Friday, November 01, 2024

The U.S. Southwest Offers Blueprints for the Future of Wastewater Reuse

Our existing water supplies could go further by turning wastewater into drinking water.

October 31, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.





No country is immune from water scarcity issues—not even wealthy countries like the United States.

Population growth and climate change are stretching America’s water supplies to the limit, and tapping new sources is becoming more difficult each year—in some cases, even impossible.

The Southwestern states, in particular, have faced “intense” droughts during the 21st century, and traditional water supplies are failing. As groundwater supplies in the region have depleted substantially, rainfall has decreased, and water import costs have risen substantially. According to a September 2022 Nature article about the water situation in the Southwest, there is a “very low chance for regional mega-reservoirs to regain full-capacity levels assuming current demand.”

The region looks to the Colorado River as its plumbing system, which currently provides drinking water to 1 in 10 Americans—all while irrigating nearly 5.5 million acres of land. But it’s also being stretched to its limits: Population growth and expansive development are increasing agricultural demands. Meanwhile, the pressure to ensure sufficient water is left in the environment to support ecosystems has accelerated. According to a December 2012 study by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, the demands on the Colorado River are expected to exceed supply by 2040.

On top of this, each state has vastly different needs. For example, Nevada’s needs are largely urban, but Arizona and California require water for huge agricultural and urban sectors. Each year, states argue over who has the superior right to water supplies. And once they have their allocation, districts frequently end up in litigation over their allotment. There is always a shortage of water, raising questions about who is responsible and how best to mitigate the water crisis.

In 2023, the depleting water levels in the river created a “crisis after decades of overuse.” The seven states that depend on the Colorado River for water and power had to agree to reduce their water usage to ensure the river was still flowing. “Three states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—have agreed on a plan to conserve at least 3 million acre-feet of water by 2026—roughly the equivalent to the amount of water it would take to fill 6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools,” reported NBC in May 2023.

While demand is increasing, climate change has damaged supply—and the impact is twofold: As less water comes down the Colorado River, people are using more water due to increased temperatures.

Simply put, there is only so much water.

“When you can’t make the pie bigger, and you’re fighting over a finite supply, it’s a misery index, just an allocation pain for all parties,” says Brad Herrema, a lawyer specializing in water law and natural resources.

“But if you can make the pie bigger, there’s less fighting.”
Turning Wastewater Into a Resource

Our existing water supplies must be expanded, and the technology exists to do this by turning wastewater into drinking water. This is not a new science, but the practice has evolved significantly in the past 50 years.

In the 1960s, water availability became problematic in rapidly growing areas in the U.S., and water managers began to consider using wastewater to augment supplies. Several water reuse projects were built in the following decades in California, Virginia, Texas, and Georgia, but larger developments in the 1990s were met with opposition. “Toilet to tap” narratives in the media fed misperceptions regarding the treatment process, which helped to dismantle public support for these projects. What “toilet to tap” misses is membrane filtration, as of 2024, is membrane desalination, ozone, and advanced oxidation, to name a few treatment options that make the purified water entirely safe to drink.

However, advances in these technologies associated with water reuse helped boost confidence in and acceptance of the practice among water professionals in the early 2000s. Now, water reuse is entering the mainstream.

Almost half of all the potable reuse projects built in California since the first in 1962 were installed between 2009 and 2023, with several more on the horizon. With more potable reuse projects than any other state, California plans to use 2.5 million acre-feet of water per year (AFY) by 2030.

According to a document by the Environmental Protection Agency and CDM Smith Inc., potable reuse also makes up “a significant portion” of the nation’s water supply once de facto reuse is factored in.

What’s clear is that some major U.S. cities are already delivering recycled wastewater to consumers on a massive scale and expanding the pie. However, how a municipality can recycle wastewater depends largely on the area’s geography, financial resources, and, perhaps most importantly, the public’s attitude.
Las Vegas

Las Vegas recycles nearly all of its water used indoors, giving it a virtually inexhaustible supply of water for domestic consumption. The city benefits from its unique geography. Almost 90 percent of southern Nevada’s water is taken from Lake Mead, which lies on the Colorado River. It is then treated and run through the city’s system. After it’s flushed or drained, the water makes its way to a wastewater treatment plant before it’s discharged into the Las Vegas Wash. From there it makes its way to Lake Mead where it is either drawn back out or stays in the river, ensuring there’s enough water for cities downstream of Vegas.

