Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer  (NOT SO FAST) 

The process involves burning fossil fuel with oxygen instead of air to generate electricity without emitting any carbon dioxide (CO2). Not using air also avoids generating NOx, the main atmospheric and health contaminant emitted from gas plants.
Included in a group of technologies known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), zero-emission fossil fuel plants have been a dream never realized in practice, as it always seems to cost a lot, adding between 5¢ and 10¢ per kWh. This is probably because most attempts just add on another step after the traditional electricity generation steps, almost as an afterthought.
Some fossil fuel plants have tried, and failed, the most famous one recently being the $7.5 billion coal power plant in Kemper, Mississippi.
But this new technology completely changes the steps and the approach from the ground up. It is based on the Allam Cycle, a new, high-pressure, oxy-fuel, supercritical CO2 cycle that generates low-cost electricity from fossil fuels while producing near-zero air emissions.
The CO2 angle is very unique. NET Power’s plant produces a high-pressure, high-quality CO2 byproduct that is pipeline-ready.This CO2 can be sequestered or used in industrial processes, such as enhanced oil recovery. EOR is a decades-old process that uses CO2 to extract significantly
Most industrial CO2 capture technologies cannot produce cost-effective, EOR-ready CO2, despite the fact that the industry is tremendously CO2-starved. NET Power will have both the capacity and economics to enable the EOR industry to unlock this vast resource while simultaneously sequestering CO2 from thousands of power plants below ground.
And it is the sequestering of CO2 that is probably the most difficult part of this process. Yes, we can use CO2 now, but if we go to these net zero plants in a big way, we don't have enough industrial need for all the CO2 from generating trillions of kWhs every year.
So it will have to be injected underground, and so far that hasn’t been successful in any big way without some side effects, like earthquakes. 
But that is a geoengineering need we can address.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE 


STEPS 1 & 2


This CO2 can be sequestered or used in industrial processes, such as enhanced oil recovery. EOR is a decades-old process that uses CO2 to extract significantly  more oil from old oilfields while permanently storing CO2 underground. 


THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS GLOBAL

NATIONALISM IS A DETERRENT TO FIGHTING IT PART II




PUTIN AND TRUMP AGREE THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS 
THEY WANT TO SELL MORE OIL / GAS 
BOTH RUSSIANS AND AMERICANS 
ARE IN CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL 






[Above is] The start screen of the “Climadrom” site, kept by Aleksander Zhabskiy. The site is strongly oriented toward rejecting the current scientific interpretation of climate change, labeled as “climate alarmism,” “hysteria,” and the like. This view seems to be fashionable in Russia in all sectors of society and, nowadays, Russian science seems to have rejected the current understanding of climate change as seen in the West. Yet, we must keep trying to bridge the gap: if people don’t speak to each other, the only way they have to communicate is to fight. In this sense, the site by Mr. Zhabskiy has some merit in seeking for a discussion at the international level. I did present my views that he correctly published.

There was a time, during the 19th century, when Darwin’s ideas on natural selection were rejected by the whole French science. One reason was the influence of Baron George Cuvier who had interpreted the geological record in terms of mass extinctions periodically caused by planetary catastrophes (see this link to know more about this fascinating story). French scientists saw Cuvier’s role in nationalistic terms and thought that it was outrageous that their great master was contradicted by those silly Britons.

The concept of “National Science” was rather common throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Earlier on, scientists were still communicating with each other in Latin, but that was abandoned with the 19th century and that led to science being more and more constrained by national borders and national cultures. There are many examples of how this evolution affected the scientific debate: one is how the work by Alfred Wegener on continental drift was widely rejected in the 1950s in part because of anti-German sentiments in the West (a link). I could cite examples of how the Fascist government in Italy tried to purify Italian Science from foreign influences in the 1930s. Then, of course, there was “Soviet Science,” supposedly different from the decadent capitalist science practiced in the plutocracies collectively known as “The West.” An example is how the Ukrainian biologist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko fought Western Genetics.

