Author: telegraph

Seven Truths About Immigration

Posted on July 13, 2018

1. A record high of 75 percent of Americans now say immigration is a “good thing” for the country.

2. America needs more immigrants, not fewer, because our population is rapidly aging.

3. Historically, new immigrants have contributed more to society in taxes than they have taken from society in terms of public assistance.

 

 

4. Most immigrants don’t take jobs away from native-born Americans. To the contrary, their spending creates more jobs.

5. Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants generate more crime is dead wrong. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United States.

6. Violent crime rates in America are actually at historical lows, with the homicide rate back to its level from the early 1960s.

7. Illegal border crossings have been declining since 2014 – long before Trump’s “crackdown.” There is no “surge” in illegal immigration.

Please spread the truth.

America Is Falling Far Behind On Key World Goals

Posted on July 12, 2018

The idea of sustainable development is that every nation (and local community) should aim for a triple bottom line: economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability. However, many of our politicians have never warmed to the idea. The business of America, after all, is business, or so goes the dangerous view of the Washington lobbyists. Yet America is paying a high and rising price for neglecting social and environmental objectives.

We must urgently hope that America’s flashing-red danger signs — falling life expectancy, rising suicide rates, stagnant or falling subjective well-being, major epidemics of opioids, depression, obesity and record losses from climate-related disasters – will soon trigger a change of course in the United States toward social justice and honesty in government.

And if we need any more convincing, two new studies point to the urgency of taking action.

This week my colleagues and I at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Bertelsmann Foundation published the 2018 Sustainable Development Goal Index. This index measures the progress of each nation toward the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that were adopted in 2015 by all 193 UN member states as a road map for the period 2016-2030. These goals range from ending poverty (SDG 1) and hunger (SDG 2) to improving the quality of education (SDG 4) to reducing inequality (SDG 10) to protecting the environment (SDGs 11-15), and more.

Sweden, Denmark and Finland are ranked first, second and third this year, respectively, indicating they are the three countries closest to achieving the 17 SDGs. Among the 35 high-income countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States, alas, placed no better than 29th.

There is an added reason for concern for the United States. If we compare the rankings on the SDG Index with those of happiness reported in the recent 2018 World Happiness Report, we find a strong relationship. Countries that rank high on the SDGs also rank high on happiness. Six countries are in the Top 10 of both rankings (Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and Sweden). The United States, on the other hand, ranks a rather depressing 18th on the happiness chart, far behind the leading countries.

What’s worse, the US happiness ranking has been falling over the years.

The United States ranks so low on the SDG Index, in particular, because the US political and economic framework — including hostility to labor unions, tax cuts for the rich, weak pollution control and a limited social safety net — put the emphasis on economic growth over social fairness and environmental protection. While sustainable development is supposed to rest on three legs — economic, social and environmental — the US economy teeters precariously on just the economic leg, ready to tumble down in social conflict and environmental mayhem.

The SDG index records the bad news. Consider the social goals. On SDG 5, the goal of promoting gender equality, the United States ranks 23rd out of the 35 OECD countries. On SDG 10, the goal of reducing income equality, the United States ranks a dismal 31 of 35 OECD countries. And on SDG 16, the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, it ranks a lowly 26 of 35 OECD countries.

The United States similarly ranks low on environmental sustainability. Most disastrously, on SDG 13, the goal to limit human-caused global warming, the United States ranks a dreadful 33 out of 35 OECD countries. The US economy emits around 16 tons of carbon dioxide per person each year, just about the highest CO2 emissions rate in the world. With Donald Trump aggressively promoting even more fracking and oil drilling, not to mention subsidizing the coal sector, America’s environmental standing is likely to fall even further in the coming years.

The SDG Index is also designed to measure the indirect “spillover” damage that the United States and some other (mainly rich) countries are causing through international trade and finance. For example, when US consumers buy industrial products from China’s polluting industries, the SDG Index attributes some of the pollution to the US consumers. And when the US consumers purchase overseas farm products, the SDG index records the pollution associated with the fertilizers used in the overseas farm production.

There are also other less obvious negative spillovers included in the index. The United States and other arms exporters are given demerits in the index since the arms exports may contribute to future armed conflicts. Also, the United States and some other nations (such as the United Kingdom) are scored lower for making it easy for overseas wealth-holders to avoid taxes in their home countries by stashing the money in private low-tax accounts in the United States and other tax havens.