One key element that makes Vegas’s reuse system so effective is “the Wash,” a 12-mile-long channel that acts “as the ‘natural kidneys,’ cleaning the water that runs through them by filtering out [any] harmful contaminants” on its way back to Lake Mead. Thanks to the Wash, when the water is withdrawn again, it does not need to undergo a costly process of advanced treatment; instead, it undergoes basic drinking water treatment.

Another critical factor in Vegas’s success is that for every gallon of water the city puts into Lake Mead, it can take a gallon back out—meaning the city is essentially recycling its indoor water in a closed loop. This is known as de facto water reuse.

Nevada is allocated 300,000 AFY of water from the Colorado River each year. Bronson Mack, public information officer with the SNWA, says that in 2019, the city actually diverted 490,000 AFY of water from the Colorado River but only consumed 234,000 AFY. About 256,000 AFY was returned to the lake.

“Our return flow credits system is unique,” says Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager of resources for SNWA. “Once we return the water to Lake Mead, we’re not charged for that water. We’re only charged for the total we depleted.”

Mack adds that local water utilities were paying $313 for treatment and delivery of 1 acre-foot of water as of 2020, and passing that cost on to the consumer. If Vegas could not return such a large proportion of its water, that cost would rise dramatically.

De facto reuse is also vital for a city that can’t afford to gamble on the weather—Las Vegas is the driest city in the U.S. When the Colorado River produced only 25 percent of its usual supply in 2002, the city was struck by drought, but its citizens still had unlimited access to indoor water.

“Vegas couldn’t exist without [the] return flow credits approach,” says Daniel Gerrity, principal research scientist at SNWA. “Without that, we’d have already maxed out.”

Despite a wet winter in 2023 and an improvement in the water levels in lakes, “Southern Nevada’s water supplies from the Colorado River at Lake Mead remain under shortage reductions,” points out Southern Nevada Water Authority, warning that “The risk of shortage remains high in future years.”

Meanwhile, not every city has a Lake Mead or a Wash. For places without Vegas’s luck, there are other ways to ensure water reuse.
Orange County, California

Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a world leader in water reuse. Since 2008, it has provided drinking water to 2.5 million people—in a region with no more than 15 inches of annual rainfall—through its Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project. This project has helped highlight the effectiveness of IPR, giving other providers a model to emulate and providing the full-scale data that was previously missing to evaluate the viability of the process.

The water reused through GWRS would have otherwise been discharged into the Pacific Ocean. By keeping it in the system, there is less reliance on the Colorado River, easing the strain on its supplies.

The city utilizes a process called indirect potable reuse (IPR). In the absence of an environmental filtration process like the Las Vegas Wash, Orange County’s wastewater has to undergo advanced treatment before it is pumped to a groundwater basin. From there, it is pumped to the consumer via a standard drinking water treatment train, making it safe to consume and completing the cycle. The process not only turns wastewater back into a resource but also saves massively on the cost of pumping Colorado River water from hundreds of miles away.

GWRS, which is a joint project of OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) “accounts for approximately 35 percent of water demands,” according to OCWD, and its wastewater treatment capacity was further expanded in 2023 from 100 to 130 million gallons per day. This is “enough to fill nearly 200 Olympic-sized pools and enough for a million people,” according to a 2023 article by the Daily Pilot.

“Orange County is the benchmark [for] water reuse system,” says Gerrity. Water managers from around the world visit OCWD to learn how they’ve managed such success.

Like so many regions innovating in water reuse, drought forced their hand. In 1975, “[a]s imported water supplies became less available, another source of water was needed to fight seawater intrusion. In April 1975, OCWD unveiled… [a facility that] took treated wastewater from the… OCSD, blended it with deep well water and injected it into… [a basin]. In 1977, [OCWD became]… the first in the world to use reverse osmosis to purify wastewater to drinking water standards.”

The project was expanded in line with the demand in the ’90s, and the GWRS, which has been operational since 2008, is now the world’s largest advanced water purification system for potable use. “The largest reuse facility in the world can now treat nearly 500 million liters of secondary wastewater a day,” points out the nonprofit Water Reuse Europe.

And through it all, OCWD managed to swerve the “toilet to tap” attacks that had ruined public support for such projects in other areas of California.

How?