But all that seemed to be past and gone with the internationalization of science after that the American legions had imposed English on the rest of the world, just as the Roman legions had imposed Latin long before. As a young researcher, in the 1980s, I perfectly understood that science was international: everyone, anywhere in the world, could be a scientist by accepting two fundamental tenets: publish in English and speak in English. International science was egalitarian, global, and suspicious of national borders. The researchers of my age even tended to mock the older generation of scientists because of their limited command of English. The fall of the Soviet Union, in 1991, seemed to give the final push to the full internationalization of science: there would be no more “Soviet Science.” Just as the world’s economy was being globalized, the same was taking place for science.

That was just a brief spring: today, nationalism is returning everywhere with a vengeance and science is not immune to the trend. I can tell you how the capability of my younger colleagues to speak English seems to be going down every year a little more and one of the shocks of my life was when, a few years ago, one of the students engaged in a laboratory exercise complained to me that the instruction manual of the instrument he was using was in English.

The downfall of English is just a personal impression but it seems clear to me. Some people in Italy seem to find it totally incomprehensible that I keep a blog in English. Actually, I don’t know another example of an Italian scientist who keeps a blog in English, except for my coworker Ilaria Perissi. (If you know of other examples, please let me know!)

How about Climate Science? As it is normal, it is an international field that encompasses contributions from all countries with a significant budget in scientific research. But it seems to me that in Italy climate science is especially neglected. Don’t get me wrong: there are several excellent climate scientists in Italy, but the average effort in the field is not impressive. Some evidence of the problem is a recent petition denying the anthropogenic origin of global warming, said to have been signed by 90 leading Italian scientists. Actually, the “leading scientists” are a ragtag band of elderly scientists, scientists with no competence on climate, and people who are not even scientists — some of them belonging to all three categories at the same time. Nevertheless, that such petition exists is a symptom of deep problems. Much worse was when, in 2015, the president of the Italian Society of Physics (!!) refused to sign a statement on climate science in support of the ongoing Paris negotiations.

So, what’s the problem in Italy? Perhaps the same the French had with their Baron Cuvier. In Italy, we have Antonino Zichichi, an elderly particle physicist who has left a strong imprint in Italian physics and who, today well in his 90s, is still active in criticizing climate science in ways that we can define at least questionable. But it is also a question of science being intertwined with politics: the Italian movement called “sovranism” is clearly suspicious of climate science as a foreign scam.

And let’s go to Russia. Judging from what can be read in the scientific literature in English, Russia may be in the same conditions as Italy in terms of neglect of climate science, perhaps even worse. With the best of good will, I couldn’t locate much in terms of major contributions to climate science by Russian scientists working in Russia, with the work by Gorshkov and Makarieva being the main exception with their concept of the “biotic pump”. I asked my colleagues if they could name a serious Russian climate scientist working in Russia and they couldn’t. Maybe they are publishing in Russian? One of the problems with Russia may be the same as in Italy: a dominant figure blocking progress in a whole field of science. In the case of Russia, it seems to have been Kyril Kondratyev (1920-2006). He was a valuable atmospheric scientist but his views on climate change seem to me obsolete by now but, unfortunately, still affecting Russian science.

I may be wrong if I say that Russia is neglecting climate science, but there is clearly a problem, there: a much larger one which has to do with politics. I must admit that, If I were a Russian citizen, I would find it hard to dismiss the idea that the whole story of anthropogenic global warming is just one more psyop coming from the West. The Western media are producing so much propaganda and so many lies that the temptation is to disbelieve anything that comes from a Western source. It is the destiny that befell the Moon landings, now widely disbelieved in the very country that was so proud of having sent men to the Moon not long ago. The same destiny may be affecting climate science: despite decades of efforts of thousands of excellent scientists, it tends to fall into the same category of government-sponsored propaganda. All this goes together with the locking up of science and scientists within national boundaries, something that may turn foreign scientists from colleagues into enemy agents and foreign science into political propaganda.

