Popping in with a couple of overdue book reviews

For whatever reason, I've taken up a project of transferring several years backlog of book notes I've had sitting in a spreadsheet onto more fleshed out reviews for Goodreads, an app I've been on forever but never really got into using.  What is the purpose? Who even knows?

Anyway, in the process of going through these, I hit upon a couple titles I read in 2021 that seemed to pair well for a blurb here. Especially, so if one is in the mood to think about where we've been and where the US political economy has been and where it might be going a week out before, "the most important election of our lifetimes" again. 

Anointed With Oil: How Christianity and Crude Made Modern America by Darren Dochuk (2019)

This is a sweeping history of the American oil industry with a focus on its peculiar relationship to American Christianity. The book describes political and religious tensions throughout the history of oil between the rationalizing paternalistic ecumenism of the major firms vs the independent libertarian evangelism of the wildcatters.It's a division we can recognize as threaded through the long Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian archetypes of American political economy although I don't recall Dochuk stating this in the book. 

In part, it explains why we see the inheritors of the Rockefeller and Pew fortunes involved in supporting liberal-ish causes today through legacy NGOs while a contrasting strain of evangelical cosmology can fold concepts like “peak oil” and climate change into their expectation that the Apocalypse is near and the fact they feel fine about that. 

For an example of the latter, here is Dochuk writing about Ernest Manning, Premier of Alberta in the 1950s and an evangelical thought leader. 

Manning, like Aberhart before him, held to a dispensational premillennialist view, which encouraged him to decode signs of societal strain as evidence that Christ’s return was nigh. His eschatology grafted onto contemporary theories of petroleum geology. At that moment, M. King Hubbert, a founder of the social movement known as Technocracy, which underscored the importance of engineers in the management of society and had ties to Social Credit, crafted his theory of “peak oil” holding that US domestic production would crest by 1971, then steadily decline. This prediction confirmed Manning’s belief that the world was entering its last phase. Not only did time seem to be running out on America - God’s City On A Hill - but it was now favoring non-Christians located in the very place to which Christ would return: the Middle East. His response was twofold: first, to train Western Christians’ eyes on the Middle East, where rising oil production and politics seemed to portend Christ’s return, and second, to extract expeditiously whatever oil was left under their soil before their dispensation expired. In Manning’s scheme, wildcatters offered North Americans a last glimmer of hope: they alone had the courage to find new reserves and inspire patriots with pure capitalist drive.

In other words, the rational response to “peak oil” was to keep on producing oil as quickly as possible. The mere prospect of a cataclysm is not necessarily going to cause a change in behavior. Which is why, now, as the climate crisis worsens in ways that more and more Americans can feel in their daily lives, the policy response from a rather loud faction of our body politic continues to be an unreserved chant of, “Drill, baby, drill!” 

Anyway, in his conclusion, Dochuk entertains the notion that the wildcatters have "won" their battle with the patricians. Or at least, it appears their political and religious expression has retained a surprising power and resonance. Here is the key graph there.

Battered by oil’s bloody cut-throat system, yet determined to follow their calling, they clung to a personal trust in the supernatural, which came with a transaction. Place your faith in a higher being and honor his rules for holy living, the logic read, and ride the capricious offerings of the earth and the markets to heavenly fulfillment - no matter the heavy human (and ecological) costs. Place your trust in a God who giveth and taketh suddenly, but who is always there, and watch (and feel) the pain of oil’s boom-bust cycles and ever-present maladies melt away in the face of his saving grace. Our current age, in which the fluctuations of economy have intensified on a global stage and during which the inequalities of capitalist society have calcified, has only emboldened that ethic all the more. Its promises of spiritual and, in unpredictable moments, financial returns on the magical, miraculous workings of oil, its allowances for stark enigmas and contradictions in the modern condition - between hope and futility, empowerment and despair, hyperwealth and utter poverty - and its panic to drill, find and sell redemption before the Messiah returns have proved more than prescient and resilient.

 

Ages of American Capitalism: A History Of The United States by Jonathan Levy (2021)

A history of the United States from colonial times up until the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Much in the way Taylor Swift divides her career into eras, Levy breaks the American economy up into “ages.” There is an Age of Commerce (1660 until 1860), an Age of Capital (1860 to 1932) an Age of Control (1932 to 1980) and the Age of Chaos which we, presumably, are experiencing now. 

After acknowledging the elusiveness of a proper definition of capital, Levy settles on this phrase: “The process through which a legal asset is invested with pecuniary value, in light of its capacity to yield a future pecuniary profit.” The political push and pull over the nature and direction of those investments; the tension between short term hoarding and long term redistribution is central to his narrative. 

Obviously, this is a story told on a big sprawling scale. But it’s one well worth diving into for students of US history. One doesn’t need a whole lot of background in economics to access it. Rather than get too far into the discussion, here are a few items I wrote down in my notes as I read. 

1) Levy’s commentary on Herman Melville’s The Confidence Man illustrates that a "booming" market in short term speculation is fundamentally the same thing as a stagnant economy. 

Melville’s novel parses three contradictory desires and emotional states. His analysis was correct: the capitalist credit cycle of boom and bust, only just emerging in his day, is motivated by a contradictory drive of speculative investment. The contradiction consists in the fact that while credit-fueled and energetic speculation can lead to genuine capitalist investment booms, instigating wealth-generating enterprise, individuals can also succumb to the temptations of short-term speculation alone, in which, benefiting from the transactional liquidity of capital markets, they simply move their bets in and out of assets, confidently seeking short term gain. But speculations may not fix on objects of investment long enough for long-term economic development to happen. Capital just spins its top. And the speculative desire to leave all potential investment options open is only a fantasy. For if all options are kept open, but never exercised nothing actually ever happens. 

2) Nostalgia is also a symptom of stagnation. 

Capitalism demands an orientation of economic life toward the future, and so the constant urge to look back, and nostalgically stamp past ages “golden” is probably some kind of psychic compensation for the unremttingness of that demand, especially in moments when, to many, it feels difficult to muster a positive vision about the future. 

3) By the time of the 1970s neoliberal turn, capacity for a coherent collective economic policy was diminished by a politics of alienation, fractionalization and “individual practitioners of narcissism.” 

The federal government simply did not have the mechanisms at hand to master inflation. There was no notion of a unified public interest on the basis of which to act anyway. Instead the polity was splintering into Nixon’s Silent Majority, black nationalists, “back to the land” farmers, white ethnic revivalists (including neo-Confederates), Friends of the Earth, pro-live evangelical “family values” Christians, radial lesbians, international bankers, advocates of Indian sovereignties, Business Roundtable CEOs, black women activists of the National Welfare Rights Organization, white nationalist Vietnam veterans, and last but not least, individual practitioners of narcissism. 

4) Finally, this book (along with Malcolm Harris’s Palo Alto later on. I may post about that one too, eventually.) drove home for me the huge impact Herbert Hoover has had on the American political economy of the 20th Century and beyond. Ideologically, Hoover was the equivalent of today's centrist Democrats. He believed the nation's business leaders should contribute to progress. But he wanted that to happen through public-private partnership or at his polite request. 

