What I intend to suggest more than anything is that a highly industrial capitalistic society — this one — will not change because we ask the bankers and politicians nicely. Are any of the presidential candidates talking about Energy Descent and what that actually means? No, because no one will elect them. Are bankers and corporate CEOs going to change their practices unless it can make them money — of course not.

You’re absolutely right that MTR and ANWR drilling are not just problems of energy sources, but to remake all those things requires more than petitioning congress and bankers, doesn’t it?

Evan

I don’t think you can quite simplify “sustainable” in that way. I’ll be first to challenge so-called “green capitalism”, or even “Green consumerism” - but an economy is far more complex than that.

Materials do require mining, deforesting, and at least the usage of soils. These things are not inherently unsustainable - you can use (some) natural resources in ways that are sustainable, or that at least promote and move towards sustainability.

But you are right - our current economy demands infinite growth and externalizes virtually all impacts that are not quantifiable solely or easily in money. But an economy does not need to operate this way - and in fact, by it’s own internal logic - cannot operate this way in perpetuity. At some point (sooner than later, as we are seeing) the traditionally externalized impacts of our economy are catching up to us. This is peak oil. This is climate change. Industrial deforestation. Topsoil loss. Poverty. Resource Scarcity - ad naseum.

This moment we are in - where finite resources are confronting the demand for infinite growth - gives us (as visionaries, as youth, as people simply demanding a livable plant) a chance to expose this conflict for what it is. Climate change is not simply a problem of pollution. Mountaintop Removal mining is not simply a problem of coal. Drilling in Alaska is not a problem of oil. Poverty is not a problem of not having a job. They are problems of an economy that is unsustainable - and to adequately confront these problems means we must confront our economy - and remake the very nature of our social, ecological, political, and economic relationships.

-Matt

Also, what could banks invest in that would be considered “sustainable”? Making money requires production. Production requires materials. Materials requires mining, deforesting, and the destruction of soils. Are any of those things sustainable?

By the way, on this point: “The banks pledge “Enhanced Diligence” in evaluating the carbon risks of coal-fired power plants, which includes the potential liability for future carbon regulation, requirements for carbon storage and sequestration, and to prioritize zero/low carbon projects. Again - the banks aren’t saying straight-up they won’t fund coal - but they at least appear to putting up a few hurdles for carbon-intensive projects to gain financing. I can’t see how they would be able to fund a coal-fired power plant if they are actually honestly abiding by these principles.”

This is exactly the tact we’ve used (successfully) here in the Northwest (OR and WA) to keep all the regulated utilities in the region away from coal (and I do mean all of them now that PacifiCorp has dropped their plans for 850-1700 MW of new coal!): forcing utilities and regulators to take into account the financial risk of future carbon regulation in their resource decisions.

In my day job at Renewable Northwest Project, I and my allies in other sane organizations have been pushing the utility regulators in our states - particularly Oregon where we have the best hold over coal-heavy, 6-state utility behemoth PacifiCorp - to take a much more serious and rigorous look at the financial risks of future carbon regulation. When utilities see carbon regulation - and it’s moved from a matter of if to a matter of when and how much - they will see a much higher cost to run and operate coal plants (that’s the whole point of the regulation of course), and since so much of utility resource decision-making is supposed to be long-term “prudent” planning, we essentially get to ask utilities and regulators to plan to comply with future carbon regulation even before it is enacted.

The end result: coal suddenly seems like a much less safe (financially) and cheap option, and now not a single Northwest utility is considering a new coal-plant now (at least an unsequestered one… PacifiCorp may still consider an IGCC plant with sequestration for the end of the next decade, but we’ll see). PacifiCorp, already 70% reliant on coal, had planned to build up to 1700 MW of new coal plants over the next 15 years, but relentless opposition on all fronts at the regulatory process blocked these plans, and PacifiCorp has now decided that coal is not a good proposition “at this point.” That buys us some critical time, and if we do our jobs right, “at this point” becomes “forever” pretty soon…

If banks start putting the same pressure as Oregon regulators on utilities to factor in the costs of future carbon regulation, that’ll go a long way towards cooling the already faltering coal rush. Nice work RAN and everyone else who’s been fighting the coal rush!