And now? Could we ever recover a unity in science allowing us to act together against climate change? Could we do that before it will be too late? For sure, at present, we are moving in the opposite direction. As usual, when people refuse to talk to each other, the only possible way to communicate is to fight. And, unfortunately, it may be where we are heading to.

I am grateful to Mr. Aleksander Zhabskiy for the useful conversations we had on the matters covered in this post.



Ugo Bardi


Ugo Bardi teaches physical chemistry at the University of Florence, in Italy. He is interested in resource depletion, system dynamics modeling, climate science and renewable energy. He is member of the scientific committee of ASPO (Association for the study of peak oil) and regular contributor of "The Oil Drum" and "Resilience.org". 

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-brief-spring-of-global-science-how.html


SEE  PART I 

Saturday, July 27, 2019

HEAT WAVE EUROPA THE WORLD IS AFLAME

This June was the hottest on record, beating out June 2016 -- so far the hottest year ever.

Numerous studies have shown that heatwaves such as the one that baked northern Europe this week are made more likely by climate change, and as man-made greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, 2019 fits a general warming trend.

Full story: http://u.afp.com/J7xQ






JULY 2019 
THIS PAST WEEK JULY 14-27


Parisians are bracing for potentially the hottest ever temperature in the French capital this week as a new heatwave blasts into northern Europe that could set records in several countries.
Temperatures were already topping 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday in Paris, but the mercury could soar beyond 40C on Thursday and topple a record dating back to 1947.
Read story: http://u.afp.com/Jhb



Dozens of flights cancelled at UK's busiest airports as extreme UK weather wreaks havoc
BA grounds at least 40 flights, while easyJet cancels 10 to and from Gatwick alone

As Europe sweltered in the second record-breaking heatwave in a month, three peer-reviewed papers offered the most detailed overview of regional temperature trends dating back 2,000 years, reports Patrick Galey.

Asia Times | 20th-century warming ‘unmatched’ in 2,000 years | Article
Temperatures in the Little Ice Age and other anomalous periods didn’t rise 
or fall in global lock-step as assumed
The hot air that smashed European weather records this week looks set to move towards Greenland and could cause record melting of the world's second largest ice sheet, the United Nations said on Friday.
Europe's record heatwave threatens Greenland ice sheet





Friday, July 26, 2019

THIS IS THE END RESULT OF CLEAN COAL
USING THE COAL BASED METHANE GAS 
FROM CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION (CCS)
 TO CREATE THE CO2 TO REVIVE OLD OIL WELLS

THE MYTH OF CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE,
IT’S NOT CLEAN OR GREEN
Eugene Plawiuk,
5th Class Certified Power Engineer

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS GLOBAL NATIONALISM IS A DETERRENT TO FIGHTING IT
THE 99% OF THE WORLD UNITE!
YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN!
DEAR EARTHLINGS; ITS OFFICIAL WE ARE NOW EXPERIENCING
THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS WILL IT BRING OUR EXTINCTION, YES BUT NOT FOR THE 1% WHO PLAN TO HIDE AWAY WITH THEIR ILL GOTTEN WEALTH
THEY DON'T CARE BUT TO MAKE MONEY TILL THE END FRENCH
CHERES TERRES SES OFFICIELS, NOUS SOMMES EN TEMPS
QUI PEUVENT VIVRE LES PREMIERS JOURS DE LA CRISE DU CLIMAT APPORTERA-T-IL NOTRE EXTINCTION, OUI MAIS PAS POUR LES 1% QUI PREVIENT CACHER Loin de leur richesse indécise POURQUOI ILS NE SOIGNENT PAS MAIS POUR FAIRE DE L'ARGENT JUSQU'À LA FIN SPANISH

