If you already have a gloomy, depressed, and perhaps even a hopeless feeling about humankind's prospects of weaning ourselves from the dangerous carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels quickly enough to avoid the 2 degree centigrade increase in temperature by 2050 that global warming scientist tell us is vital to avoid disaster, this article by Christopher Hayes, in the Nation is not going to make you feel better. In this five page long, dense essay, The New Abolitionism: Averting planetary disaster will mean forcing fossil fuel companies to give up at least $10 trillion in wealth,
To put the magnitude of the challenge we face of trying to gain control of global warming and avoid planetary disaster Chris Hayes draws the comparison of the value of slaves to the old south and the value of oil and coal to fossil fuels companies which will not be burned if we follow the recommendations of global warming scientist and cut back on burning fossil fuels. Both, have a modern day equivalent of about 16% of total household wealth, or $10 trillion in modern day dollars.
Just as the old South was not willing to give up $10 trillion of wealth without a fight, Christopher Hayes does not expect oil and coal companies to give up $10 trillion of the value of their reserves without quite a battle.
Remember, all of this is happening at the same time that (a) fossil fuel companies are pulling more carbon out of the ground than ever before, and (b) it’s becoming increasingly clear that those companies will have to leave 80 percent of their reserves in the ground if we are to avert a global cataclysm. In the same way that the abolition movement cast a shadow over the cotton boom, so does the movement to put a price on carbon spook the fossil fuel companies, which even at their moment of peak triumph wonder if a radical change is looming around the corner.
Hayes take care to express that he is not trying to indict fossil fuel companies with the level of "moral bankruptcy" of slave holding, his comparison is meant to draw our attention to the magnitude of the wealth society is asking fossil fuel companies, related companies, and their shareholders to forego for the common good of mankind, perhaps even our survival.
In fact, the parallel I want to highlight is between the opponents of slavery and the opponents of fossil fuels. Because the abolitionists were ultimately successful, it’s all too easy to lose sight of just how radical their demand was at the time: that some of the wealthiest people in the country would have to give up their wealth. That liquidation of private wealth is the only precedent for what today’s climate justice movement is rightly demanding: that trillions of dollars of fossil fuel stay in the ground. It is an audacious demand, and those making it should be clear-eyed about just what they’re asking. They should also recognize that, like the abolitionists of yore, their task may be as much instigation and disruption as it is persuasion. There is no way around conflict with this much money on the line, no available solution that makes everyone happy. No use trying to persuade people otherwise.
Christopher Hayes finds reasons for optimism. While slavery was a low-cost way of producing wealth, with low-capital intensity, producing fossil fuels is highly capital intensive and costly, making it vulnerable to political opposition such as protests, boycotts, and divestment programs. He cites opposition go the Keystone pipeline as an example. We've just heard from Ericlewis0 that President Obama is planning on rejecting this project as he should.
Think about that for a second: to stay below a 2 degree Celsius rise, we can burn only one-fifth of the total fossil fuel that companies have in their reserves right now. And yet, fossil fuel companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars looking for new reserves—reserves that would be sold and emitted only in some distant postapocalyptic future in which we’ve already burned enough fossil fuel to warm the planet past even the most horrific projections.
This means that fossil fuel companies are taking their investors’ money and spending it on this extremely expensive suicide mission. Every single day. If investors say, “Stop it—we want that money back as dividends rather than being spent on exploration,” then, according to this industry insider, “what that means is, literally, the oil and gas companies don’t have a viable business model. If all your investors say that, and all the analysts start saying that, they can no longer grow as businesses.”
So, Hayes sees this continued need for stunning and continuous amounts of new capital infusion as fossil fuel's Achilles' heel. (Continued below squiggle.)
Hayes tells us that shareholders recently pushed ExxonMobil to start reporting its risk of "stranded assets," the amount of its reserves it may not be able to sell because of global warming. Hayes reports that McKibben's, response (who appears to be a spokesmen, perhaps, CEO of Exxon), amounted to saying, “(w)e plan on overheating the planet, we don’t think any government will stop us, we dare you to try."
As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” What the climate justice movement is demanding is the ultimate abolition of fossil fuels. And our fates all depend on whether they succeed.
This outstanding and thought provoking essay is worth reading for its big picture perspective on the magnitude and nature of the "battle" to avoid global warming confronting us. Hayes spends a page and a half too long overdeveloping the comparison to slavery, which is apt and clever, just so overdone it makes it difficult to read this essay in one sitting. Busy readers might skim the first two pages.
After reading this essay, you will see more clearly that our success meeting the challenge of global warming will not be achievable with mere consciousness raising and education. Those who stand to lose $10 trillion of wealth can be expected to use every method at their disposal to fight back which may explain many of the actions of the Koch brothers whose $100 billion of wealth, is a noticeable fraction of this fossil fuel wealth.
Oddly enough, this dismal analysis of the likelihood of a battle of the magnitude of the civil war leaves me more optimistic rather than less, as I feel like we may be ready to finally see and engage this battle for what it is.
As Winston Churchill said at a far more advanced state of World War II:
This is not the end,
This is not the beginning of the end,
But, this is the end of the beginning.
Except in this case, we are not at the "end of the beginning," but perhaps getting close to thinking seriously, about "beginning the beginning." Which would be tremendous progress compared to where we have been for the last 30 to 40 years scientists have been warning us this battle was approaching.