On the telephone and at two White House conferences, the president personally pleaded with the corporate executives of the largest, most regulated industries to increase capital investment expenditures. In 1930 railroads and utilities obliged. Yet everywhere else, especially in residential construction, fixed investment kept falling. Hoover recognized that during the 1920s, corporate profits had run ahead of wages, and he believed that high wages would stabilize spending, a good thing. “The first shock,” he declared, “must fall on profits and not wages.” Whether because of Hoover’s promptings or not, the nation’s largest employers agreed not to slash wages, even as they continued to fire their less desirable employees, a pattern that would persist. Proudly, Hoover said the agreements were, “not a dictation or interference by the government with business.” Rather they were the result of “a request from the government that you co-operate in prudent measure to solve a national problem.” The president boasted, “This is a far cry from the arbitrary and dog-eat-dog attitude of the business world of some thirty for forty years ago.” Hoover believed his “associational state” transcended the Jacksonian sphering of public and private, state, and market, which under the banner of equal commercial opportunity, had withered state action throughout the Age of Capital. But he drew one line in the sand. He would not coerce capitalists to invest. 

This is famously the path to failure. And yet it has persisted as canon for respectable politicians and pundits far and wide. Case in point, here is Joe Biden in 2021 taking the Hoover approach with insurers and utility companies after Hurricane Ida. 

“I’m calling on the insurance companies at this critical moment. Don’t hide behind the fine print and technicality. Do your job. Keep your commitment to your communities you insure,” he continued. “Do the right thing. Pay your policy holders what you owe them to cover the cost of temporary housing in the midst of a natural disaster. Help those in need. That’s what all of us need to do.” 

Biden also expressed that, throughout the week, he’d expressed that same message to local officials and utility and energy company representatives during virtual meetings.

How has that approach worked out?

A Louisiana State University survey last year found that 17% of Louisiana homeowners reported their provider canceled their policy. Sixty-three percent of policyholders said the cost of their insurance coverage increased from the prior year, the survey found. 

There was roughly a 10% to 12% increase in homeowners’ insurance costs last year in the United States, said Mark Friedlander, spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit industry association.

You can't just ask these people to be nice. You have to force them. These “commitments to community” Biden imagines exist in corporate America are more tenuous than ever, if they even existed at all. And today’s political leaders, having abandoned the lessons of the New Deal, are less equipped to deal with that reality as a result.

That's how it's supposed to work

This is what is classically known as a perverse incentive. But is it, really? What if the incentives are actually doing what they were always meant to do?

That’s because many of these carbon capture projects will be handling emissions from facilities that rely on oil and natural gas – in fact, many of the projects are tied to major oil and gas companies through subsidiaries. Under new federal rulesnew federal rules, the projects can receive generous tax subsidies. The more carbon dioxide the factories produce and capture, the more federal money the projects can receive.

The coup de grâce: Louisiana can authorize as many of these federally subsidized projects as it sees fit. The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved its quest to become only one of three states with regulatory “primacy” over such carbon storage wells.

Fossil fuel industry advocates are eager to get projects approved. “Louisiana has a chance with our geological structures to make a big splash in the pond for CO2 in the world,” Mike Moncla, president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, told a legislative task force in December 2023.

It's a familiar story.  The solution to the crisis is to make sure whoever created the crisis in the first place can keep getting rich. The reason this always makes sense to do is the crisis itself is a fait accompli. The climate is already screwed up. The sea is already rising. The Louisiana coast is already beyond saving. But that's all external to the purpose of politics. The purpose of politics is to make sure the resulting disaster doesn't upset the established hierarchy.  So whether you call it, "energy security" or "infrastructure investment" or even "climate mitigation" preserving the wealth of those currently at the top of the ladder is what these policies are actually designed to do.  It's all they can do. 

Why does Tim Temple hate Metaire?

Louisiana's next Insurance Commissioner is preparing to ascend to that office next year without having had to campaign for it.  No one ran against him for the open seat (Jim Donelon decided he didn't want it anymore) and so voters haven't really had to think about him much yet.  Would you like to meet him now? His name is Tim. 

Hailing from DeRidder, Tim Temple has been working in the insurance industry for 20 years, with the last 13 years of that as an insurance executive, like his father did before him. There is really little to remark upon about his resume – he was presumably very successful in these ventures, donating nearly $2 million to his two campaigns (about $900,000 in 2019 and $950,000 this year). But otherwise, he seems to be a case of an insurance man interested in becoming The Insurance Man.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to know about Temple is that he also served as the chairman and president of the Committee of 100. While that may sound like a secretive organ of the Chinese Communist Party, it is in fact just another “good government” business and industry nonprofit group that advocates for “economic development.” But it is a useful context; Temple is not some wealthy political outsider who has elbowed his way into power over the wishes of the usual interests. He is firmly enmeshed in that crowd, and has simply ascended from “interested party” to decision maker.

And he has begun to lay out the sort of agenda you might expect from someone running in those circles. Temple’s main solution to Louisiana’s insurance market woes? A special session early next year, to push more deregulation, more tort reform, and more incentives for competition.

Our state is one of several right now that exist on the front lines of an acute insurance crisis. Fewer insurers are willing to write affordable policies in the places seen as most obviously vulnerable to climate change. There's an air of inevitability to that. But the shape of the crisis, though, and the shoulders that bear the worst of its costs are all entirely the result of policy choices. Political leaders at the state, local, national and international levels consistently move to outsource climate to private finance.

 

The least powerful individual victims of the system are purposefully left to absorb the consequences. 

Energy bills in New Orleans are rising at the fastest rate in almost two decades, and outpacing increases in the rest of the country.

Despite living in one of America’s most climate-vulnerable and poorest cities, it is still almost impossible for low-income residents such as Jones to reduce their “carbon footprint”. It’s not easy making green choices when public transit options are limited, and where tax incentives for solar panels and electric vehicles have largely excluded low-income households.

“I would love to get my house weatherized. I’d consider an EV if it was affordable – or even giving up my car. But the public transit here is draconian,” said Jones, a volunteer community activist. “Tax rebates don’t help me, because I don’t file taxes. They make it so hard to do the right thing.”

Climate scientists are clear that the world must transition away from fossil fuels immediately if it has any chance of avoiding the most catastrophic climate effects.

In recent years, the fossil-fuel industry and its allies have pushed the notion that personal choices are to blame for the climate crisis, while at the same time lobbying for policies to ensure their products – and profits – continue to expand.

Americans in every income category have bigger carbon footprints than their counterparts in almost all other G20 nations, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) data shared with the Guardian. But carbon inequality in the US is a complex situation which for many people – particularly those on a low income – has little to do with personal choice.

Tim Temple is fine with all this.  In this interview with Stephanie Grace, he says his main goal is to deregulate the insurers. Maybe then, they will be nicer.  Actually he didn't even promise that. Here he basically says that if you expect affordable insurance rates in Metairie you are shit out of luck and it's your fault for living there

Grace: So I guess the flip side of being able to charge the rates they need is very high prices for customers — perhaps unaffordable.