UERIDOS TERRENOS SU OFICIAL ESTAMOS AHORA EXPERIMENTANDO
LOS DÍAS MÁS ANTIGUOS DE LA CRISIS CLIMÁTICA LLEVARÁ NUESTRA EXTINCIÓN, SI PERO NO POR EL 1% QUE PLANEA OCULTAR LEJOS CON SU IGUALDAD DE LA RIQUEZA POR QUÉ NO LE IMPLICAN PERO HACER DINERO HASTA EL FINAL RUSSIAN
УВАЖАЕМЫЕ ЗЕМЛИ ЕГО ОФИЦИАЛЬНО МЫ СЕЙЧАС ОПЫТАЕМ
РАННИЕ ДНИ КЛИМАТИЧЕСКОГО КРИЗИСА ОСТАЕТ ЛИ НАШЕ ВЫМИРАНИЕ, ДА НО НЕ ДЛЯ 1% КТО ПЛАНИРОВАТЬ ВПЕРЕД ИХ БОЛЕЕ ПОЛУЧИЛО БОГАТСТВО ПОЧЕМУ ОНИ НЕ ЗАБЫВАЮТ, НО ЗАРАБАТЫВАЮТ ДО КОНЦА
UVAZHAYEMYYe ZEMLI YEGO OFITSIAL'NO MY SEYCHAS OPYTAYEM
RANNIYe DNI KLIMATICHESKOGO KRIZISA OSTAYET LI NASHE VYMIRANIYe, DA NO NE DLYA 1% KTO PLANIROVAT' VPERED IKH BOLEYe POLUCHILO BOGATSTVO POCHEMU ONI NE ZABYVAYUT, NO ZARABATYVAYUT DO KONTSA ESPERANTO
ĈAPITROJ Lia Oficejo Ni Nuntempe Spertas
la Fruajn Tagojn de la Klimata KRIZO I alportos nian esprimon, JES SED NE POR LA 1% KIU PLU LIAVAS Malproksima Kun Ilia Malvarmeta Riĉaĵo KIAL Ili ne zorgas SED FARAS MULTAJN ĜIS LA FINO HEBREW יבלות משרדנו אנו חווים כעת את הימים המוקדמים ביותר של משבר האקלים האם זה יביא את הכחול שלנו, כן אך לא ל -1% אשר מתכננים להסתיר הרחיק לכת עם עולמם העולמי למה הם לא דואגים אבל לעשות כסף עד הסוף ARABIC أعزائي الأرض مسؤولها نحن الآن في تجربة أقدم أيام الأزمة المناخية سوف يجلب لنا انقراض ، نعم ولكن ليس لخطة 1 ٪ الذين يختبئون بعيدا مع ثروتهم حصلت على الثروة لماذا لا يهتمون بكسب المال حتى النهاية
'aeizzayiy al'ard maswuwluha nahn alan fi tajribat 'aqdam 'ayam al'azmat almunakhia sawf yajlib lana ainqirad , nem walakun lays likhutat 1 % aladhin yakhtabiuwn beida mae tharwatihim hasalt ealaa altharwa limadha la yahtamun bikisab almal hataa alnihaya CHINESE SIMPLIFIED
亲爱的地球 它的官方我们现在正在经历气候危机最早的日子 它会带来我们的消极,是的 但不是1%的计划隐藏 离开他们的ILL GOTTEN财富 为什么他们不关心,但赚钱 直至最后
Qīn'ài dì dìqiú tā de guānfāng wǒmen xiànzài zhèngzài jīnglì qìhòu wéijī zuìzǎo de rìzi tā huì dài lái wǒmen de xiāojí, shì de dàn bùshì 1%de jìhuà yǐncáng líkāi tāmen de ILL GOTTEN cáifù wèishéme tāmen bù guānxīn, dàn zhuànqián zhízhì zuìhòu


[FOR OTHER LANGUAGES FEEL FREE TO TRANSLATE
I USED GOOGLE TRANSLATION FOR THESE
SORRY NO NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE GROUPS
IN GOOGLE TRANSLATE LET THEM KNOW ]



Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week

Montreal, Glasgow, Belfast and Yerevan, Armenia, are among the international cities to set all-time-high temperatures.

Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest hits nearly three football fields per minute: report





 Alaska melts glaciers, hints at bigger problems that may be to come
Alaska's temperature has risen by 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years, that's compared with 2 degrees for the rest of the planet.




Compares to What’s Happening Now
While parts of the world have warmed or cooled 
in the past, modern climate change is happening
just about everywhere at the same time.





Extinction Rebellion: Home
We are facing an unprecedented global climate emergency. The government has failed to protect us. To survive, it's going to take everything we've got.
About Us · ‎Join Us · ‎Events · ‎Our Demands







Extinction Rebellion.We are in a period of ecological devastation brought about by our own hands. We must..
International Non-Violent Rebellion Against the World's Governments for Criminal Inaction on the Ecological Crisis. WE DEMAND: >> Governments tell the truth
 Does Extinction Rebellion Have the Solution to the Climate Crisis?
The disconcerting thing about such radicalism, at this moment, is that it is the activists—rather than the state or law enforcement—who have the facts on their side. One of Extinction Rebellion’s favored tactics is to quote the first line of the executive summary of the 2018 report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” On the day I visited, a study commissioned by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, a research organization which dates back to 1754, set a deadline of 2030 to fundamentally redesign British agriculture to withstand the climate crisis and worrying trends in public health. “What we eat, and how we produce it, is damaging people and the planet,” the report said. “This is not some dystopian future; this is happening here and now, on on our watch.”

THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS GLOBAL 
IT IMPACTS ALL OF US 
IT RECOGNIZES NO NATIONAL BOUNDARIES

THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM
Can Ecosocialism Save The World

Capitalism is killing the planet, what's the solution?

Sunday, July 07, 2019


Law professor Charles Reich, author of ‘Greening of America,’ dies at 91

Steve Rubenstein 

July 5, 2019


Charles Reich’s “The Greening of America” blessed the counterculture
 of the 1960s and became a million-selling manifesto for a new and
 euphoric way of life.
Photo: Roger Ressmeyer / Getty Images

H
alf a century ago, Yale law school professor Charles Reich wrote a million-seller book that had the country talking.

It was called “The Greening of America” and it was full of history and philosophy and predictions about America’s future, all wrapped up with something that Reich called Consciousness I, II and III.

The book was a sensation. In December 1970, it was the best-selling book in the country. A long excerpt ran in the New Yorker magazine. The engaging, brilliant and popular law school professor who loved nothing so much as a quiet walk in the woods suddenly found himself a national phenomenon.

That the work is little known or remembered today puzzled the author’s many friends and left Reich, who moved to San Francisco four decades ago, bemused and at least as philosophical as anything in his book.

Reich died June 15 in San Francisco of natural causes following a period of declining health. He was 91.

“He was brilliant, and he was respectful and warm, in a positive way,” recalled retired Stanford Law School professor Michael Wald, his longtime friend and former student. “It was a real treat to be in his class. Almost every day, at the end of class, his students stood and applauded.”

Another friend and former student, California Court of Appeal presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline, said Reich had an “inquiring mind and was a bit of a skeptic.”

He devoured books on any subject, from the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to rock music.

“The key to his creativity,” said Kline, after thinking the matter over, “is that he was not vested in conventional verities.”

In “The Greening of America,” Reich declared that Consciousness III was represented by the counterculture of the 1960s, its free lifestyle and its use of recreational drugs. It replaced the earlier two “consciousnesses” represented by 19th century America and by the New Deal.

The cover of his book carried a five-sentence summary in large type — unusual for any book before or since — that proclaimed a coming revolution “will originate with the individual and with culture ... and will not require violence to succeed.”


Another friend, San Francisco environmental lawyer Trent Orr, called Reich “really smart and really fun, with some fairly out-there ideas that he wasn’t afraid to put out there.”

A native of New York City and a graduate of Oberlin College and Yale law school, Reich served as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and became a close friend of Justice William O. Douglas. He taught at Yale from 1960 to 1974.

At Yale, Kline recalled, the young Reich was assigned to teach a course in property law, about which he complained he knew little. He threw himself into the subject and became an internationally known authority, writing a highly cited law review article on the changing notion of property rights and maintaining that property included not only real estate but such institutions as welfare benefits and professional licenses.

Among his other Yale students were a pair of ambitious idealists named Bill and Hillary Clinton.


In 1974, he moved to San Francisco and taught at University of San Francisco law school. He enjoyed the outdoors, books and long talks with friends.

“He was a complicated guy,” Kline said. “He became a celebrity, but becoming a celebrity was never something he aspired to.”

Of his book’s fall from popularity, Wald said, Reich had little time or inclination to be sad.

“The book had a big impact, and then the world changed,” Wald said. “It moved in a different direction.”

In a 2010 interview with CBS News, Reich mused on how the changes he foretold didn’t play out as he predicted.

“The things that troubled young people in the ’60s and the things that trouble young people today seem quite different, in the sense that the troubles today are mostly material trouble — I can’t get a job; I can’t support a family. Whereas the complaints in the 1960s were more spiritual — I don’t feel like a real person, or something like that,” he said.

“However,” he added, “whether you’re complaining about spiritual emptiness or material emptiness, you’re ultimately complaining about the same system that’s creating both kinds of emptiness. That’s the link between ‘The Greening of America’ and the way young people are feeling today.”
Reich is survived by his nephew, Dan Reich, of Baltimore and by his niece, Alice Reich, of Philadelphia. A private memorial gathering was held in San Francisco.

Steve Rubenstein is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: srubenstein@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @SteveRubeSF



ERIC ED110384: The Future of Work and Leisure. ERIC Publication date 1975
Topics ERIC Archive, Economic Climate, Employed Women, Futures (of Society), Labor Market, Leisure Time, Life Style, Population Trends, Prediction, Social Change, Sociocultural Patterns, Values, Work Attitudes


Collection ericarchive; additional_collections


Language English

Earlier projections of labor supply and speculations about the impact on values and lifestyles on work, leisure, and work-leisure relationships are reassessed in light of current events. Previous projections were the basis for three alternative scenarios of possible work-leisure relationships. The first examined some of the implications of arguments developed by Charles Reich in "The Greening of America." The second was developed as an antithesis to the first and traced the implications of a renewed commitment to full employment and the preservation of the traditional meaning of work. The third depicted a blending of the values and life styles of the first two. Upon examination after four years time, the elements which induced a preference for the third alternative require modification based on the increasing economic activities of women, the aging of the baby-boom, and the potential resource scarcities and recession. The emerging trends appear to suggest a shift from the third scenario to the second. Projections over the next quarter century and their implications are discussed. Footnotes and tables are included. (Author/KSM)


No, Higher Consciousness Won’t Save Us


charles reich
Charles Reich (William K. Sacco/Yale University)
Autumn 2010 is a time of disillusionment for many who deplore the USA’s current political trajectory. Some who’ve been active for progressive causes are now gravitating toward hope that individual actions — in tandem with higher consciousness, more down-to-earth lifestyles and healthy cultural alternatives — can succeed where social activism has failed. It’s an old story that is also new.
From economic inequities to global warming to war, the nation’s power centers have repulsed those who recognize the urgency of confronting such crises head-on. High unemployment has become the new normal. Top officials in Washington have taken a dive on climate change. The warfare state is going great guns.
When social movements seem to be no match for a destructive status quo, people are apt to look around for alternative strategies. One of the big ones involves pursuing individual transformations as keys to social change. Forty years ago, such an approach became all the rage — boosted by a long essay that made a huge splash in The New Yorker magazine just before a longer version became a smash bestseller.
The book was The Greening of America, by a Yale University Law School teacher named Charles Reich. In the early fall of 1970, it created a sensation. Today, let’s consider it as a distant mirror that reflects some similar present-day illusions.
On the front cover of “The Greening of America,” big type proclaimed: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and it will change the political structure only as its final act.”
That autumn, I was upbeat about Reich’s new book — including its great enthusiasm for “the revolution of the new generation.” (Hey, that was me and my friends!)  The book condemned the war, denounced the overcapitalized Corporate State, panned the rigidity of schools, lauded the sensuality that marijuana was aiding, and dismissed as pathetically venal the liberalism that had driven the country to war in Vietnam.
At the time, I scarcely picked up on the fact that “The Greening of America” was purposely nonpolitical. Its crux was personal and cultural liberation — in a word, “consciousness,” which “plays the key role in the shaping of society.” And so, “The revolution must be cultural. For culture controls the economic and political machine, not vice versa.” In effect, the author maintained, culture would be a silver bullet, able to bring down the otherwise intractable death machine.
Let’s freeze frame those two dreamy claims and mull them over. Consciousness “plays the key role in the shaping of society.” And culture “controls the economic and political machine, not vice versa.”
Reich combined those outsize tributes to “consciousness” and “culture” with disdain for some plodding struggles. “The political activists have had their day and have been given their chance,” he wrote. “They ask for still more activism, still more dedication, still more self-sacrifice, believing more of the same bad medicine is needed, saying their cure has not yet been tested. It is time to realize that this form of activism merely affirms the State. Must we wait for fascism before we realize that political activism has failed?”
In his 1970 book, Reich laid it on the line: “The great error of our times has been the belief in structural or institutional solutions. The enemy is within each of us; so long as that is true, one structure is as bad as another.” And Reich added a fanciful theory of “liberation” that would leave behind the corporate liberal constraints of the era.
Liberation, he wrote, “comes into being the moment the individual frees himself from automatic acceptance of the imperatives of society and the false consciousness which society imposes.” His optimism sprang from the belief that “the whole Corporate State rests upon nothing but consciousness. When consciousness changes, its soldiers will refuse to fight, its police will rebel, its bureaucrats will stop their work, its jailers will open the bars. Nothing can stop the power of consciousness.”
Fast forward a quarter century.
In 1995, the same Charles Reich was out with another book — Opposing the System — his first in two decades. Gone were the claims that meaningful structural change would come only as a final step after people got their heads and culture together. Instead, the book focused on the melded power of huge corporations and the U.S. government.
Reich’s new book was as ignored as “The Greening of America” had been ballyhooed; no high-profile excerpt in The New Yorker or any other magazine, scant publicity, and not even faint controversy. Few media outlets bothered to review “Opposing the System.” A notable exception, the New York Times, trashed the book.
In his 1995 book, Reich challenged what he called “the System” — “a merger of governmental, corporate, and media power into a managerial entity more powerful by reason of technology, organization, and control of livelihood than any previously known form of rule.” Reich astutely noted that “we deny and repress the fact of corporate governmental power,” and he pointed out: “There will be no relief from either economic insecurity or human breakdown until we recognize that uncontrolled economic forces create conflict, not well-being.”
In sharp contrast to his flat assertion a quarter century earlier that “the whole Corporate State rests upon nothing but consciousness,” Reich now emphasized the egregious imbalances of financial power: “It is economic deprivation that comes first, dysfunctional behavior second, in the true cause-and-effect sequence.”
The author saw a much fuller social context for the yearning and euphoria that had animated “The Greening of America” and the era it celebrated to excess in 1970. Far wiser in 1995, he wrote: “Most of the important things in life, the things we truly desire, such as love, joy, and beauty, lie in a realm beyond the economic. What we do not recognize is how economics has become the destroyer of our hopes. It is economic tyranny that cuts off our view of a better future.”
norman-soloman
Today, even more, we live in a time of economic tyranny. The mantra of “hope” has proven hollow when directed toward a political leader; some react to disappointment by pinning their hopes on individual consciousness or cultural transformations. But deep patterns of economic predation, ecological destruction and endless warfare cannot be effectively undermined by transcendent consciousness or cultural radicalism. Realistic hope is not in a political star or in the mere transformation of our individual selves. Our best strategies and our futures are bound together with political engagement that embraces all of humanity.
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is national co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, launched byProgressive Democrats of America. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com