“People expect to find out that our success is grounded in some secret technology, but they find out it’s all about education, education, education,” says Rob Thompson, general manager at OCSD, which treats the water before sending it to the basin managed by OCWD. “Bringing the public on board with drinking [recycled] wastewater takes a lot of outreach. Getting over the ‘yuck factor’ is everything. We had to speak with NGOs, governors, the authorities, politicians—you name it—we spoke to them. Once you have enough people on board, everyone starts to think it must be okay.”

“People have high expectations about the quality of their water and have a lot of questions,” adds Megan Plumlee, who heads OCWD’s research and development department. “We explain to the public what we’re doing and how it’ll benefit the district, retailers, and community.”

Following OCWD’s lead, San Diego embarked on a massive multi-year potable reuse project that planners say will provide nearly 50 percent of the city’s water supply locally by the end of 2035. Indeed, sometimes a new process takes hold only because of a leader in the field who shows the way and proves something can be done safely on a large scale.

“We weren’t the first to try it, but we were the first to succeed on such a massive scale. That’s because we were the first to really embrace education. Now others are doing the same,” says Thompson.

Now, 16 states have developed regulations that allow for IPR, with several more IPR projects on the horizon that will help bolster water supplies—all without putting additional pressure on the Colorado River.

Another more efficient water reuse method has yet to take hold in the U.S., though it may soon find its leader.
San Diego

Direct potable reuse (DPR) was labeled the final frontier of water reuse by G. Tracy Mehan, the executive director for government affairs at the American Water Works Association (AWWA), in a November 2019 Opinion piece published in the Scientific American. The process does away with an environmental buffer and pumps wastewater directly through an advanced treatment train before it is purified and put straight back into the system in a matter of hours.

Given this reality, DPR can deliver water more efficiently and cost-effectively by using existing infrastructure and without needing to build expensive and energy-intensive pipelines to a reservoir or groundwater basin. DPR can also allow for more water to be recycled than IPR as there are no limitations on the reservoir or groundwater basin.

Additionally, DPR avoids regulations on putting water back into the environment by eliminating the buffer. And finally, DPR can be more reliable and efficient. Jeff Mosher, vice president and principal technologist at Carollo Engineers, a leading firm in engineering water reuse systems, explains that DPR can turn wastewater into drinking water in a matter of hours, faster than IPR or any other reuse method.

As of early 2023, only one facility in the U.S. is currently equipped to operate DPR. Big Spring in West Texas identified DPR as the most feasible way to address an urgent need to diversify the city’s water portfolio and increase its supply reliability for when rains fail to fill the city’s reservoirs—the project serves around 135,000 people, according to a 2019 article published in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

The Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD) in Big Spring began operating this plant in 2013. It could treat up to 2 million gallons per day of wastewater effluent to drinking water standards, providing a much-needed water supply amid punishing droughts.

However, DPR has yet to become a mainstream and trusted water supply system, and it remains unused beyond times of crisis and for larger communities.

Arizona and Florida are in the process of developing their DPR regulations while California and Colorado already have these regulations in place. However, most states have yet to consider implementing this technology, mainly due to a lack of public acceptance. The speed at which DPR recycles wastewater makes it particularly vulnerable to “toilet to tap” attacks, and this has consumers concerned, who worry over the small room for error and the “yuck factor.”

An attempt to introduce potable reuse in San Diego in the 1990s failed after fears of “drinking sewage” diminished trust in the project and fostered uncertainty about the safety of the water. Fast-forward 12 years to 2011, a rebranded project, Pure Water San Diego, did things differently.

A 2012 survey carried out by the San Diego County Water Authority found that 73 percent of the respondents either strongly or somewhat favored “advanced treated recycled water as an addition to the supply of drinking water.” This figure was an improvement from the 2011 survey.

San Diego has changed its mind, and now it may one day do what OCWD has done for IPR and pave the way for DPR use on a broader scale.

With lessons learned from OCWD, outreach helped bring the community on board in San Diego. “We had to educate the community on the concept [of potable reuse],” Amy Dorman, assistant director at San Diego’s Pure Water program, says. “We ran focus groups with the community, made ourselves flexible moving forward, and recognized the importance of listening to the community. In the ’90s, there was not the right amount of education. Now it’s comprehensive. We do tours, presentations, websites, mailers and [identify] all stakeholders—[ensuring] diligent and constant outreach.”

Dorman explains that 18,665 San Diegans have visited the demonstration facility as of 2021, while the team at Pure Water has spoken to almost 30,000 children in schools. They explain that 50,000 lab tests have been carried out on the water supply as of 2020, each meeting every regulatory standard and producing exceptional water quality—typical tap water is actually less highly treated than DPR tap water.