Temple: It certainly can be. There seems to be an underlying current of well, it's got to be fair: If I, as a consumer, want to go and build a home in the middle of a forest that's 26 miles away from the nearest fire hydrant, or if I want to build my home on the Gulf Coast 10 feet from the ocean, that I should have some type of affordable insurance.

I mean, we don't want it to be a government-funded, socialized type of product. What it needs to be is if you want to exercise your right to build where you are legally allowed to build, then you have to know upfront it may cost you more to build that house on the Gulf Coast than it does to build it in Alexandria, Louisiana.

Grace: When you're talking about the Gulf Coast, are you talking about down in the marsh, or in, say, Metairie?

Temple: Metairie, you can argue, is dang near the Gulf Coast. If you've ever flown into the New Orleans airport, you know that. Again, the concept is to create an environment where companies can come in and be treated at least not any worse than Texas or Florida treats their companies.

Metaire. People shouldn't live there.

Fun years ahead

It appears Gov-elect Landry will abandon @LouisianaGov current plan/path to be carbon neutral by 2050. Says everything he’s read shows carbon neutral policies ‘extremely destructive’ to economy’ #lagov #lalege

— Greg Hilburn (@GregHilburn1) November 15, 2023

 

And, as we've pointed out many times and in many ways,  the state's carbon goals, such as they are, are not sufficient to the problem. Remarkably, all Jeff has to do is run with the same program JBE is leaving behind, and there will be plenty money to be made poisoning the environment and sinking the coast.  In fact, it's likely we're going to see very little substantive change. But the hooting and braying about it will be turned up several levels. Maybe that's better than John Bel's lying pretense that we can keep burning gas all over the place and still care about the climate if we pretend the carbon capture boondoggles actually work. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

Hot streak

 Always nice to be thought of as a global leader. 

The last 12 months were the hottest ever recorded on Earth, and New Orleans had the second-longest streak of days with extreme heat across the world, a new study found. 

Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization that analyzes and reports on climate change and energy issues, released the study to the public on Thursday and looked at major cities across the globe that had long streaks of extreme heat.

Houston had the longest streak with 22 days, and the extreme temperatures lasted in New Orleans for 17 days. The Crescent City tied with Jakarta and Tangerang in Indonesia, according to the study.

Can't say we haven't earned it.  Everyone knows well the amount of Louisiana's public capital and natural resources are sacrificed each year to make the demon live. Today The Lens highlights only one recent example. 

Now, a new industrial operation is taking shape in the unincorporated community of Port Sulphur, which remains a working-class, rural area. The silhouette of Venture Global’s colossal LNG gas-export terminal looms over the surrounding marsh, visible from miles away to cars driving downriver from New Orleans on Louisiana Highway 23.

When the plant is finished, natural-gas-fired turbines will supercool gas down to -260 degrees Fahrenheit to turn it into a liquid 1/600th its original volume that can be shipped overseas. But at this point, it’s still in progress, a 630-acre construction site, with tower cranes and 130-foot storage tanks peeking over its walls. 

Venture Global did not respond to questions about its terminal under construction in Plaquemines Parish. Once complete, it’s expected to employ 300 operational workers, according to Board of Commerce and Industry meeting notes. 

Those 300 jobs are subsidized to unbelievable levels, thanks to the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP), a state tax-incentive program for manufacturers, created with the goal of luring jobs to Louisiana. 

For its local payroll of a few hundred workers, Venture Global’s ITEP abatement over a 10-year period totals $834 million, said Erin Hansen of Together Louisiana, which monitors ITEP incentives and jobs created. 

That works out to $2.8 million in tax breaks per Venture Global job, Hansen said.

During the campaign, Jeff Landry (sort of) led the public to believe that he would let John Bel's rather moderate limits on ITEP remain in place.  We'll see how that plays out.  I do have my doubts.

You are the resilience plan

This is a comprehensive study of Entergy rates going back 20 years by Verite's Michael Isaac Stein. If you've been thinking your bills are higher than they've ever been, then, yes, you are correct. In the last year, alone, the average annual bill in New Orleans is up by 60 percent. The article also points out the City Council is poised to approve an additional 20 percent hike for "resilience upgrades." 

We've been on this horse for a while now. See here and here for some relatively recent posts about this. But, long story short, the main thrust of Entergy's "resilience" strategy is to shift the growing costs of climate change down to its captive ratepayers while investors and executives continue to reap extraordinary profits. You pay more for everything; that's the resilience strategy in a nutshell.  The Verite article shares comments from several parties who also make this point well. 

Some Entergy critics argue that there is also a broader and more simple reason bills are rising so fast — Entergy is favoring its shareholders over its customers. 

“Entergy’s mission is to enrich shareholders, so it’s a contributing factor for certain,” Harden said. “It’s about trapping New Orleans residents to ensure we’re always paying high bills, a cycle of billing we have no control over.”

At the same time as bills have reached historic highs, so have dividend payments to Entergy shareholders. Entergy New Orleans’ parent company, Entergy Corp., has paid out $3.2 billion in shareholder dividends since 2020. 

Burke and other advocates have long warned that the company has effectively shifted most of the risk of the business onto the shoulders of customers, who have to deal with erratic bills while shareholders enjoy steady, rising profits.

“Why should only residents be the ones who suffer as a result of climate change and international markets?” Burke said. “Why should people, especially in cities like New Orleans where a vast percentage of our population is in poverty, be holding up these Fortune 500 companies and their shareholders who are insulated from every risk at every turn? I don’t think there’s any world in which that is just or equitable.”

Why should the poorest and least powerful shoulder the burdens of maintaining capital through a global disaster? The short answer is, because that's always been how it's done.  Shifting the inevitable risks of climate change onto the most vulnerable is at the heart of US industrial policy now. You are the resilience plan. Your blood and your bones. It's not going to stop, either. Verite pulls a quote from Monique Harden for its headline that is apt enough here. There's simply "no end in sight" for the costs we're going to endure.

Okay well what is the plan, though?

We get lots of quotes to the effect that "local officials are preparing for impacts" from the salt water.  Not a lot of information about what they plan to do.  Or even what they recommend that you do. Besides, just, be aware and prepare or something.  

Of course there are things that could have been done ages ago to prepare our vulnerable water utility to handle this very predictable scenario. But one thing we've learned about disaster recovery vs disaster mitigation is that the emergency no bid contracts that come with the latter tend to be better opportunities for the important people to profit. So, really, this is just the market at work.  As for you, personally, well, look, there's still time to prepare!

While there’s still time to prepare, the clock is now ticking for local residents and businesses.

“A little worried for sure. Especially with the holidays coming up cause not only do we have to deal with that, but we have to deal with the water possibly being contaminated with a bunch of salt water and so that’s going to be a big issue for us,” Debarbieris said.

Ok. How, though?  How do we prepare. Besides just panic buying water if we can find it?  Doesn't matter. What matters is you internalize the idea that whatever happens is somehow your fault for not preparing enough. That's always the way with this stuff. It's definitely part of the model for climate change response going forward. So get used to that. 