Book REVIEW / NONFICTION : 
Fighting a New Bogyman--a Nameless, Faceless System :
 OPPOSING THE SYSTEM by Charles A. Reich; Crown $23, 219 pages
JONATHAN KIRSCH SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

Charles Reich's "The Greening of America," first published in 1970, was one of those rare books that captured and helped to define the spirit of its times. The very word greening became a kind of shorthand for the boisterous but humane values of the late '60s and pre-Watergate '70s, and Reich was seen as a gleeful guru of revolution and redemption.

No such light escapes the black hole of Reich's new book, "Opposing the System." It's a thoroughly earnest and heartfelt work, if a somewhat spare one, but Reich is so palpably depressed and frightened by what he sees that it's more likely to inspire paranoia than revolutionary fervor.

Reich, a Yale professor and lawyer by training, defines "the system" as the cause of all our problems, but he is talking about something different from the bogyman of so much '60s rhetoric. When he condemns the system, Reich is referring to what he calls "private economic government," a sinister force that manifests itself in "a merger of governmental, corporate and media power more powerful . . . than any previously known form of rule."

Indeed, Reich begins to sound a bit like a character from a Philip K. Dick novel when he conjures up a world in which faceless corporate minions driven by pure and impersonal greed make the only decisions that really count.

"The invisible system that governs us has no name," he writes. "It has circumvented the Constitution, nullified democracy, and overridden the free market. It usurps our powers and dominates our lives. Yet we cannot see it or describe it. It is new to human history."

Only rarely does Reich step down from his soapbox and speak in concrete terms--and only then do we begin to understand what he is so worked up about. He insists that "big government" and the "free market" and the "welfare state" are mostly myths; the real power, and thus the real problem, can be found in the boardrooms and corner offices of corporate America.

"Private economic government is a far more important factor in the lives of individuals than public government," he writes. "In order to get a job, have a career, escape the abyss of being rejected or discarded, people will accept the dictates of corporate and institutional employers, even when these dictates go far beyond anything that public government could constitutionally impose."

An employee who is desperate to get or keep a job, Reich points out, will submit to drug-testing, workplace surveillance, personal searches and censorship by the employer, all of which would be illegal if carried out by the government.

"Economic coercion," he quips, "is violence in slow motion."

Reich specifically calls for a revival of the spirit of protest that characterized the '60s as a way to "fight the system," a phrase that summons up the crackling but directionless energy of the very era in which "The Greening of America" was a bestseller.

"The next stage of this drama must inevitably be the return of protest, of demonstrations and direct action," Reich exhorts. "But this time, protest must find a way to be effective, to unite rather than divide, and to achieve a change of direction."

Reich insists that we need "a new map of reality," and he boldly takes it upon himself to give us one in "Opposing the System." And yet Reich despairs over the loss of vision that once prompted us to feel so optimistic in the '60s. "We are all stumbling in the dark," he broods. "We have lost the ability to imagine a better future."

There's an irony at work in Reich's book. Precisely because so many Americans feel overwhelmed by the system, so frustrated at the impotence of our democracy, so uncertain about which way to jump, it's hard to imagine that Reich's book will prompt the populace to take to the streets in a stirring show of unity.

Reich calls on us to "fulfill our duty as human beings to choose the upward path." But I could not help but feel that the reader who will respond most powerfully to Reich's description of a vast conspiratorial machine that runs our lives is more likely to think in terms of train derailments and the bombings of government buildings than in peace marches and love-ins.