However, the key statistic is that 85 to 90 percent of San Diego’s water is already imported from the Colorado River and Northern California Bay-Delta. In fact, because the city is downstream, Dorman says the water has already been recycled 49 times by other water districts before reaching San Diego. She says this usually quells fears that drinking recycled water is unsanitary since, as it turns out, this has been happening for years.

“What we know now is that it’s possible to convince people,” adds Mosher. “We have proven that every community you go into that has concerns, you can overcome.”

San Diego hopes that by 2035, a third of the city’s water supply will come from locally supplied, recycled wastewater instead of importing the majority of it.

For phase one, the Pure Water San Diego program—funded by the San Diego government—will use IPR to provide the city with 30 million gallons of water per day, utilizing the nearby Miramar Reservoir as an environmental buffer in a similar way to how Orange County uses its groundwater basin. “San Diego’s Pure Water treatment system will be operational and providing 7 million gallons of water a day to residents by 2026,” says a January 2024 KPBS article.

Phases two and three will target an additional 53 million gallons of water per day by 2035. In the absence of a groundwater basin and large enough reservoirs, Pure Water San Diego plans to employ DPR to realize the project’s full scale.

Mosher says that cities with plans to do DPR one day don’t want the attention to be the ones to take the plunge into doing it on a large scale. But with projects on the horizon in San Diego and El Paso, Texas, Mosher expects greater faith in the process by 2030. A 2011 public opinion poll shows that citizens are 50 percent more likely to accept recycled water when they learn that other communities have done so already.

Without a leader in the field, cities interested in doing DPR may hesitate, but Gerrity is positive about the impact San Diego can have countrywide.

“It’s a good platform to go forward,” he says. “We have more options for facing water scarcity, another tool in the toolbox to tap into. Conservation, potable reuse [and] innovative technologies all extend supply and give high-quality drinking water to the public.”
Mainstreaming Potable Reuse

While water reuse is breaking into the mainstream, there are still challenges going forward.

It is not simply a matter of copying Las Vegas, Orange County, or San Diego. A region’s geography and finances often dictate a city’s water supply, which significantly impacts what kind of reuse that city can attempt. De facto reuse, as in Las Vegas, is incredibly site-specific and requires the geography of an area to substitute for advanced treatment, while the most successful IPR projects rely on large groundwater basins and nearby reservoirs.

Both types of potable reuse are also incredibly expensive. While they may save money in the long term, they require a huge initial investment.

The federal government needs to step in to support water recycling projects. Taking a step in this direction, the Biden administration provided almost $100 million for the Pure Water Southern California facility. “Water recycling is an innovative and cost-effective tool that can help make our water supplies more reliable, helping communities find new sources to meet their needs today, but most importantly to meet our needs in the future,” said Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton in May 2024.

Working out what works best for one community is half the battle. Thanks to the geographical nuances that help potable reuse or de facto reuse work, there is no one-size-fits-all.

“You could take what Orange County does, and it’s going to work, but the question is whether that is the best approach for that location. So, the challenge is, now that we feel comfortable with one approach, can we do it a different way?” says Gerrity.

Mosher is trying to compile all the information on water reuse into an easy-to-read guidance document that cities considering the process can use to decide which approach may be best for them.

“It’s about getting to a point where communities who want to try DPR don’t feel overwhelmed,” says Mosher.

What’s clear is that the Colorado River can no longer be relied upon to meet the water needs of an increasing population. If we continue asking so much of it, we have to start easing those pressures. Water reuse is imperative if the driest parts of the world continue growing without destroying the environment that relies as much on water as we do.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate



Freddie Clayton is an investigative journalist with the Center for Collaborative Investigative Journalism, focusing on environmental themes, specifically water and sanitation issues worldwide. He is a contributor to the Observatory.
Montana’s First Worker Cooperative Is in It for the Long Haul

How the custom steel fabrication and design company Crucible built a “gravel road” for other Montana worker co-ops to follow.

NOT THE USUAL HEALTH FOOD COOP
October 31, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.





Worker cooperatives—businesses owned and democratically managed by their employees—have shown high rates of economic stability, employee retention, and productivity.