Ratchet only turns one way

Bob Marshall, God bless him, is still trying to get people to "listen to the scientists."  It should be clear by now that was never going to happen and is never going to happen. The reason for that is right in front of Marshall's face He writes it out in the last sentence of this passage, in fact.  I'm still not sure he gets why it matters though.

What did you think during last couple of decades when scientists “warned” that sea level was rising more than three millimeters a year? Or when they were “alarmed” that the temperature was warming “so fast” that in 5 to 10 years your average summer heat might be 87 instead of 86? And when they said we had to quickly cut our use of fossil fuels to prevent these increases?

No big whoop, right? Three millimeters is about the width of a penny. And what AC unit can’t make that one-degree uptick in heat disappear?

So, you probably agreed with the fossil fuel industry and some politicians when they shouted scientists down and even ridiculed their findings.

“Why so much alarm about tiny changes!” they yelled. “We’re not going to disrupt our lives (and our profits) unless something B-I-G is going to happen, and happen soon!”

I don't know who is the "you" Marshall thinks he's addressing these comments to but it's a little more than condescending the way it reads.  I mean, I know I can speak for an awful lot of Louisiana residents when I say, yes, Bob, we fucking know all of this.  We've been here this whole time too. 

The problem is not now nor was it ever a matter of us plain folk understanding what's being done to us. Rather the problem was always and continues to be, what happens to us is immaterial compared to the universal imperative to maximize profits. It's insulting that we have to read this, "You didn't listen" horseshit now. We listened. We knew. It didn't matter.  These are not our sins to atone for. We're just the alienated subjects of an uncaring capitalist regime. There was nothing we could do about it. Stop blaming us.

 Anyway here's where we are now. 

And the worst news those climatologists were trying to explain you may still not have heard: Those increases will likely be permanent because of the heat baked into the system by unchecked human-produced emissions for 150 years.

There is no known way to quickly roll back those tiny changes. The only thing we can do now is reduce the rate of increases in the decades ahead by quickly transitioning off most of our fossil fuel use. Otherwise, the deadly and costly impacts we are now suffering will continue in frequency and intensity.

"You may still not have heard." Jesus Christ he's still doing it further down in the column! Anyway, since "there's no known way" to fix the problem now anyway, it appears as though the fossil fuel producers have won.  What does Bob want us to do now?  Feel guilty? Will that solve anything?  

The ratchet only turns one way here and we've already cranked it past the critical point. The challenge now is less about stopping the climate disaster than it is about protecting people from its effects.  But to do that, we'd need a politics that understands the class and wealth inequality and its effect on the power dynamic.  But instead we get misguided lectures about how "you" may not have heard the scientists. And if that's all we get then it's going to be rough time riding out the next century.

Death stars and carbon bombs

In most of the country, Labor Day Weekend is where we make the psychic turn from summer to fall, even if the calendar doesn't quite yet agree. In Louisiana, September is a liar. School is back in session. Football has kicked off. The Halloween decorations have been up at Rouses for weeks now. But outside, the heat and humidity remain. And, of course, Hurricane Season moves into its most active period. The August 29 date marks not just the anniversary of Katrina, but also Isaac and Ida, so the seasonal transition can be an especially traumatic one.  This year the temporal ecotone delivers us into peak storm season from the most brutal heat most of us have experienced in our lifetimes. The state is still so hot and dry that the Governor is warning people not to fire up the grill for the holiday. We'll see how that goes.

Meanwhile, as we head into the marquee part of Hurricane Season, the Washington Post greets us with a predictably depressing update on Louisiana's sinking coastline. 

A group of scientists at Tulane University have also been investigating the situation. They found that across more than 200 wetland monitoring stations, seas are almost always rising faster than wetlands are able to grow — meaning that most wetlands are in a state of “drowning.” Their work, which is unpublished, tracked changes between 2009 and 2021.

“The number of the ‘drowning’ sites is much more than I thought before I started” the research, said Guandong Li, a PhD student at Tulane who led the work. “About 90 percent of these sites are unable to keep up with this recent high rate of sea level rise.”

"In a state of drowning."  I'm petitioning for a bill next year that let's me buy a license plate with, "The Drowning State" printed on it. Anyway, we know this information all too well now.  The current effort to protect and rebuild the coast is proving to be no match for accelerating sea level rise.

Sea level rise is driven both by land sinking — or subsidence — and the rising of the ocean. In the case of the current Gulf Coast surge, research suggests it is occurring in regions with and without major subsidence, implying a dominant role for the ocean.  The faster seas rise, the less effective the state’s widely praised plans to protect its coast will be.

In 2012, Louisiana projected that, if sea level rise and other environmental threats remain modest, it would be able to rebuild land within 50 years. But a new plan released this year assumes faster sea level rise more consistent with current trends and shows considerable land losses by late this century — even in more optimistic scenarios.

“Over the period of 10 years, the state has gone from potentially being in a net gain situation to potentially being in [a] very significant net loss situation,” said Alex Kolker, a coastal geologist with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. “And that’s despite the best efforts of some very dedicated people.”

Those "best efforts" Kolker is talking about end up being cancelled out by all the carbon bombs 

In 2016, the U.S. exported its first tanker of liquified natural gas, or LNG, from Cheniere’s Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal in Cameron Parish. Since then, fossil fuel firms have built four more export terminals in the Gulf South with plans for 20 more. Even before the terminals were built, the initial emissions estimates to regulators were so alarming that some environmental advocates described the planned facilities as “carbon bombs.”

Now, it seems that the reality is more grim than the predictions. All five of the active LNG export terminals in the Gulf South have leaked pollutants. People who live near the export terminals say the facilities are belching higher levels of toxic and climate-warming pollution into the air than originally estimated – which threatens the air quality of communities already burdened by pollution. 

For example, Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass export facility, in south Louisiana, exceeded hourly emissions limits of its air permits more than 100 times in 2022, according to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, which sent the company a consolidated compliance order in June, warning that fines were possible. 

Industry marketing campaigns tout natural gas as a “cleaner” alternative, because burning it produces about half as much carbon dioxide as coal, to generate the same amount of energy. But leaks and emissions can erase those benefits, because natural gas is primarily composed of methane, the potent greenhouse gas.

It's a real boom in these bombs. It makes me a little bit sentimental for the days of the Bobby Jindal regime when the Wall Street Journal heralded the coming of "Qatar on the Bayou."  At that time, Louisiana's industrial tax credit subsidies promised to bestow on us gleaming corridors of "fertilizer plants, boron manufacturers, methanol terminals, polymer plants, ammonia factories and paper-finishing facilities," up and down the Mississippi.  That article (yes it's paywalled but trust me) featured commentary from the fossil industry's resident.. uh.. fossil in Louisiana, economist Loren Scott who promised that once the 10 year tax breaks expired, our school districts would "find themselves with a bonanza" on their hands.  But fast-forward to this year and Louisiana public schools are seeing crashing enrollments, a drain on public funding that benefits private schools, and a superintendent who panders to the hate groups coordinating book bans. Some bonanza. 

Nevermind the formal education, though. Louisiana is more proud of its entrepreneurial spirit anyway. Just look at these creative solutions we're applying so we can make real progress here in 2023, the hottest year on record. 