For the first time, the report measures not only progress toward the SDGs but also the efforts by governments to achieve the SDGs. For the largest 20 economies (the so-called G20 countries), governments are evaluated on their commitment to the SDGs: Are top officials speaking about the SDGs? Is the nation’s statistical agency measuring SDG progress? Is the government adopting policies and plans to achieve the SDGs? Most of the G20 governments are indeed making SDG-based plans. Not so the Trump administration, which has utterly ignored the SDGs. The US government ranks dead last among the G20 countries on SDG effort.

While our national politics are not yet moving in that direction, there are new initiatives at the state and local level in many parts of the nation — for example, New York City’s bold adoption of the SDG framework. The lessons from around the world are clear: Sustainable development, rather than the ruthless pursuit of economic growth at any cost, is the true path to greater well-being on a lasting basis.

Renewable Energy Around The World

Posted on July 10, 2018

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and we have been a leader in so many ways across different generations. However, when it comes to climate science and renewable energy we are falling behind other countries who have taken the leadership and initiative to move towards 100% renewable energy.

Achieving 100% renewable energy is possible and plausible for the United States of America.

Many other developed nations have almost completely incorporated renewable energy into their economies and have been able to power their entire countries for substantial amounts of time solely on these methods. Others are moving in that direction and achieving small steps – a day, a month, an industry, solely relying on renewable energy.

Here are some renewable energy leaders leaders around the world:

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has been a world leader in renewable energy for years. In 2015, Costa Rica ran on 100% renewable energy for 285 days, and on 100% renewable energy for 250 days in 2016. According to The Costa Rica News, in 2017, “Costa Rica achieved the admirable 300-day in a row mark in which its electric system operated with exclusively renewable sources, mainly [hydroelectric], besides the production of renewable energy covered 99.62% of the electricity needs of the country. A mark that also exceeds the records of 2015 and 2016.” Costa Rica does this through relying heavily on hydroelectric power, wind energy, geothermal energy, and small amounts of solar energy and biomass. This commitment to renewable energy has, according to the Costa Rica News “turned Costa Rica into the largest producer of clean energy from all of Central America and the Caribbean.”

Iceland

Almost 100% of all energy consumed on Iceland is renewable energy. The UN describes that in addition, “9 out of every 10 houses are heated directly with geothermal energy.” Iceland meets it energy needs largely through hydroelectric and geothermal sources. The UN acknowledges that the only exception to Iceland’s pervasive use of renewable energy is its reliance on fossil fuels for transport. The UN describes that Iceland’s move from fossil fuels to renewable energy was not inspired by climate change, instead, “The drive behind this transition was simple—Iceland could not sustain oil price fluctuations occurring due to a number of crises affecting world energy markets. …[and] for its isolated location on the edge of the Arctic Circle.” To rectify this issue, Iceland hired local businesses and entrepreneurs to shift energy reliance from foreign providers to internal sources. The Icelandic government also creates policies to encourage this shift: “To further incentivize geothermal energy utilization, the Government of Iceland established a geothermal drilling mitigation fund in the late 1960s. The fund loaned money for geothermal research and test drilling, while providing cost recovery for failed projects. The established legal framework also made it attractive for households to connect to the new geothermal district-heating network rather than to continue using fossil fuels.” The UN describes that these projects also diversified the economy, created jobs, and established a nationwide power grid.

Norway

“In Norway, 98 percent of the electricity production come from renewable energy sources,” according to the Norwegian government. The vast majority of Norway’s renewable energy comes from hydropower, an industry that has been growing in Norway since the 1800s. However, wind and thermal energy also contribute. Unlike many other countries, the Norwegian government explains that 90 % Norwegian energy production is owned by the state, counties, and municipalities “to secure a role for the Norwegian state in the ongoing electrification of the country, and ensure that the hydropower resources would benefit the nation as a whole.”

Portugal

In March of 2018, Portugal produced 103.6% of the energy required to meet the country’s electrical demand. According to NPR, “Fifty-five percent of that energy was produced through hydro power, while 42 percent came from wind.” Based on this success, Portugal expects that by the year 2040 that “the production of renewable electricity will be able to guarantee, in a cost-effective way, the total annual electricity consumption of Mainland Portugal.”