A 2019 report from the Democracy at Work Institute (DAWI) and the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives (USFWC) noted that “mature worker cooperatives” that were operational for six to 10 years in the U.S. had a 25.6 percent success rate, while the success rate for other small businesses in the country which had been functioning for the same amount of time, was 18.7 percent. Data analyzed by economics professor Virginie PĂ©rotin also shows that worker co-ops have more stable employment and “are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working ‘better and smarter.’”

Cooperatives also play an important role in building more equitable communities by bridging the wealth gap. “Cooperatively-owned businesses have the potential to unlock ownership and wealth generation for so many traditionally excluded individuals and communities,” states the Start.Coop website.

Despite these advantages, worker cooperatives are relatively scarce in the U.S. The DAWI and the USFWC found only 612 worker co-ops nationwide in 2021. This, however, marked a 30 percent growth since 2019.

In contrast, the National Institute of Statistics counted 29,414 worker co-ops in Italy in 2019, and a 2024 piece by Grassroots Economic Organizing mentioned that there were more than 23,000 cooperatives in Argentina.

A 2020 article by the executive director of Start.Coop, Greg Brodsky, attributed the small number of worker-owned cooperatives to many factors, including funding hurdles, preference for traditional business models, and unsupportive legal and regulatory structures. The article also states that a lack of awareness and education around this model makes co-ops an unpopular choice.

The members of Montana’s first worker co-op, Crucible, are no strangers to this phenomenon. Philip Munson, the company’s vice president, says that although “Montana understands an electric cooperative, a consumer cooperative like a grocery store, or a communication cooperative,” the concept of a worker collective is foreign to many residents of the area.

Crucible’s president, Tyson Holland, states, “I can’t tell you how many times we’ve been asked, ‘What’s your ownership in the company?’ and have tried to explain, ‘Well, it’s equally shared.’”

Situated in the southwestern Montana city of Bozeman, Crucible specializes in custom steel fabrication and design. Its impressive interior and exterior structures and furnishings can be seen in local businesses such as hotels, restaurants, and diners.

Holland and Munson met in “about 2014” while working at a structural steel fabrication company. They quickly found that they had similar, if not identical, thoughts and feelings about working for another company.

“Before we even made the first steps toward the formation of Crucible, Tyson and I had many conversations about how the traditional way of conducting business left the best talent and strongest assets of a company unsupported, unrecognized, and ultimately in a hostile or generally adversarial situation with management,” Munson notes. “This was a common situation from our experience, and the only way to address the issue came down to a foundational cultural shift in how business should be done.”

This led Munson and Holland to explore alternative avenues of business ownership. That search led them to the co-op model, which “hit all the points we had discussed in terms of really being able to edify and empower the people working with you rather than for you,” Holland states. He adds that this model paired well with his and Munson’s view that team synergy “doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the company owner or the management.”

“It has more to do with culture,” Munson says. “Fundamentally, what it comes down to is the people you work with.” He adds that good relationships are the foundation of good business, as summarized by Crucible’s slogan, “United by Design.”

The Montana Cooperative Development Center (MCDC) was instrumental in helping Holland and Munson establish a worker cooperative in an area where none existed. Holland recalls that after Crucible was officially incorporated in 2017, the new team “went around the state and did workshops with the MCDC, talking about worker cooperatives when we really didn’t have any experience whatsoever.”

Now significantly more experienced, Crucible is playing the long game. “A common way startups go about business now is to build a company that specifies what the service is, systematize it until it’s dialed, and sell it off to a multinational corporation,” Munson says. “That’s the exit strategy. That’s how the owners make their money. With a cooperative, success is the only exit strategy.”

Holland adds that whereas “a lot of businesses make it because they focus on a niche and become very good at it,” Crucible “would like to have a lot of niches.”

Munson explains that one of Crucible’s hopes is to “assemble a consultation team that can advise on building design.” He feels this service will remain useful even as automation and AI gain prevalence. “Even if you have robots doing the physical labor, you’re still going to need the blue-collar information.”

Worker co-ops like the Spruce Design Cooperative and the Organic Integrity Cooperative Guild have appeared in Bozeman since Crucible’s inception. Twelve miles southwest of Bozeman, Big Timberworks offers timber design and framing, custom metalwork, box beams, and a reclaimed lumber sawmill.

Crucible seems to have helped pave the way for the worker cooperative model in Montana, but according to Munson, “It’s not a paving. It’s a gravel road.”

“It might be a dirt road at times, too,” Holland jokes.

“It’s a rough cut on the side of a mountain,” Munson says. “It might be a little steep, and if you go up one side or the other, you might be in serious trouble.”