Instead of lowering their emissions, two Gulf Coast LNG facilities, one in Louisiana and one in Texas, have asked state officials to make the situation right by increasing the amount of pollution they are permitted to spew into the air.

All together, in the United States, 25 planned projects to expand and build new export terminals will produce more than 90 million tons of greenhouse gasses annually, according to “Playing with Fire: the Climate Impact of the Rapid Growth of LNG,” a 2022 report from the Environmental Integrity Project that based its conclusions on the projected emissions given to regulators before the facilities were granted permits.

“That’s almost as much climate-warming pollution as 18 million passenger vehicles running for a year,” the report noted.

But uh oh. There's trouble brewing, says this Times-Picayune article. The precious boom in carbon bombs might be slowing down as the market becomes saturated. You might think it's time to rein the established players back in on all that methane and CO2 they're allowed to blow off into the air.  You'd be wrong, though. We're doing this instead. 

The Lower Energy Costs Act — which aims to speed up environmental review processes for LNG terminals and other energy projects, among myriad issues — passed the Republican-led House earlier this year but hasn’t moved in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The legislation was spearheaded by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Republican Rep. Garret Graves, both of Louisiana.

Loosening the regulatory burden would help the smaller projects that can’t handle lengthy reviews, though it would further exacerbate environmental risks for Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, Slocum said.

“If you remove that FERC regulatory process, and you allow some of these smaller scale facilities to basically just take your local zoning board out for a steak dinner and you got yourself your building permit and you can start construction the next day and you can finish it in 12 months, obviously that’s a big advantage,” Slocum said.

Critics of Scalise and Graves's bill have been calling it the "Polluters over People Act" (missing an obvious opportunity to call it the Steak Dinner for Polluters Act.) It would place limits on the time and resources available to federal regulators charged with approving or rejecting fossil fuel infrastructure projects.  It would also limit the law's ability to protect communities from the inevitable harm these facilities produce.

Such inevitable harm includes the 360 wildfires currently raging across the state due to an unprecedented drought brought on by fossil fuel driven climate change. It also would include a different kind of fire set off at the Marathon Refinery last week in St. John Parish, itself only the latest example of the tons of toxic chemicals released into Louisiana's air and water each year.  And of course who could forget the even more desecrated and faster sinking coastline wrought by all of this activity as well.

But the consequences of the boom are most visible on the Gulf Coast, mostly on the rural fringes of the Louisiana coast.

Grist reviewed dozens of state and federal records, and found that, even as regulators from state agencies like the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) hasten to greenlight new terminals, the handful of terminals that have begun operation are exposing residents of coastal parishes to dangerous levels of air pollution from flares and leaks.

Louisiana environmental regulators recently cited numerous violations at Venture Global’s LNG terminal in Cameron Parish in southwestern Louisiana. But five hours away, on the southeastern edge of the state, they are allowing the company to move forward with the Delta LNG plant near McAnespy’s home in Plaquemines.

In places like Plaquemines, gas exporters are building their plants on eroding swampland, where there is an increased risk of catastrophic accidents and explosions during floods and hurricanes. People like McAnespy, who live in neighborhoods surrounding the terminals, are right in the blast zone.

“It’s not just that each of these facilities is like a giant death star on sinking land, it’s that there’s so many of them,” said Elizabeth Calderon, a senior attorney at the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice who has worked on cases challenging LNG terminals in south Louisiana.

“This is how sacrifice zones are created,” she said.

And there's Louisiana 2023 in a nutshell. For the mere price of a few well placed steak dinners, you can deploy your very own Death Star to carbon bomb our sacrifice zone.  

But anyone can tell you there's a ton of money to be made in wartime for the savvy investor regardless of which side is actually winning. And why should the war on climate change be any different? Insurers understand this. They're already planning to win the next battle. There might not be much of a future in writing policies for homeowners in South Louisiana or Florida.. or California.  You know what you can insure, though?  More Death Stars. 

The companies no longer insuring Louisiana homes are well-known, but those insuring LNG terminals are not. Government agencies require proof of insurance for fossil fuel projects, but those documents are often shielded from the public as developers claim confidential business information exemptions, even going to court to prevent insurers’ names from becoming public.

In early June, anti-fossil fuel campaign Insure Our Future got a rare look into one gas export terminal in Texas: Freeport LNG. First published in E&E News, Freeport’s insurers are largely specialty or reinsurance companies, but a few are also involved in the property market, including Liberty Mutual, AIG and Chubb.

Most insurers and LNG companies contacted for this story – including AIG, Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and Venture Global – either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. While no insurance information for terminals in coastal Louisiana has become public, their insurers are likely to come from similar kinds of companies.

Oil and gas projects along the Gulf Coast have long been “a major market” for specialty insurance carriers, Keenan says.

This is how climate policy is formulated. Insurers, and investment capital firms are making decisions about what is viable. Such decisions carry massive impacts for ordinary people but allow them no input beyond their limited role as consumers. And, in accordance with the dictates of our capital de-risking matrix, anyone who can't afford the increasing costs of living along a sinking coast of a rising sea is allowed to fall off and fail on an isolated individual basis. Political factors, we are told, has no consideration here.  Most convenient for elected policymakers, these problems are all off their desks. The real choices are abstracted away to private investors and explained simply as market determinants. 

And the market has determined that we do not need to invest in sustainable equitable and healthy communities in order to generate profit. Those things, we can happily sacrifice in the fire or in the flood, whichever comes first. The net effect is a re-calibration of who and what can survive where. In this way,  New Orleans becomes a boutique resort where nobody actually lives.  Grand Isle can "boom" but only as an exclusive fishing camp for millionaires. And towns all up and down the bayou can be swallowed whole by extractive industry. 

Now here is where we have to remind ourselves not to go too far overboard with the "market decides" rhretoric. Remember, we're supposed to be moving past neoliberalism.  We're doing something called "Bidenomics" now. But mostly what that means is we are seeking the same sorts of policy outcomes as before but being slightly more explicit about the fact there's intention behind the program. Did you know, for example, that Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act "includes a bonanza for the carbon capture industry?"  That's what this headline says, anyway. And, hey, there's that "bonanza" word again. As we've already seen, that can only mean one thing.  More massive state subsidies for environmentally damaging heavy industry. 

The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed the Senate on Monday and is poised to pass the House on Friday, includes a dramatic change in a crucial tax credit for the carbon capture industry—increasing the government subsidy for capturing CO2 from polluting sources from $50 to $85 per metric ton. Developers say that raising that incentive could tip many projects that once weren’t worth the investment over the financial finish line. The new bill also simplifies the process for receiving those tax credits, and opens the subsidy to smaller carbon capture projects, which together essentially fulfill a full industry wishlist for new carbon capture legislation. 

“The fact that [the legislation] actually happened isn’t a big surprise,” says Adrian Corless, CEO of CarbonCapture, a direct air capture startup. “The fact that it actually came out in such a good form and actually came out [so soon] is much better than we expected.”

What Democratic Party political consultants mean for us to get from this is the Biden Administration is directing a bold new industrial policy that fights climate change. What's actually happening, is much less impressive. In practice, Biden's initiatives are working out about as well for Louisiana as Bobby Jindal's program of industrial expansion did.  Consider that most carbon capture projects are "greenwashing" exercises. That is to say they are an elaborate token mitigation measure that allows polluting industries to carry on with business as usual.  

CCS does not do a good job of capturing and storage carbon. It struggles to exist, and when it does, it struggles to function. When it manages both, all it does is capture a tiny fraction of high-emitting process, supplying or burning fossil fuels, and the carbon it captures gets sent straight back to work worsening the climate crisis by jimmying the last dregs of oil from depleted reservoirs.

On top of all of this, it serves a rhetorical function; worsening the climate problem through the empty promise it provides.

And it's working. Joe Biden's carbon capture "empty promise" is enabling new projects in Louisiana.  A gas company called Air Products has, over the objections of local residents, already begun drilling a carbon pipeline that would inject waste material deep beneath Lake Maurepas.  Already they seem to have imploded a groundwater well in the process.  All of the new LNG carbon bombs and Death Stars are enabled by carbon capture promises as well. Maybe we're not quite ready to declare the next Qatar on the Bayou but you can see where we're going.  

Perhaps the biggest boondoggle in all of this, though, are so-called "direct air capture" projects like this one in Calcasieu Parish. 

Louisiana will receive up to $603 million in Department of Energy grant funding to create a direct air capture hub in Calcasieu Parish that is expected to generate about 2,300 total jobs, federal officials said.

Dubbed Project Cypress, the direct air capture hub will attempt to pull more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually directly from the atmosphere and sequester it deep underground, according to the Department of Energy.

No it won't. It will not do any of that. In the above cited article, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm enthuses that direct air capture projects are like “giant vacuums that can suck decades of old carbon pollution straight out of the sky.”  In reality, they are ineffective net energy consumers likely to produce at least as much carbon as they could ever remove. Ten days after the above article praising the supposed 2300 jobs (100 permanent jobs max) promised by Project Cypress, the T-P followed up with this explainer where we learn the dubious process is "like trying to mop the ocean." 

It is “a little bit like trying to mop the ocean,” said Jane Patton, plastics and petrochemicals campaigns manager at the Center for International Environmental Law.

Patton noted that Louisiana emitted somewhere between 211 million and 219 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2018, according to LSU’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory. At best, Project Cypress will sequester 1 million tons annually.

“We’re talking about a very big planet here and very small filtration mechanisms,” she said.

Patton said prior direct air capture pilot programs have missed their carbon dioxide sequestration goals while using more energy than promised. In addition, the filtration systems rely on amines and ethylene oxide, which are “very toxic.”

Patton is also wary of the injection aspect of both direct air capture and carbon capture, which requires liquefying carbon dioxide, transporting it via pipeline and injecting it deep under cap rocks within Louisiana’s “sinking geology,” as she put it.

“That has not been proven to work reliably anywhere in the world at the scale that industry is promising,” Patton said.

The very toxic inefficient process that has not been proven to work might not be good for de-carbonization.  But, as we've already seen, that's really beside the point. The Bidenomics bonanza here is in real estate. 

Ohio-based Battelle will be the project owner and will partner with Climeworks Corp. and Heirloom Carbon Technologies Inc. to develop the sequestration technology. Gulf Coast Sequestration will transport the carbon dioxide and bury it deep within Calcasieu Parish land owned by Stream Companies. Both Gulf Coast Sequestration and Stream Companies are led by W. Gray Stream.

Heir to a large oil fortune (and son of country singer Lynn Anderson), William Gray Stream is a well known Louisiana business and land baron with heavy political ties. Bobby Jindal appointed him to the state Board of Regents in exchange for a $10,000 campaign contribution.  He has also dabbled in the tech start-up world, having spent much of the past decade attempting to prop up the ill-fated Waitr food delivery app. Despite much cheerleading from the local press, that venture seems to have reached its ending last year. 

But it's the land investment where Stream is positioning himself for the real windfall. The land holdings corporation he has inherited and the "wetlands recovery" business he owns are primed to receive federal subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration, as well as any future attempts to prop up the waning carbon offset market which seem all but inevitable. And so, in this way, federal funds ostensibly meant to fight climate change are just being sucked up... kind of like a giant vacuum.... by a politically connected Louisiana failson.

Meanwhile the Drowning State, under attack from an arsenal of Death Stars and carbon bombs remains in a state of drowning.  And as Hurricane Season enters it peak, we may yet see another munition deployed. 

The heat dome responsible for record-breaking temperatures and drought in south Louisiana may have also created a ticking time bomb of "ridiculously warm" waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico, which could rapidly intensify any tropical storm approaching the state’s coastline, scientists say.

As the peak of hurricane season approaches — generally considered to be around Sept. 10 — conditions in the Gulf will be a major focus of concern for storm trackers.

"All of the shallow waters, including the coastal waters and tidal lakes, are ridiculously warm right now. So it’s primed for anything that works its way in," said Ben Schott, director of the National Weather Service office covering the New Orleans and Baton Rouge areas.

We got a look at this Hurricane Idalia rapidly intensified to a category 4 storm before making landfall in Florida last week. Hopefully we won't get to see the Gulf "time bomb" explode anything in our path this year. We're doing a fair enough job at blowing ourselves to bits as it is.

Definitely feeling this vibe

I think it's because I'm nearly the same age as Atrios but this throwaway bit about not always having the juice to make a blog post every time something happens does hit home a little. Although I think for me it's less about feeling like I have to have something interesting to say and more about being exhausted that the same things keep happening over and over regardless of what we say about them. 

Still, the reason I put stuff here is so I'll remember what happened... even if the temptation to fade blissfully away into oblivion is stronger every time a new city council trots out yet another draconian ban on neighborhood bars because of a crime panic, to pick one example.  The same stuff keeps happening in cycles. But every time it comes around again, things are one degree shittier than they were the last time. The rent is a bit higher, the land is a bit lower relative to the sea, the cops and cameras are a bit more aggressive, the mayor is a bit stupider and meaner. The usual things, except moreso every time. And no one is coming to help. 

Anyway, for some reason I still have this compulsion to take notes. And so that's what I'm still doing.  For instance, if Billy Nungesser says this and I don't write it down somewhere, how will I know it happened?

At Washington Mardi Gras, @BillyNungesser reiterates that @AGJeffLandry is "not a good person."

"He personally reported me to the FBI three times." #lalege #lagov

— Julie O'Donoghue (@JSODonoghue) January 25, 2023

 

Similarly...

Watch @mayorcantrell defiant response to a reporter's question on allegations she had an affair with the head of her security detail. "accused of sleeping with half the city of New Orleans, both genders and all pronouns. I'm known as Teedy sometimes and Teddy other times." pic.twitter.com/j8QZ8TepV3

— Down For Whatever (@emersonspop) January 25, 2023

How many more Delawares?

How many Delawares do we have left to give to the Gulf of Mexico? This question is raised in  a recent T-P story highlighting the very-nearly-approved status of the long awaited Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project.  "Decades in the making," says this article and that's certainly true.  "Game changing," it says also. Well, maybe it would have been if this and five or six other projects like it had begun decades ago.  But now it is much more likely too little too late. The coast has been neglected for too long and the seas are now rising too quickly. Eventually we are going to run out of Delawares.

Louisiana has lost land roughly equivalent to the size of Delaware since the 1930s. It could lose two more Delawares in the next half-century if no action is taken to stop it.

The catastrophe is no longer a pending event contingent on actions we can take anymore. It is already here. We see it all the time. We hardly even need to be told about it anymore, but we do love to read about it anyway. Here is a story from July of this year telling us one of our favorite tales.  The Louisiana coast, according to a new study from the US Geological Survey, is DOOMED. 

As the state's saltwater wetlands migrate inland due to sea level rise fueled by global warming, they will cause a loss of freshwater wetlands at a rate that is likely to be the highest in the nation, the study shows.

The study also raises serious concerns about the consequences of not keeping worldwide temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100, which could result in global water heights of as much as 8.2 feet. In Louisiana, with subsidence, the water heights could be as much as 10 feet above present levels.

That worst-case sea level rise scenario would result in saltwater intrusion causing the collapse of thousands of miles of existing saltwater and freshwater wetlands, again exacerbated by human-caused barriers to their migration inland. 

2100 is not that very far into the future. 

2050 is even nearer.

It’s no surprise that Louisiana, where the seas are swelling and land is sinking, faces a daunting loss of property in the years to come. The Climate Central analysis estimated that more than 25,000 properties, totaling nearly 2.5 million acres in the state, could fall wholly below tidal boundary lines by 2050 — a number that far exceeds any other place in the nation. That would amount to 8.7 percent of Louisiana’s total land area, the report found.

Insurers have already decided what all of this means. They've decided it's time to cut and run. 

Louisiana Citizens Insurance Corp., the state’s insurer of last resort, wants to raise its already-high prices by more than half, following a dramatic increase in demand for coverage after eight private insurers collapsed [update: it is nine now]and nearly a dozen others exited the state.

The organization has asked the Louisiana Department of Insurance for a 63% rate increase for personal property coverage, which would hit its more than 102,000 homeowners policies, records show. If approved, the rate increase could generate as much as $158 million that officials say is needed to cover their risk.

The last rate increase Louisiana Citizens received, by comparison, was 4.8% for new and renewing policyholders. It went into effect June 1.

The wave of hurricanes that began in 2020 triggered a chain of events that’s putting more pressure on Louisiana’s troubled insurance marketplace. Several insurers, crippled by a staggering number of claims, have gone out of business or pulled out of the state. They’ve left behind desperate consumers who are now flocking to Louisiana Citizens in numbers not seen in years.

The solution, just about everybody in politics seems to agree, is "resilience."

But what does resilience mean, exactly? It may sound like it has something to do with preserving vulnerable communities and infrastructure but it does not.  In the context of the cascading disasters of the 21st Century, "resilience" is a shell game of shifting risks. Its rhetorical purpose is to move the burden of mitigating and responding to the growing hazards of environmental damage and climate change away from the institutions responsible and onto the individual victims of that damage. "Resilience" is a politician's call for the powerless to bear the cost of crimes committed by the powerful.

It's a grift that can work in several ways. Last year, Entergy provided us with one example. At the time we had been told the private utility giant had agreed to front the money to build Sewerage and Water Board a new power station intended to finally obviate its reliance on the famous antiquated turbine system that powers the city's drainage pumps.*  But later in the year, they backed out of that agreement claiming that emergency response to Hurricane Ida had eaten too far into their cash.  So, naturally, the city then stepped in and used American Rescue Plan funds originally intended for COVID relief to pay for the station.  

*(note: even the initial promise here was suspicious at the time but since they broke it anyway that's a bit of a moot point now)

But 2021 actually turned out to be a great year for Entergy cash-wise. They had so much floating around that they barely knew what to do with it. They paid out $1.5 billion to shareholders. Entergy CEO Leo Denault received $17 million in compensation that year.  It is only to protect these pay-outs that the city was manipulated into spending COVID relief funds making up for Entergy's broken commitment. In other words, we ended up paying for the resilience of the company's profits by foregoing investment in the resilience of our own people. 

This isn't an unusual event. It's actually very much in line with emerging global economic strategy. Economist Daniela Gabor reported from the COP26 international climate summit last year that policymakers are financializing the climate response by blending public resources (like federal COVID relief to cities, for example) with "bankable projects" (such as Entergy's operations) that create returns for investors.  It turns out the global strategy is to shift the costs and risks associated with the ravages of climate change downward onto the many subjects of capitalism in order to protect the profits of its masters.

This is the Wall Street Consensus mantra: the state and development aid, including multilateral development banks, should escort the trillions managed by private finance into climate or the Sustainable Development Goals asset classes. The state derisks or “blends” by using public resources (official aid or local fiscal revenues) to align the risk-return profile of those assets (“bankable projects”) with investor preferences or mandates. Transforming climate or nature into asset classes necessitates the commodification and financialization of public goods and social infrastructure, beyond water, electricity and transportation, and including housing, education, healthcare; these have to generate cash flows that pay institutional investors. The consensus understands the state as a derisking agent: its fiscal arm enters public-private partnerships to render them bankable by transferring some of the risks to the balance sheet of the sovereign, while its monetary arm protects investors from liquidity and exchange rate risk.

And so there is a whole class of financial speculation based on this.

It's called Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investment. So-called "woke capital." 

Increasingly, big investors and fund managers are positioning themselves as ethical intermediaries at the center of a new movement for “impact investing” — investments that claim to prioritize environmental, social, and governance concerns. BlackRock, Invesco, Aberdeen, and Vanguard — all of whom who have signed on to the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment — promise that they can help align people’s money with their values.

“Socially responsible investing” has been around for decades, but it’s taken off recently. Sustainable assets under management are now estimated to be around $30 trillion. So-called green bonds — fixed income instruments used to fund green projects such as wind farms or low-impact housing — have proliferated. Even entire countries — Belgium, France, Poland, Indonesia — are issuing them.

Meanwhile, companies like Vanguard have set up new “green” exchange-traded funds that exclude oil and gas companies and nuclear power. Although funds that avoid “sin stocks” (adult entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, weapons, gambling) are an old idea, their pivot toward supposed green investments has proven extremely popular, fueling an expansion worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

How, you might ask, do investors and money managers determine if a company is really green? Back in the ’90s, the small number of investors interested in “corporate social responsibility” used metrics provided by the Global Reporting Initiative. These days CSR (corporate social responsibility) has been replaced with ESG (environmental, social, and governance) numbers that include data on emissions, labor practices, diversity, board independence, and supply chain information — the vast majority of which is self-reported by companies.

Maybe you can sense the turn that article (titled "Green Investing is a Sham") is about to take.  The point we'd like to make, though, is that it is also a  "resilience" strategy for finance. Former Blackrock investment strategist Tariq Fancy published a series of essays called “Secret Diary of a Sustainable Investor”  Here is what he says ESG investment is about.

Meanwhile, ESG 1.0 pollutes our airwaves, masquerading as the business community’s best and most honest answer to society’s challenges. One of the most ridiculous premises on which this rests is the bizarre conflation between fighting climate change and fighting climate risks. This is important: fighting climate risks in financial portfolios is not the same thing as fighting climate change itself. A friend of mine who lives in Miami was buying a house recently and seemed happy that my previous work was so heavily focused on climate risks, including extreme weather events that affect Miami. I felt bad breaking it to him: “Carlos, we’re not trying to save Miami from getting wrecked by climate change. We’re trying to get our money out before it hits.”

New Orleans is not going to be saved from climate change either. Instead it will be squeezed more and more tightly by tourism and real estate until the last profits are wrung out of whatever exploited and beaten down population can remain.. until they can't anymore.

"Resilience," then, is a long process of forcing you to adjust to increasing precarity. Some examples from this year: Over the summer, a judge ruled that insurance companies don't have to cover your evacuation expenses.  You have to be resilient. FEMA says changes to its flood insurance program are intended to price out something like one million people. Only those "resilient" enough to hack it in the coastal regions that have been their home can afford to remain. No one will help them move out of harm's way, of course.  Individuals bear the brunt of things like the rising costs of mortgages, insurance, and energy bills in New Orleans. We take on more of the risk of just trying to live here.

Here's a Times-Pic article from July 4 of this year where the reporter talks to people about what that feels like. I want to emphasize the allocative effect of these markets on who can and cannot weather the storm, so to speak. The spike in rates is specifically bad for individuals "who must rely on loans" to buy a home. 

“I just had a client get a $10,000 quote on homeowners insurance,” said (realtor Bryan) Jourdain. Before his client made an offer on the target house, Jourdain met with the existing owners and learned that they were paying $2,800 annually for coverage.

“I knew the buyer would have to pay more, but I guessed that the premium might be around $5,000,” he said. “$10,000 is ludicrous.”

For buyers who can afford such surprises, the jumps in cost probably won’t come between them and a new home. But for first-time buyers like Latiker and others who must rely on loans to close deals, such unexpected cost hikes can be deal killers.

On the other hand, for large investment firms that pay cash to turn houses into hotels... or more to the point, who seek to quickly flip properties as assets based on their potential profits as such... The cost of the transaction is not much changed. 

By leaving climate unmitigated, and by leaving the social costs to be borne by individuals experiencing "market forces" rather than as a community facing collective destruction, we have chosen, as a matter of policy, to sacrifice New Orleans as we know it to corporate profit "Resilience" it turns out, is a luxury good.

Anyway, we talked about this and more in episode 2 of CBC after having watched the straight-to-DVD classic "Hurricane Season" staring Forrest Whitaker.  It's a bit long but it's here if you're interested.

Galaxy brain meme

Ag commissioner Mike Strain says 

Crop production could suffer if rising global temperatures are not addressed sooner rather than later, Louisiana Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain said Monday. 

Bigger brain Mike Strain says

“Climate change is real,” Strain told the Press Club of Baton Rouge. “We’ve benefited in the last 100 years by slightly increasing the temperature, (leading to) increased production. But now we’re on the other side where the increases in temperature will decrease production in plants and in animals. So we must be cognizant of that.”

Cosmic brain Mike says

 At the same time, Strain called for increased domestic production of oil and natural gas to offset higher energy commodity prices before food prices spike to unaffordable levels.

it all makes sense now

What does "the economy" do?

David Dayen, writing in today's New York Times about generational supervillain Larry Summers, comes up with this concise little summary of US economic policy as espoused by both ruling parties over the past 50 years or so.

Mr. Summers was not especially novel in his preferences. He fit within an economist consensus that has largely governed the country since the late 1970s. The free trade consensus enabled corporate executives to chase cheap labor and centralize production. The just-in-time consensus pushed companies to only order what’s needed to pass on to customers, with inventories seen as unnecessary costs. The bigger-is-better consensus encouraged mergers and market dominance. The deregulatory consensus breaks worker power and greases the whole system. The Wall Street consensus lets investors dictate adherence to everything else, demanding ever-higher profits and returns that flow not into reinvestment but to them, in the forms of stock buybacks and dividends.

Suck the life out of workers all around the globe so that a very small class of asset owners can hoard the wealth that is extracted. The rest of this article is an explanation of how this strategy stretched itself thin and became vulnerable to real world "supply chain disruptions" caused by events like global pandemics and climate change. "Resilience" is a popular political buzzword these days but we do not use it to talk about becoming a more resilient society. Instead we mostly talk about "risk shifting" in order to keep the wheels of this machine greased by the blood of the poor.  

You don't even have to put your NYT down today in order to see that in action.  This, for example, is from another feature article. 

Poor nations are far more exposed to climate risks than rich countries. Between 2010 and 2020, droughts, floods and storms killed 15 times as many people in highly vulnerable countries, including those in Africa and Asia, as in the wealthiest countries, the report said.

That disparity has fueled a contentious debate: what the industrialized nations most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions owe developing countries. Low-income nations want financial help, both to defend against future threats and to compensate for damages they can’t avoid. The issue will be a focus when governments meet for the next United Nations climate summit in Egypt in November.

“Climate change is the ultimate injustice,” said Ani Dasgupta, the president of the World Resources Institute, an environmental group. “People with the fewest resources, those least responsible for the climate crisis, bear the brunt of climate impacts.” He added, “If you don’t live in a hot spot, imagine instead a roof blown away, a village well overwhelmed by salt water, a failed crop, a job lost, a meal skipped — all at once, again and again.”

Too often, we write and think about these issues, the climate, the pandemic, even  "the economy" as unitary existential questions rather than the contentious political matters they actually are.  Political action is required to break the power of the wealth hoarding class and empower people to build a fairer society. Otherwise the status quo will cause millions to suffer ever more intensely. As Dayen writes, 

The bottom line is that a system without redundancy and flexibility, which assumes that the corporate executives who control it are doing everything in their power to prevent it from breaking, is simply unsustainable.

The shocks will only continue until we reverse course on this prevailing consensus. Democrats put their faith in an economics profession that is far too distant from on-the-ground realities to grasp the consequences of globalization, monopolization, financialization, deregulation, and just-in-time logistics. They failed to recognize how things could crumble because of the vulnerability they engineered.

No country can be perfectly self-sufficient; imports and shipping will still exist. But we can ensure some stability through bringing back manufacturing of critical goods to our shores, while maintaining productive capacity and strategic reserves. Public utility regulation can ensure smoother flow of goods, and competition policy can eliminate price gouging. And infrastructure investments like we’re currently embarking on can force open bottlenecks.

Economists will howl that losing efficiency will raise costs. Those words ring hollow in the face of the highest inflation in 40 years. Broken systems raise costs far faster than resilient ones.

"The economy" as it is currently designed seeks to isolate the wealthy few from the rising costs of "broken systems" by shifting those costs onto the shoulders of the many poor.  That is the first thing that has to change.  Simply put, we cannot have true resilience until we have justice.