the reader’s margin for creativity disappears.  Besides his wife, Mercedes, his survivors include two sons, Rodrigo and Gonzalo.
Mr. Garcรญa Mรกrquez attributed his rigorous, disciplined schedule in part to his sons. As a young father he took them to school in the morning and picked them up in the afternoon. During the interval — from 8 in the morning to 2 in the afternoon — he would write.

“When I finished one book, I wouldn’t write for a while,” he said in 1966. “Then I had to learn how to do it all over again. The arm goes cold; there’s a learning process you have to go through again before you rediscover the warmth that comes over you when you are writing.”