Germany

In January of 2018, Germany briefly covered 100% of its energy demand through renewable energy. In addition, according to Clean Energy Wire, last year “In the whole of last year, the world’s fourth largest economy produced a record 36.1 percent of its total power needs with renewable sources.” Due to the growing presence of renewable energy in Germany, there are now days when Germany generates half of its power from the sun.

While powering a country with 90% to 100% renewable energy might seem a daunting task for larger economies, many other foreign governments have invested in making certain aspects of their economy run entirely on renewable energy, or have focused on specific areas of the country, setting reasonable (and achievable) goals that will serve as test cases for later expansion of renewable energy. Some of these countries include:

China

In July of 2017 the Chinese announced that Qinghai Province—a territory the size of Texas—had gone a week relying on 100% renewable energy including solar, wind, and hydropower. During that week, Business Insider reports that “the Qinghai province generated 1.1 billion kilowatt hours of energy for over 5.6 million residents. That’s equal to burning 535,000 tons of coal.” This week period was a test by the Chinese government to test the viability of relying on renewables long-term. Ultimately, “China hopes to produce 20% of its electricity from clean sources by 2030.”

About the same time the Chinese released aerial photos of their newest giant solar farm—which seen from above depicts a cheerful black-and-white panda. Business Insider reports that, “it will be able to produce 3.2 billion kilowatt-hours of solar energy in 25 years… reducing carbon emissions by 2.74 million tons.”

England

On April 21st2017, Great Britain managed to meet its power demands without burning a lump of coal for the first time since the launch of the Industrial Revolution. This is one small step towards a transition away from fossil fuels to meet Great Britain’s climate change commitments. The Guardian reports that, Hannah Martin, the head of energy at Greenpeace UK, described this milestone as part of a much larger movement: “The first day without coal in Britain since the Industrial Revolution marks a watershed in the energy transition. A decade ago, a day without coal would have been unimaginable, and in 10 years’ time our energy system will have radically transformed again.”

Holland

In 2015 Holland set a goal to power all Dutch electric trains with wind energy by 2018. By January of 2017, that goal had been met. According to The Guardian, Holland met their goal a year ahead of schedule due to, “an increase in the number of wind farms across the country and off the coast of the Netherlands.”

Chile

Solar production has grown six-fold since 2014 in Chile. In fact, the New York Times reported that “Chilean officials have an even more ambitious projection, saying the country is on track to rely on clean sources for 90 percent of its electricity needs by 2050, up from the current 45 percent.” The initial movement to renewable energy sources was largely due to the high cost and uncertainty of energy supply when that energy was provided by outside sources. In addition, due to severe weather events that have made hydropower plants less reliable in Chile, the government has turned to more varied sources including wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources.

India

The largest coal mining company in the world (which produces 82% of India’s coal), announced the closure of dozens of coal mines and the cancellation of plans for dozens of new coal-fired generation stations because the cost of solar power was significantly undercutting fossil fuel. The Independent describes that “India’s solar sector has received heavy international investment, and the plummeting price of solar electricity has increased pressure on fossil fuel companies in the country.” The Independent also reports that “The government has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables will generate 57 per cent of its power by 2027.”

The United States

Governmental steps taken to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to move towards a clean and green future are not solely happening outside of the United States. Fortune reports that “Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016.” Since 2008, renewable share of energy consumption has doubled. This is largely due to market forces that are responding to the dropping price of solar and wind energy. Fortune also points out that “the solar and wind industries are creating jobs faster than the rest of the economy.”

Many cities and states are, in fact, far outpacing the rest of the United States and have taken even greater steps towards 100% renewable energy. Below are two examples:

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

In June of 2017, President Trump announced that he would pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement citing that he was elected by the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. In response, the Mayor of Pittsburgh, Bill Peduto responded in a press release that “Pittsburgh will not only heed the guidelines of the Paris Agreement — we will work to move towards 100 percent clean and renewable energy for our future, our economy, and our people.”

Since June of last year, Mayor Peduto have taken steps to make that goal a reality. On April 5th of 2018, 180 U.S. Mayors including Mayor Peduto signed a letter resolving to make solar power a key element in their renewable energy plans. A press release quoted Mayor Peduto: “Solar power is a key component of advancing Pittsburgh’s clean energy transition. We have numerous assets that can provide as the launching point for solar generation in Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania, from parking lots to rooftops. Increasing the amount of locally generated solar power helps reduce carbon pollution, clean our air and provide a resilient, sustainable and cost-effective electricity.”

The next month, Pittsburg released its Climate Action Plan that establishes a goal for 100% renewable energy, and 100% fossil fuel free by 2030 as well as complete divestment from the fossil fuel industry.

Hawaii

Cities are not the only entities in the United States that are working towards 100% renewable energy. Hawaii is an example of an entire state that is working toward that goal.

In 2008 Hawaii and the Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) “to collaborate on the reduction of Hawaii’s heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels.” The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative was begun by that agreement.  In 2014, the initial goals were renewed and upgraded to include:

  • Achieving the nation’s first-ever 100 percent renewable portfolio standards (RPS) by the year 2045.
  • Reducing electricity consumption by 4,300 gigawatt-hours by 2030, enough electricity to power every home on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Hawaii Island for more than two years.
  • Reducing petroleum use in Hawaii’s transportation sector which accounts for two-thirds of the state’s overall energy usage.

In July of 2017, the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission approved an official plan put forward by Hawaiian Electric Companies that laid out exactly how Hawaii would achieve 100% renewable energy by 2040 (five years ahead of the goal.)

Hawaii serves as a reminder that states too can make significant headway towards the goal of 100% renewable energy. Progress is possible and is happening, if slowly.

If you would like to know more about how your state can move towards 100% renewables based on scientific studies that have analyzed the renewable energy potential in each area, visit The Solutions Project website.

A list of cities, counties, and states committed to, or that have achieved 100% renewable energy can also be found here.

Real Border Security Comes From A Moral Foreign Policy

Posted on July 6, 2018

The horrific accounts of immigrant families being torn apart have inspired ordinary Americans to take to the streets, calling for an end to the Trump Administration’s cruel detention policies. But while President Trump’s recent actions have led to shockingly brutal child incarceration, mass arrests, and the criminalization of immigrants, the issues that push desperate migrants and refugees to our borders span many decades. Progressives must seize this historic moment to tackle the United States’ long-dysfunctional relationship with its Latin American and Caribbean neighbors and build new, more perfect ties.

Half a century ago, Martin Luther King Jr. argued that “a true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.” Turning to the Western Hemisphere, King said, “It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, ‘This is not just.’” The time is now for such a revolution: By decisively breaking with long-standing US policy, we can ease the violence and misery south of our borders, so that people may finally lead dignified lives in stable communities throughout the Americas.

Indeed, look at the 1980s, when military dictatorships and right-wing militias in Central America—armed, trained, and continuously backed by the United States—killed hundreds of thousands of people across El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, sparked a wave of migration into the United States. Or look at the pro-corporate North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which displaced millions of Mexicans in the agricultural sector, entrenching poverty, and contributing to a surge in Mexican emigration into the United States. The Trump administration’s decision to end protections for tens of thousands of Haitian immigrants is only the latest blow to a country that had already suffered two US-backed overthrows of its elected governments in a 13-year span. And in Honduras, a leading source of unaccompanied child refugees today, it was the United States that helped ensure the success of a violent military coup against the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, in 2009, unleashing a flood of repression and displacement.

This largely unbroken pattern of imperial behavior is now threatening to plunge Latin America’s largest country, Brazil, into chaos. US policy has contributed to a right-wing assault on democracy there, leading to the unconstitutional ousting of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016. What has followed—the assassination of prominent Afro-Brazilian city councilor Marielle Franco in March of this year, and the current imprisonment of the popular former president Lula da Silva (widely seen as an attempt to prevent him from running in upcoming elections, which polls show he would win by a large margin)—flies in the face of human rights and US interests.

A progressive vision for the hemisphere, then, must first end any US military support for repressive governments throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Second, as President Trump has blithely entertained a “military option” for Venezuela, we must stop the pursuit of interventionism and regime change against governments that Washington dislikes, and instead support peaceful negotiations. Finally, a humane hemispheric policy must also overhaul the corporate-dominated trade and investment pacts that rob nations of their economic agency. On Capitol Hill and throughout Latin America, the beginnings of that moral revolution articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. are finally emerging.

In the wake of Mexico’s historic election of left-of-center candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, for example, the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus applauded his vision for international relationships that depart from “war and hegemony.” The largest values-based caucus among House Democrats vowed to advance principles of mutual respect as the basis for working with Mexico’s incoming administration to end the refugee crisis, the hyper-militarization of law enforcement, and the senseless war on drugs.

Seventy House Democrats have paid tribute to the slain Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres by co-sponsoring the Berta Caceres Human Rights in Honduras Act. In a break with typical US policy toward Central America, this bill would suspend all US security assistance to the country’s military and police forces until their impunity ends, and the rights of trade unionists, journalists, human-rights defenders, LGBTQ activists, and Afro-Indigenous communities are protected.

Rather than retreating into isolationism, progressives are proposing an overhaul of the rules of investment throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Robust and binding labor and environmental standards to raise wages and end outsourcing; a transparent and democratic process for developing trade policy; an end to secretive legal privileges and anti-democratic tribunals for big corporations enshrined in deals such as NAFTA; and investments for underprivileged communities across our countries can pave the way for genuine economic cooperation that prioritizes working people and the protection of the natural resources on which they depend.

There is no question that the images of children suffering in our detention centers demand that we challenge this administration’s abusive policies. But it should also inspire us to reflect on how to heal the massive dislocation and economic inequality that have plagued Latin America and the Caribbean, and strengthen our resolve to build a more equitable world in the 21st century. By leading us away from a current policy of US hemispheric control, progressives are creating a desperately needed alternative: an American leadership worthy of our highest ideals—one that advances our own sovereignty while respecting that of our neighbors, and which promotes genuine security for our peoples.

The Climate Crisis

Posted on July 2, 2018

There is ample evidence that climate change is happening. 97% of scientists believe not only that climate change is happening, but that humans are causing climate change.

The National Climate Assessment is a report compiled by over 300 experts guided by the Federal Advisory Committee. Below are some of the key facts that that report uses to demonstrate climate change’s existence:

Global Temperatures are Rising

One of the key aspects of climate change is global warming. While this might not feel like the case during especially cold days of winter, it is unequivocally true. The last three years: 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been the three hottest years on record.  The organization Climate Central also points out that “The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s. The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998, [and] The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995.”

Looking beyond the last 20 years, the National Climate Assessment shows that in each successive decade since 1930, the average global temperature has increased. The 1980s were the warmest decade on record, surpassed by the 1990s, surpassed by the 2000s.

 

Temperature Rise

As a result of this warming, and to further demonstrate its existence, the National Climate Assessment points out that the following is also true:

  • Snow and ice cover has decreased in most areas with the most drastic reductions at the poles. In fact, minimum arctic sea ice (usually during September) has decreased by more than 40%. NCA states that “This decline is unprecedented in the historical record, and the reduction of ice volume and thickness is even greater.”
  • Sea level is increasing because as water warms it expands and melting ice and icecaps adds water to the oceans.
  • Atmospheric water vapor is increasing because warmer air can hold more water.

Extreme heatwaves and heavy precipitation events (storms, hurricanes, etc.) have become more frequent.

Increases in Greenhouse Gasses Are Driving This Increase in Temperature

The cause of this warming is also unequivocal. As the concentration of C02 increases in the atmosphere, the global temperature increases.

 

Temp and CO2

 

Note: The NCA states that “Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While there is a clear long-term global warming trend, some years do not show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and volcanic eruptions. (Figure source: updated from Karl et al. 2009).”

While it is true that the climate has changed in the past due to natural factors, natural factors alone cannot explain the speed of temperature increase and global changes that we are experiencing now. In fact, research indicated that if we only looked at natural factors, the earth should be entering a global cooling stage. However, there is ample evidence that the opposite is true.

NCA explains that, “Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have been increasingly affecting global climate, to the point where we are now the primary cause of recent and projected future change. The majority of the warming at the global scale over the past 50 years can only be explained by the effects of human influences, especially the emissions from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and from deforestation.”

After The Hurricane: We Don’t Rebuild, We Transform

Posted on June 27, 2018

In this TEDxPittsburgh talk, Yulín Cruz discusses her first hand account of the disaster of Hurricane María and how to rebuild Puerto Rico to increase wellbeing and build resilience in the face of climate change.

 

The Fossil Fuel Industry Is Weaker Than Ever

Posted on June 21, 2018

If you’re looking for good news on the climate front, don’t look to the Antarctic. Last week’s spate of studies documenting that its melt rates had tripled is precisely the kind of data that underscores the almost impossible urgency of the moment.

And don’t look to Washington DC, where the unlikely survival of the EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, continues to prove the political power of the fossil fuel industry. It’s as if he’s on a reality show where the premise is to see how much petty corruption one man can get away with.

But from somewhat less likely quarters, there’s been reason this month for hope – reason, at least, to think that the basic trajectory of the world away from coal and gas and oil is firmly under way.

At the Vatican, the pope faced down a conference full of oil industry executives – the basic argument that fossil fuel reserves must be kept underground has apparently percolated to the top of the world’s biggest organization.

And from Wall Street came welcome word that market perceptions haven’t really changed: even in the age of Trump, the fossil fuel industry has gone from the world’s surest bet to an increasingly challenged enterprise. Researchers at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis minced no words: “In the past several years, oil industry financial statements have revealed significant signs of strain: Profits have dropped, cash flow is down, balance sheets are deteriorating and capital spending is falling. The stock market has recognized the sector’s overall weakness, punishing oil and gas shares over the past five years even as the market as a whole has soared.”

The IEEFA report labeled the industry “weaker than it has been in decades” and laid out its basic frailties, the first of which is paradoxical. Fracking has produced a sudden surge of gas and oil into the market, lowering prices – which means many older investments (Canada’s tar sands, for instance) no longer make economic sense. Fossil fuel has been transformed into a pure commodity business, and since the margins on fracking are narrow at best, its financial performance has been woeful. The IEEFA describes investors as “shell-shocked” by poor returns.

The second weakness is more obvious: the sudden rise of a competitor that seems able to deliver the same product – energy – with cheaper, cleaner, better technologies. Tesla, sure – but Volkswagen, having come clean about the dirtiness of diesel, is going to spend $84bn on electric drivetrains. China seems bent on converting its entire bus fleet to electric power. Every week seems to bring a new record-low price for clean energy: the most recent being a Nevada solar plant clocking in at 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour, even with Trump’s tariffs on Chinese panels.

And the third problem for the fossil fuel industry? According to IEEFA, that would be the climate movement – a material financial risk to oil and gas companies. “In addition to traditional lobbying and direct-action campaigns, climate activists have joined with an increasingly diverse set of allies – particularly the indigenous-rights movement – to put financial pressure on oil and gas companies through divestment campaigns, corporate accountability efforts, and targeting of banks and financial institutions. These campaigns threaten not only to undercut financing for particular projects, but also to raise financing costs for oil and gas companies across the board.”

Hey, the movement against Kinder Morgan’s pipeline got so big, the Canadian government had to literally buy the thing in order to try and ram it through. Protesters will die, a former Bank of Canada governor predicted this week – though he added the country will have to muster the “fortitude” to kill them and get the pipeline built.

For activists, the best part of the IEEFA report is a series of recommendations for precisely how to hurt the industry the most, from creating delays that “turn a marginal project into a cancelled one” to “strategic litigation” to “changing the narrative”.

The report’s authors write: “The financial world is just beginning to understand the fundamental weakness of the fossil fuel sector, and barely acknowledges the global climate movement’s growing power and reach. This has created a powerful opportunity to develop and foster a new storyline on Wall Street: that the oil and gas industry is an unstable financial partner just as it faces its greatest test.”

That’s work we’re capable of. If a few years of campaigning is enough to convince the pope we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, a few more quarters might finally persuade the suits that there’s more money to be made elsewhere. But speed is clearly of the essence. If massive losses of money loom over Wall Street, massive losses of polar ice loom over us all.

Creative Problem Solving Institute Keynote Remarks

Posted on June 18, 2018

Buffalo, New York – I’m very pleased to be here with you all tonight. I have to have to tell you, when I read about all that The Creative Education Foundation and The Creative Problem-Solving Institute (CPSI) have been doing for so many years, I felt like I found a home. This is the way my mind works. Divergent thinking is my innate tendency. When considering a problem, I usually consider the universe of options and then bring it in. It’s difficult to find interlocutors who think like this, who don’t feel overwhelmed by this approach. Many people don’t understand the distinct ways you have outlined for approaching challenges or opportunities in everyday life – not just in an organizational setting. I’m looking forward to learning some of the tools to train my mind more effectively and to share the processes you have developed – including seeking wild ideas before moving on to convergent thinking. The most important information I gleaned from my readings is an understanding that the process is cyclical and needs to be repeated at each step. I’m sure we’ll have many interesting conversations over the week.

When I think about creativity, I think about the creative artist’s perception that looks beyond what is and imagines what could be. I think about the political leaders who aren’t bound by the status quo and use their official status to bring people together to consider other options to deal with difficult issues. I think about the teachers who bring history to life and really value the innovative thinkers in their classes.

In art, creativity is usually appreciated, often celebrated – at least eventually. In my world, the world of politics and media and, increasingly, in education, conventional wisdom reigns.

In politics, candidates and elected official too often stick close to the talking points they’re given by their parties, their pollsters, and their consultants. They’re very careful to offer plans rather than ideas. They seldom bring their constituents together, listen, discuss and openly collaborate in order to re-define problems and seek innovative solutions together.

It’s very unfortunate for our democracy. This is understandable because everything they do is interpreted through the media.

And the mainstream media has the most convergent thinking that I’ve ever seen. And that’s a problem. It’s a problem for the Fourth Estate and it’s a problem for our democracy. I’ll just give you one example of that limiting of perspectives and ideas – that ‘group-think’ – that had serious consequences.

On the lead up to the Iraq war, every editorial page of the 54 largest newspapers in America except for one – McClatchey News – supported that war, recognized now as one of the worst military decisions in our country’s history.

The few elected officials that spoke up and opposed the war, articulating all the potential consequences, had editorials, newspaper stories, newscasts and television ads that excoriated them for that vote, which is now considered the right vote.

That is only one example of the absolute refusal of the establishment media to consider voices that think differently, that consider other options, that evaluate outcomes – if they are not conventional wisdom.

We’re living at an important time in America. A time that cries out for creative problem-solving, for redefining the problems and the opportunities and devising innovative responses and solutions. And to take action. It’s not possible to solve today’s or tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s solutions. We Need to meet the difficult challenges presented by changing ourselves, our approach, the situation, or all of the above.

I believe what Albert Einstein said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.”

We live in a complex world with complex problems, and solving them requires knowledge, compassion, engagement and creativity. And that’s why Dave Driscoll and I founded The Sanders Institute. Dave, our Executive Director, is here to participate in CPSI, as are his children, Ella and Dylan, who will be attending YouthWise.

“We’re living at an important time in America. A time that cries out for creative problem-solving, for redefining the problems and the opportunities and devising innovative responses and solutions.”

The Sanders Institute believes a vital democracy requires an informed electorate, civil discourse, and bold ideas. Our mission is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.

We focus on shifting the framework of the debate in a progressive direction. As I mentioned earlier, its’ often a heavy lift given the realities of DC politics, mainstream media and the ingrained centrist tendencies of the talking heads and political pundits.  (They can only consider ideas from here to here. We want to move it over here.)

We serve as a progressive counterweight to the conservative – and the moderate – organizations that currently set that very narrow framework of debate. We’re not interested in discussing what they think is possible in today’s climate. We’re interested in communicating a vision for the future and identifying the steps needed to get there.

As a 501(c)3, we don’t engage in outright lobbying or advocacy. We don’t support or oppose specific bills or candidates. We educate. We research important issues and the strengths and weaknesses of current thinking. Then, we develop the arguments for progressive solutions, and provide data and resources for anybody who wants to learn more. And we encourage people to decide for themselves by providing non-partisan, fact-based information.

“We’re not interested in discussing what they think is possible in today’s climate. We’re interested in communicating a vision for the future and identifying the steps needed to get there.”

This is a challenging time to run a think tank. Because amid the nonstop, all-crisis-all-the-time coverage… thought itself – careful, critical, analytical thought – seems to be endangered. We aim to counteract that. We choose to stay focused on our vision, on the issues that affect people’s lives, rather than getting caught up in the latest controversies or scandals, or getting involved in inter-party – or intra-party, squabbles.

There is a strategic and a principled difference that we share with CPSI. We strongly believe in respectful dialogue – civil discourse that allows us to learn why people want what they want, to leverage differences and to find common ground. We don’t believe that lasting change comes from personal attacks, or soundbites, or ambush interviews. Those are all short-on-substance, short-term tactics which definitely attract attention, unfortunately. But they do nothing to further the public good or to effect real change.

Learning about the great work you do here has influenced our thinking and informed our approach. We of course continue to consider critical issues – the climate crisis, income inequality, health care, Native American affairs, criminal justice, war and peace. Now, we are incorporating the creative problem solving process. Clarify, Ideate, Develop & Implement – determining our purpose, participating in divergent and convergent thinking, and identifying outcomes through each step of the process.

The Creative Problem Solving Process develops deliberate creativity, intentional creativity. It develops the habit of creative thinking and enhances innovation and design thinking so it becomes natural to apply these approaches in different situations. Applied imagination, as the book by the same name explains.

We have many creative-minded individuals as Fellows at The Sanders Institute and I’d like to give you just a few examples of their contributions.

  • Senator Nina Turner worked with us to create a series of five short videos addressing specific voting issues with three steps every individual can take to make a difference in each one of those voting issues.
  • Robert Reich has broken down complex issues to three-minute informative and often funny videos. Recently, he did one explaining why we should abolish the debt ceiling and why we need budget parity instead of expanding the military budget at the expense of everything else.
  • Harry Belafonte, who has been a voice of reason for a long time, completed a documentary piece comparing the recent protests and violence in Charlottesville with his own experiences during the civil rights era.
  • Bill McKibben, a leading environmentalist for decades, has just completed a series of six short videos on the climate crisis. Set to debut next week, Bill provides powerful, easy-to-understand scientific information with options for action.
  • Jeffrey Sachs, a leading economist, gave a talk on sustainable global development at the T20 conference.  He had to present some pretty depressing facts, but his vision for change left people feeling optimistic and inspired.
  • Danny Glover, a gifted performer, playwright and social activist, constantly brings individuals and organizations together to collaborate and develop fresh perspectives on problems that have faced us for far too long, especially criminal justice issues.
  • While he is not (yet) a Sanders Institute Fellow, Shaun King, tired of all the old ineffective the attempts to end the ridiculous mass incarceration of our citizens, particularly people of color, decided to focus on electing DAs who want to fight for criminal justice.  That office is rarely challenged at the ballot box. As a result, Larry Krasner, who was elected as the new DA in Philadelphia, now requires his DAs to provide a breakdown of the costs associated with sending offenders to prison. He is saving lives, saving taxpayer’s money and educating citizens about the impact of such high levels of incarceration. Even conservatives like what he is doing.

There are many other current Fellows – and soon-to-be Fellows – doing amazing work on the most important issues facing us, protecting the most vulnerable among us, fighting for fairness, equality and justice.

Co-founders Dr. Jane O’Meara Sanders and Dave Driscoll representing The Sanders Institute at the CPSI Conference in Buffalo, New York June 2018.

America was envisioned to be a just society. We’ve always held ourselves up to the rest of the world as an example of how the rule of law is supposed to operate in a free, democratic society. And yes, we’ve had some successes. And yes, we’ve fallen short. Sometimes – even now – tragically. But that’s the promise we’ve made as a nation. It’s up to every single one of us to make an effort to live up to that promise.

And that’s what, ultimately, The Sanders Institute wants to do.

When we read in the newspaper that the United States has detained two thousand children at the border, we should recognize that “the United States” is you and me. And we have to speak up. So, when any politician talks about the United States, remember, that is you. And remember, as a citizen in a democracy, you have a responsibility to use your voice to stand up for what you believe in – and to stand up and fight back against what you don’t believe in.

I want to thank The Creative Education Foundation for its decades long leadership and for developing the Creative Problem Solving Process that makes a difference in all our work. And I’d like to thank all the conference organizers for the opportunity to learn from them and the participants, here, at the Creative Problem-Solving Institute.

The Public Purse

Posted on June 18, 2018

As part of the lecture series between UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) and the British Library, Stephanie Kelton speaks on why a government budget should not be looked at in the same way as a household budget.