Re: <nettime> What is a global energy regime shift?

[Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com>]

Sebastian wrote:

"the basic idea - the unavoidable EU-wide bail-out must be a bold
green new deal - is a reformist proposal that will build bridges
between Antifa and CEOs. The state of necessity implies it"

I am glad to hear you say it out loud.

Here in the US, postmodern fascism does not look strong, innovative
and sexy, as a few idiots thought a few years ago. Instead it looks
stupid, violent and incredibly dangerous. By neglecting the least
consideration of fragile lives, the government's treatment of the
pandemic demonstrates what the Anthropocene really means. Namely,
a slow descent into hell on earth, where all the pleasure of life
and sociability gradually turns into a sinister shadow that you
can't even cling to, because then the shadow itself starts to shrink
and dissolve. We are experiencing that in advance of the general
global trend - though not by much I guess (ask the Brazilians for
example). We have also had to look into the eyes of the helicopters,
the humvees, and obviously, the racist cops. All of this results from
the refusal to give up an extractive/industrial past built on the
sinews of slavery.

The collapse of the post-WWII order has struck fear into the silicon
chip of global elites. A nightmare vision reveals their virus-laden
circuits twisting in the heat of crude populist flames. But they are
pros, so obviously they recognize that a global crisis can be, not
just the occasion to suck fictitious capital from the central banks,
but also, the chance to shape a turning point in eco-technics and
geohistory. Look carefully at this report from Govt. Sachs to see the
strategy:

"Renewable power will become the largest area of spending in the
energy industry in 2021, on our estimates, surpassing upstream oil
& gas for the first time in history, driven by bifurcating cost of
capital (up to 20% for long-term oil projects, down to 3-5% for
renewables). Rising capital markets engagement in climate change
is driving this seismic shift in capital allocation, charging an
implied carbon price of US$40-80/ton for new hydrocarbon developments,
on our estimates. Concerns around affordability and manufacturing
cost competitiveness may, however, delay the development of carbon
markets (today's average global carbon price is only US$3/ton),
similar to the aftermath of previous recessions. We believe this
would lead to a two-speed de-carbonisation process, with fiscal and
monetary stimulus accelerating clean tech investments already at
scale (e.g., renewables), while nascent sequestration technologies
with carbon pricing as the main revenue line may struggle. Voluntary
credit markets could fill in some of the policy gaps, particularly
in nature-based solutions, but ultimately we believe carbon pricing
is necessary to foster broad clean tech innovation and achieve
cost-efficient net zero carbon." ( https://bit.ly/3i4oMvZ)

So, the investors want, not only huge injections of cash into the
energy sector ("fiscal and monetary stimulus"), but also government
intervention into the markets. Yet they realize that the latter is
anything but certain - after all, they fought it tooth and nail just
one crisis ago. As Trump's political formula collapses, old Republican
power players like George Schultz, whom Max Herman mentions, will
come out in favor of the carbonomics formula. Deficit spending and
carbon pricing are necessary but far from sufficient. All that would
produce is a transformation of Big Oil into Big Energy. The question
for radical and progressive movements is what we can get out of the
coming remake of the entire public sector. Decades of organizing and
of struggle, in the streets, in workplaces and institutions, in NGOs
and in local governments are now on the line, not just in the US but
around the world.

What we want is not Big Energy. What we want is a change in everyday
life that can only be got from a transformation of the state. The
capitalist state will not just collapse, you cannot just walk away
from it, and Black Lives Matter will not be a reality because of
protests alone, no matter how massive or welcome they may be. Today
Keith Ellison, who is the Minnesota prosecutor going after George
Floyd's killers, filed suit against the American Petroleum Institute,
Exxon Mobil Corp and Koch Industries for "a decades-long campaign to
deceive the public about climate change." ( https://reut.rs/2YARVYh)
This suit is aimed directly at the push to drive new pipelines
through Minnesota, and thereby put more deadly Tar Sands carbon into
the atmosphere, while despoiling Indigenous lands and sickening
everyone in multiple dimensions. This is part of the struggle
against racism, it's obvious. It's also part of the struggle for an
egalitarian society that meets basic needs and expands life chances
for everyone. The three entities being charged all have power at
the global level. In addition to their own armed forces they have
benefited enormously from their preeminent influence over the corrupt
regulatory institutions and the racist police. A change can only occur
when radical movements expose core issues, create new leadership and
convince enough of the mainstream to take control. An election is a
crucial step in that process, but only the first one.

The left can dream about a revolution - or it can take this one.
But the transformation of the cultural-political economy will need
more sustained effort than fever dreams. Which is basically the
alternative.

onward, Brian



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: