SuperMarkets - or, you're doing it right

"The propaganda is strong," Youtuber friendlyjordies tells us in a video extolling the power of switching superannuation to fight climate change. "We've all been sold a big lie."

Unfortunately, he is selling a big lie himself - that market mechanisms can do the job of averting climate change. Or, as he put it later in said video: "the platitude that 'you vote with your wallet' is actually true."

It's not.

friendlyjordies in said video, singing the praises of an Adani-loving government

This post is a follow-up to my 1.5c lifestyle challenge one analysing how much impact switching bank can make - and as I make it clear there, I have personally already switched my super (and bank) to one that invests in renewables (or doesn't invest in coal). I'm not trying to claim that private investment in renewables won't do anything. But, like switching lightbulbs, it's a "solution" that is vastly undermatched to the severity of the crisis we are facing.

Now, in his defense, while he might seem to relish in dunking on climate activists for painting "crap signs" like they are in Year 1 and taking to the streets, friendlyjordies didn't just pull this argument out of nowhere. As I mentioned in the prior post, Australian Ethical markets itself on the promise that their super will help to finance the zero carbon transition. His video is in support of another super fund - Future Super - and it actually draws on a report comissioned by them, alongside climate campaign group 350.org and the UTS Institute for Sustainable Future (ISF).

Sounds great, right? A well-researched plan that doesn't require us to get our lazy arses off the couch? And only 12.4% of Australians have to do it to decarbonise our entire economy - or as few as 7.7% to get us to 100% renewables by 2030? If that's all it'll take, why hasn't it happened already?

Unfortunately, friendlyjordies has fudged the numbers by more than a little. He says less than the 300,000 people who marched in days of action need to switch their super, and they'll make lots of money doing it, when the real number is more like half of all Australians, and returns are definitely not guaranteed. But before we get to that, there are a few big problems with the plan itself.

The biggest warning sign for me was the price tag. According to the report by these research and campaign heavyweights, the cost of transitioning Australia to a zero-carbon grid within ten years is a whopping $788 billion AUD (in 2018). That's several times the amount the federal government recently splashed out to stop our economy going into freefall because of the present pandemic; but more to the point, it's a lot larger than the price given by Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE). Nearly double as much. Their 2010 plan to decarbonise our grid is fully costed, and their initial capital investment is much lower at $370 billion AUD (in 2018 terms, $434 billion AUD). So why the difference?

The reason is, the frame of reference is completely different. The BZE Stationary Energy Plan is, above all, an engineering one; they look at the technical challenge and devise a way to overcome it. The ISF plan, on the other hand, is written from the point of view of an investment firm; they are more preoccupied with the return on investment (ROI), and how technologically sound the solution is doesn't matter as much as if it will generate a 7% ROI.

From the ISF plan

Although they haven't published the technical details the way BZE have, the overall breakdown of energy type in the ISF plan suggests the oversimplification that has led them to arrive at a figure nearly double that of BZE: more than half of power would come from solar photovoltaics (PV).

 

Solar PV and wind power have both been very good investments in recent years, with returns of around 10% on investment. So if that's the metric you're starting with, they seem like a good bet - just keep building them until we have enough, right?

This is the finance world equivalent of everyone in the country just buying 100% renewable energy. As I've talked about in the first post of the 1.5c lifestyle series, our grid doesn't actually work like that - and in fact, we're very close to reaching the limit at which intermittent distributed PV power and wind will start causing problems, unless there are major reforms by the regulators and governments. We are already likely to have days of 75% renewable energy by 2025 - and at that point, the regular will have to switch off power plants to maintain stability. Once that happens, the ROI on those assets will plunge.

The major changes that we need are ones that friendlyjordies and the ISF plan don't talk about - they are ones that market investment can't give us - and they are ones that the BZE plan has modelled and costed. They are grid connections from coast to coast, upgraded transmission lines, large-scale storage, and flattening our evening peaks.

While friendlyjordies does also lampoon the backward-thinking, bucket hat-wearing Dad for asking "what about when the sun doesn't shine?" - the truth is, that's a serious technical challenge. Australians use the most electricity on hot evenings in the summer and shoulder seasons, when they get home and switch on the AC - right as the sun is setting. This isn't an insurmountable challenge; the BZE plan fixes it, by investing in solid upgrades to our transmission infrastructure, linking the two main WA grids to the east coast NEM, and making concentrated solar thermal (CST) with inbuilt molten salt storage the backbone of our grid. That way, when the sun has set on Sydney and Melbourne, our AC units can still be chugging away on daylight in Perth.

The cost of linking the grids like this is significant, and returns on investment are not likely to be 7%. The Australian Energy Regulator recently approved a major interconnector between NSW and SA, which will provide both states with extra stability for distribution in peaks and troughs, as well as reducing the upfront cost of new renewable plants in western NSW. Even this 850km expansion, costing $1.53 billion (in 2020 dollars), is only estimated to return $269 million in likely net benefits - 12.5% overall, but most of these come in indirect consumer savings from dispatchable power and new investment in renewables, not directly from the interconnector's operational income.

The BZE plan puts a price tag of $93 billion AUD on the transmission upgrades required to convert our grid to renewables. This is a cost that will have to be paid, sooner or later - but without a likely ROI from the asset, a responsible super fund manager would never shell out the funds for it.

Then there's the question of energy storage. This is the main answer to Mr. Bucket Hat Dad, and Malcolm Turnbull's Snowy 2.0  is the kind of answer we've been given. There are major problems with that approach - which is why BZE made concentrated solar thermal, with in-built molten salt storage systems, the backbone of their plan. But the up-front costs are higher than solar PV, and despite it being commercially proven overseas, the market will not invest in CST in Australia.

At this point, I can only repeat that the ISF plan hasn't released detailed schematics of their plans. But it would seem that they have arrived at their huge number of $788 billion by picking the most profitable assets, and then massively duplicating them, until enough is built to run the NEM and WA's disconnected grids separately, and there is enough wind and solar power assets to keep on running the grid even when wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine.

The kicker is, as they don't seem to have incorporated any kind of storage, that most of these duplicated assets will be sitting idle most of the time. That isn't the case for renewable energy assets today. Bye bye 7% ROI - idle assets that are not selling electricity to the market don't make money.

This plan doesn't hold any water.

Even without all of those details, how has friendlyjordies fudged the numbers? Well, he himself admits 80% of Future Super's money goes into other things than renewable assets, even for their renewable-focused Renewables Plus. The rest sound like good things, don't get me wrong. But in order to reach our 7.7% of super fund assets needed to fund the switch to 100% renewables, then 38.5% of Australians would have to switch to Future Super, or other funds which are putting an equal amount of money into renewables. That's a lot more than the 300,000 who protested over the last summer; it's more than the 4.7 million (33%) who voted Labor in the last election.

So if the 300,000 people protesting in the streets all switched their super (assuming none of them were already ethical investors), we'd get a small portion of the way to 100% renewables. It might tip the stationary energy balance something like 5% towards renewables over the next ten years - not nothing, but a drop in the ocean compared to the task ahead of us.

But surely, friendlyjordies might ask, that 5% is better than achieving nothing, like you and your "crap signs" did in days of climate strikes?

It is true that our government doesn't seem to have budged very far on climate change. But Australians have. In the six months from July 2019 to January 2020, we went from 37% of Australians being "very concerned" about climate change to 47%, and from 43% thinking we are already suffering the impacts to 57%. The number of us "not very concerned" shrank over the same period from 16% to 11%.

Climate protests in that time cannot take sole credit. The summer of bushfires - and the fact that emergency service bureaucrats came out to say they were the product of climate change - no doubt helped shift the conversation. But so did hundreds of thousands of passionate youth. They may not have much in their super balance (and let's be honest, neither do I) - but they know that we cannot leave it up to the markets to solve climate change.

And as someone who attended the climate protests, there's another flaw in friendlyjordies logic; above all, the protests were an expression of anger by a generation of youth, whose future is being trashed - and who don't have much in the way of superannuation balances to switch. In 2017-18, even 25-34 year olds only had an average balance of $33,200 for women and $41,700 for men. Under 25s (the majority of the 300,000) don't even rate a mention. Those aged 45 and up have the decisive amount of the super pool, to invest as they see fit. Definitely not the majority of the protestors.

Voting with your wallet? It means that those with more money get more votes, even though they won't be the ones still around to live with the consequences.

My super is due to mature in 2055. If we haven't ditched our neoliberal obsession with market mechanisms and bloody well built the kind of smart grid that can support 100% renewables within a few years, then the worst-case scenario is collapse of civilization five years before I'm due to claim my lump sum. So I'm not particularly concerned about 7% returns, and I don't want us to fart around with the most profitable solutions when we have the technical know-how to do the job.

Protestors 10 or 15 years my junior, no doubt, care about it even less. They aren't voting with their wallets - they are voting with their feet. And they are doing it right.

We must take action now, regardless of the ROI.

Out of the woods, pt 3

This post is part three of a series. Click here for part one and part two.

So, I've looked at the climate science of forests and woodlands, and what part deforestation and bushfires have played and will play in climate change. In this post, I'll talk more about the climate politics of how we can get on the right track, the track into more woods.

What can we do to change our path?

Peter Camejo's classic speech from the Vietnam war era, Liberalism Ultraleftism or Mass Action, has been a guiding light for me ever since I came across it. So I'm going to group the current and historical campaigns to stop deforestation and protect our woodlands into those three broad categories - liberal, ultraleft, or mass action strategies.

Liberal strategies for stopping deforestation revolve around appealing to the good conscience of the ruling class of society. This can mean appealing to the government to pass better laws to protect the environment, activists chanelling their energy into petitions or utilising the existing laws; it can also mean appealing to the capitalists doing the deforesting directly.

An example of the latter is the current Wilderness Society asking you to sign mass letters to the CEOs of major companies, demanding that they make policies or statements to remove deforestation from their supply chain. The WWF's Global Forest & Trade Network is another example, creating a market for responsible forestry. These tools might sometimes work - I like to believe that most people have a good heart, after all - but in a capitalist society, where competition and the profit motive are hard wired into the system, any business who choses a more expensive means of production on moral grounds risks being undercut by those who aren't so ethical.

The former kind of campaign includes the Nature Conservation Council's campaign to declare a moratorium on logging in public forests. Again, petitioning the people in government in a capitalist society, who almost always see their job as upholding the dominant class interests in society, is only going to lead to slow, incremental change unless they think the issue is going to win or lose them an election - and that is largely determined by a news media world growing ever more determined to uphold the class interests of those in power themselves.

The best a liberal campaign asking the government for action can deliver is Victoria's ban on old growth logging in 90,000 hectares of the state; the plan has a sunset clause for existing logging activities until 2030, and green groups have concerns that the new zoning might reclassify areas currently considered "old growth". It's identifying the path we need to go down, but leaving the real kilometres of it to a future government, when it has the power to take that path today.

Protesters at the Franklin River, 1982

Then, there are ultraleftist strategies. They reject liberal ideas about appealing to the good will of the ruling class, and don't want to work within the boundaries of the democratic system. But they still don't see an alternative to the power of the ruling class or the government; instead, they involve generally small numbers of people in militant tactics that "break the rules", hoping to convince the ruling class that the cost of doing business in this way is too high. These tactics always appeal to those looking inward, within a small radicalised community, and trying to find some shortcut to change.

The most succesful example of this kind of strategy is Miranda Gibson's tree-sit to protect Tasmania's forests. She climbed up a tree in an area scheduled for logging in December 2011, putting her body in the way of the saws to demand the Styx valley, home to the world's tallest hardwood trees, be added to Tasmania's World Heritage Area. After over a year of her sit, with international attention on the cause, the Federal government announced an extra 170,000 hectares of forest would be nominated for protection. Gibson still holds the record for the longest tree-sit in Australian history, at an astonishing 449 days.

As great a victory as this was for Australia's woodlands, these kinds of tactics alone cannot protect forests for good. Companies will gladly sit out individual actions, or even empowered communities. This is apparent in the bid by Tony Abbott's following government to have the forest delisted - thankfully, one which failed. But they will try again.

Gibson's campaign gained so much success because part of her strategy was also to share her story, via solar-powered computer, and win mass support for the campaign. And this brings us to the third strategy for change identified by Camejo: independent mass action.

Bushfire crisis protest in Sydney, January 2020

An independent mass action strategy aims to challenge the power of the ruling class - not by activists going through the democratic channels, or by making small militant actions, but by looking to the other great class power in society - that of the working classes. Its aim is to draw the great masses of society into struggle themselves, not struggle on their behalf. It aims to break the rules - not the laws that say we can't protest on private property, but the fundamental rules about who owns society.

The simplest understanding of an independent mass action strategy is that it aims to call mass street rallies. And this is an important tactic; for the environment movement, the most recent examples of mass rallies which cut through the white noise and brought masses into action in Australia are the #climatestrike and School Strike 4 Climate actions of late 2019. They were followed up by the bushfire emergency rallies demanding the government do more - to protect the people, and landscapes, vulnerable to climate change through better funding for emergency services and meaningful climate action. Those Australian and global mass actions, while unsustained, have led to a real shift in the conversation on climate change in this country.

However, independent mass actions don't only mean the one tactic of street rallies. They can use any particular form of activism that brings masses into action, with a goal of exercising their own power, rather than appealing to the ruling class.

Worker's struggle, in the form of strikes, is another key tactic in a mass action perspective. Today in Australia strikes are only allowed while negotiating a new agreement, but we have a proud history of worker's strikes for the environment in the form of green bans - the campaign by the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) to protect parklands and historic sites within Sydney. In the initial fight to protect Kellys Bush Park, the workers threw down the gauntlet to developer AVJennins:

If you attempt to build on Kelly's Bush, even if there is the loss of one tree, this half-completed building will remain so forever, as a monument to Kelly's Bush.

Today is a sad day for that history; Jack Mundey, the leader of the NSW BLF through those struggles, has passed away at age 90. May he rest in power.

We have lost a champion for the planet and for working people. Jack Mundey, a comrade and a leader, who saved so much of our heritage with the Green Bans movement died last night. Rembering him and thinking of his family today. Thanks Jack. Thanks so very much.

— David Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeMLC) May 10, 2020

The green bans campaign was one of the most effective forms of independent mass action ever used in Australia. It utilised the independent power of the workers, uniting with environmental and anti-corporate activists, against the wishes of capital - tying up $3 billion (in 1974 AUD) of investment. This independent mass action had to be quashed, and so the federal leadership of the union intervened, standing down Mundey and ending the policy of green bans. Of course, it later turned out the federal leader of the BLF, Norm Gallagher, was taking bribes from the construction bosses, leading to the closure of the BLF and its replacement by the CFMEU.

The CFMEU is militant in action for wages, but it has inherited the anti-environmental perspective of the latter BLF. Taking down the "24 hour construction sites" and pro-fossil fuel bureacracy of the CFMEU is a key struggle for climate activists. A CFMEU green ban ban on cutting down old-growth forests would bring the industry to a meaningful halt, and stop devestating climate change. The CFMEU leadership might be deluded enough to think climate change isn't an issue that will impact blue-collar workers in Australia, or that they can't adopt a more radical stance - but the history of the BLF shows otherwise.

These campaign strategies or orientations are far from exclusive - and they can sometimes bleed over into each other, or be complimentary. Individual tactics can fit into any of the three perspectives. Mass rallies can make liberal demands, direction action tactics can compliment legal or mass campaigns. Miranda Gibson's tree-sit did exactly this. And Tasmania's best-known fight to protect the environment, the fight to stop the Franklin Dam, utilised all kinds of tactics - including a write-in campaign on the 1981 state referendum that won an astonishing 45% of the vote.

So, what should you do right now?

I encourage everyone to get involved in all of the above kinds of campaigns to protect our forests as much as they feel is right. From my point of view, though, both the severity of the climate crisis and the centrality of capitalism in the crisis, mean we must take a mass action approach to climate activism.

Socialist Alliance 9th Conference

Further end-of-month catch up. Views are my own, etc.

The Socialist Alliance recently held its 9th national conference in Geelong Trades Hall. Geelong is one of the smaller towns and cities where the Alliance has been able to build a branch and other major left forces active today have not, like my home town of Wollongong; this was my first time in Geelong, and I was impressed by the ability of the comrades there to pull of organising such a major and successful decision-making conference. I stayed in Melbourne for most of the month, including the conference, helping with local promo, participating in politics, and organising the Resistance Camp.

Over the [second] two days, delegates discussed international and domestic politics and campaigns, Socialist Alliance's plans for this year's federal election, reflected on the achievements and challenges in building the Socialist Alliance today and the prospects for greater unity of the left in Australia.

Taking place in the context of discussions about prospects for greater unity of the left, the conference adopted proposals to strengthen the Alliance's work in building local and national campaigns and movements, including the labour, environmental and women's movements, and the importance of convincing youth and students of the need to organise for fundamental social change.

Delegates reaffirmed the need to strengthen the Alliance and to seek greater unity in action, while defending the democratic rights of affiliates and tendencies of thought within the party. The conference reaffirmed the decision to participate in the upcoming Marxism conference, and to taking further steps in exploring prospects for unity.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/53160

I participated in the pre-conference discussion with a piece about democracy, transitional demands and a mass action perspective for today, based on this earlier post. Many of the issues debated in PCD were discussed at the conference, particularly around the proposed constitutional amendments of Liam Flenady, Ben Peterson and Emma Bacon, which were partially amended on the conference floor and combined with those of Pip Hinman.

Delegates voting in a session at the Socialist Alliance national conference. (Photo: Alex Bainbridge).

I found one of the most interesting aspects of the conference discussing left unity and organising today. Hashim bin Rashid gave a very interesting talk on the process of three Pakistani left parties merging into the Awami workers party, driven by the youth of the three parties who joined after the wave of struggle around lawyers stuff. Hashim got right into the thick of things in Melbourne too - he even wrote an article for Green Left on a local protest commemoration!

Advancing on our own left unity front, the Communist Party of Australia (a former split from the old CP) and Socialist Alternative both participated in the conference with official delegations. I found the input of the Alternative comrades, while held up within the present framework and the tensions that go with it, a good step for building trust. Although a formal uniting of those organisations sends a long way off, i'm confident we can work together in a more constructive way to build a stronger alternative to the pro-capitalist parties this year.

A delegation from the national leadership of the Socialist Alternative and a representative of the Communist Party of Australia also attended the conference, and Mick Armstrong (Socialist Alternative) and Andrew Irving (CPA) both gave presentations on Australian politics today.

In particular, I was enthused by informal discussions about the party, movements and mass action between our activists, in which some comrades raised Camejo and a perspective on mass action which I found, at least on the surface level, to be basically the same as mine. In my PCD piece I raised that this is a point we need to brush up on, since it seems to me the most significant real difference in perspective on how we should organise today amongst the Australian left. Hopefully I am wrong.