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate


Damon Orion is a writer, journalist, musician, artist, and teacher in Santa Cruz, California. His work has appeared in Revolver, Guitar World, Spirituality + Health, Classic Rock, High Times, and other publications. Read more of his work at DamonOrion.com


The Potential Benefits of Direct Democracy and Voting for Policies, Not Personalities

What if we could represent ourselves?
October 31, 2024
Source: Hammer & Hope


Image by Tony Webster, Creative Commons 2.0

On Jan. 20, 2009, the United States of America inaugurated its first Black president, Barack Obama. In November, the U.S. may elect its second. Does this mean anything?

One reason to think so, as New York City mayor Eric Adams reminds us: “Representation matters.” This election year we are confronted with the question of whether or not to support the possible election of Kamala Harris — as good a time as any to return to the question of what representation means and what it’s good for.

We of course needn’t focus on the highest political office in the country to revisit the perennial question of what “Black faces in high places” means politically. As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor wrote in From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, the emergence of a Black political class has slowly developed over the past 50 years, which she describes as “the most significant transformation in all of black life.” In that book, she discusses the Baltimore protests over the police murder of Freddie Gray: “When a Black mayor, governing a largely Black city, aids in the mobilization of a military unit led by a Black woman to suppress a Black rebellion, we are in a new period of the Black freedom struggle.”

Since then, the “Black Misleadership Class” has not turned over much of a new leaf. When Adams said, “Representation matters,” in 2021, he had just been elected the second Black mayor of New York City and was announcing the appointment of a historic all-women team of five deputy mayors. If it sounds less inspirational now, maybe you’ve been following the news: his administration has been mired in a scandal of dizzying complexity that produced the top man’s federal indictment alongside arrests of senior officials. Meanwhile, the city of Atlanta essentially doxxed its own citizens — printing the names and addresses of signatories to “Stop Cop City” petitions — rather than engage in the barest pretense of democracy and allow public challenge to its attempts to divert yet more land and funding to policing.

Perhaps in response to these episodes and countless others has come yet another resurgence: reminders of the deep conservatism at the heart of the Democratic Party in particular, the fact that elections cannot save us from capitalism or its consequences, and also that voting may even be an irresponsible symbolic concession to a system that refuses to change. Some have responded to this malaise by trying to play defense in response to electoral politics, insisting to leftists that participation in electoral politics allows you to “choose your opponent” or, at the very least, to reduce the harm that one’s worse opponents might commit.

One way to move beyond the basic set of assumptions is asking how we could get better representatives: if we had a genuine working-class party, say, or even just a viable third party that could break the Democratic-Republican stranglehold over the shape of U.S. politics. We could try for new rules to shape the contest between political parties: ranked-choice voting to change how candidates craft their appeal to voters or proportional representation to change how parties share power after elections from a winner-take-all system to one that splits seats between parties. But while we ask those questions, it’s worth adding another, parallel set: What if elections were different? What if we could vote directly for plans rather than representatives of any party? What if we could represent ourselves?

This is not some thought experiment or conceptual exercise (though, as a philosopher, I’m not above those!). Direct democracy already exists, albeit in limited forms, but those forms could in principle scale up. Here in the United States, abortion rights have already been under attack and hang in the balance in elections. Ten states have adopted a direct democratic strategy for their defense this election season: holding referenda on abortion laws that would allow their voters to join California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont in enshrining reproductive rights guarantees into law, including amending state constitutions. “Leaving it to the states” doesn’t have to be only a dangerous and irresponsible failure to defend reproductive justice.

In Ireland structures facilitating direct democracy won a constitutional amendment to defend reproductive autonomy, first through a Citizens’ Assembly and then a referendum. Citizens’ Assemblies convene a group of citizens chosen by sortition to discuss and decide matters of public importance, bringing in panels of experts to inform the process. When given a chance to decide together — not as atomized individuals at a polling booth but as an organized body with responsibility to the public good — a randomly selected group of Irish people did something that surprised the world. After a year and a half of informed and careful deliberation, the group came out in support for reproductive rights and called for a national referendum on legalizing abortion. Shortly thereafter, in May 2018, an overwhelming majority of the Irish public voted their agreement, enshrining reproductive rights into law.

Another form of public direct democracy is participatory budgeting, which allows residents of an area to exercise direct democratic input over how city funds get used. The process was developed by the Brazilian Workers’ Party as part of an effort to strengthen substantive democracy in the wake of a brutal, U.S.-backed, anti-communist military dictatorship.

This model has already taken hold in some places in the United States. In the aftermath of the protests against police violence in the summer of 2020, a coalition of organizing and activist groups proposed a “Solidarity Budget” for Seattle that aimed to “transform our city budget away from one that invests heavily in policing, prosecuting, and jailing BIPOC communities, toward one that invests in building self-determined, dignified, productive and ecologically sustainable livelihoods, democratic governance, and ecological resilience.” After foot dragging and stonewalling, Seattle’s mayor finally announced over $27 million in funding for initiatives chosen through the participatory budgeting process. The selected projects include funding to establish mental health specialists as first responders, potentially displacing police, and emergency youth shelters. Seattle was not just one of the few cities to move toward de facto cuts to police budgets but one of the even fewer cities to do so by direct democratic means.

Eric Adams was right about one thing: representation does matter. Elections and electoral politics are ultimately a form of deciding together, and much of what’s wrong with how elections function in our political system can be traced to whom elections empower and how. From national figures like Harris to local ones like the Atlanta City Council members, representatives have to run for office, which means they have to court big campaign donors and avoid confrontation with a well-resourced opposition. We have seen what that kind of confrontation can look like: AIPAC and its allies spent $14 million and $8 million to oust Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush for the crime of being insufficiently deferential to Israel.

The job of any elected official in a nominally democratic society involves the attempt to unify in one person the various interests of a diverse constituency with needs and goals that often conflict. It’s no surprise, then, that the usual strategies for walking this tightrope often and perhaps necessarily involve some measure of waffling or duplicity. What the specific job of the presidency adds to this predicament — beyond operating at a national scale where social conflicts are even more hopelessly irreconcilable — is the weight of the additional stakes presented by the country’s unilateral control over the world’s reserve currency, a global intelligence and espionage network of coup-mongering proportions, and launch codes for an arsenal encompassing nearly half of the world’s available nuclear weapons. It’s no wonder that corruption, influence peddling, and elite capture result from a political decision-making process that is so heavily reliant on the whims, idiosyncrasies, and personal incentives that our representatives must negotiate.

But skepticism about how elections function and whom they empower is compatible with recognizing the potential promise of direct democratic votes and decision-making. Unlike city council members, participants in citizens’ assemblies or participatory budgeting processes are not running for office. People who own homes or businesses or worship in an area might well have outsize economic interests on some questions relative to others. Under the present system, these people often organize against causes like renewable energy, harm-reduction programs, and affordable housing (especially for working-class Black folks) and are sometimes suspiciously well funded for their efforts. In a participatory budgeting system, their interests wouldn’t grant them any more votes. The shop owner, homeowner, or landlord has the same means of influencing the outcome of a participatory budgeting process that a low-wage employee or renter does: convincing other people. One reason to have confidence that we can do better than elected representatives in making sure that democratic processes run this way will safeguard the common good is that our neighbors — unlike AIPAC and other lobbies — will have to live with the decisions made.

We should understand the scale of what direct democratic procedures have so far accomplished against the sobering backdrop of the status quo. Referenda can be used as a permission structure for the powerful to legitimize their control, especially when done in the absence of genuine public deliberation and consideration of proposals. Even when such consideration happens, as in Ireland, the question of power is paramount; Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly officially had only an advisory role, meaning that elected representatives could have simply ignored their proposals (and the Irish are able to amend their constitution via referendum, something we in the U.S. cannot do). Even where directly democratic processes ensure that people have power over funding, the scale of that power often is dwarfed by the power the system keeps for itself. While Seattle’s participatory budgeting processes distributed some $27 million, the government of King County, which includes Seattle, operates on a two-year budget of more than $15 billion. While direct democratic control over tens of millions of dollars is not quite a rounding error, neither is it, in its current form, as significant an existential challenge to an entrenched political structure that was perhaps hoped for during the height of the 2020 protests.

Yet we should also recognize the potential promise of direct democracy, especially working in tandem with other dimensions of struggle rather than as a substitute for them. At least some of this promise is visible in Seattle. While many cities ignored defund demands entirely, and defund measures were rolled back in cities like Austin and Los Angeles, Seattle’s progress remains. King County is now slated for a second round of participatory budgeting to decide on the use of some $11.8 million. Anyone who “lives, works, owns a business, receives services, goes to school, or worships” in one of the five areas of the county targeted in this round can enter the selection process. The range oforganizations that had supported the Solidarity Budget — from the activist groups Black Collective Voices and Decriminalize Seattle to labor union locals SEIU 925 and UAW 4121 — most likely has something to do with this success. And the stronger these groups are, the greater the possibility that future iterations of struggle could deliver more serious and weighty direct democratic results.

Making political decisions by choosing which Democrat, Republican, or third party will make those decisions for us deserves just as much reconsideration as the two-party system itself. We could make decisions by direct vote or by jury, or we could decide who occupies public office by lottery rather than elections. Any of these can be run better or worse, and some may fit the political and cultural circumstances better than others. But in this time of nationalized politics where spectacles and celebrities reign, it’s helpful to remember that representation matters. Maybe we should have more opportunities to represent ourselves.



OlĂşfáşą́mi O. Táíwò is an associate professor of philosophy at Georgetown University. He is the author of Elite Capture and Reconsidering Reparations.
Time To Expropriate the Rich!
October 30, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.



Review of Mastering the Universe: The Obscene Wealth of the Ruling Class, What They do with Their Money and Why You Should Hate Them Even More by Rob Larson (Haymarket, 2024).

In Rob Larson’s new book Mastering the Universe–an attack on wealth inequality in the US and globally–the author twice resorts to the phrase “ball fondling” to describe the sycophantic treatment billionaires typically receive in our society. While such profane vocabulary is relatively rare in his writings–although he does use “fucking” as an adjective or adverb several times in Mastering the Universe–it is also suggestive of a broader charm he brings to his intellectual output. In his career as a book author and writer for such publications as Dollars & Sense and Current Affairs, it is clear that he has endeavored to make himself relatable to ordinary people. His articulation of economic concepts and explanation of current events is made in a pleasingly simple, clear and frequently light hearted fashion. There is a beauty in his clear and unpretentious prose. His writing skill is all the more remarkable in light of him being an economics professor (at Tacoma Community College in Washington state). Not many professional economists are engaging writers.

Besides his writing gifts, Larson has another standout quality apparent in the book presently under review as well as in his other works. Like his mentor Noam Chomsky (to whom Mastering the Universe is dedicated), Larson is clearly an assiduous reader of mainstream news publications, particularly the business press. In Mastering the Universe, he weaves useful tidbits he picked up from the mainstream media with analysis from academic economists to produce a compelling narrative.

The basic argument of Mastering the Universe is one very familiar to left wing audiences: in recent decades, neoliberal government policies have led to a much greater concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. We live in a new Gilded Age: billionaire wealth has surged into the stratosphere while life for a significant majority of the American population is increasingly financially precarious. The dynamic was described in a leaked 2005 Citibank memo which Larson quotes at the outset of his book. The memo said that the United States was not merely a plutocracy but a ”plutonomy”: wealth is so concentrated in the top 1 percent of wealth earners that the latter are the primary drivers of economic growth. Much of the country’s spending power is hogged by the uber wealthy and so big business often places less priority on catering to the spending preferences of a large majority of the population.

Larson’s book adopts a particular angle in criticizing the concentration of wealth in the 1%. He argues that this wealth is spent wastefully, is not particularly “earned”–much of it is inherited–and that it is largely accumulated not in direct engagement with the productive economy but in passive income from assets (stock dividends, property rents, etc). Many pages of the book are spent cataloging how the rich spend their money on million dollar watches, superyachts, private jets and multiple condos that sit empty (while the homeless population surges on the streets outside). He lays particular emphasis on the environmentally destructive consumption of the 1%, for example their use of private jets.

Larson also makes the crucial point that the most dynamic sectors of the economy today–and the foundation of the astronomical fortunes of the uber wealthy which control them–were created through public funding. For example, the internet was developed in significant part through investments by DARPA, the Pentagon’s research agency. He points to this dynamic as underlying one of the latest wasteful spending fads of oligarchs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos: space tourism. Decades of NASA’s taxpayer funded R&D in outer space travel laid the foundation for Bezos’s space tourism company Blue Origin.

Revolutionary Socialism: The Cure for Wealth Stratification


Larson argues that progressive social movements that successfully brought pressure on governments in the United States and Europe in the mid-20th century to engage in wealth redistribution and protection of labor unions made a crucial mistake. While such movements were able to visibly reduce economic inequality in their respective societies–and increase taxes and regulations on corporations–the productive forces of the economy remained controlled by private capitalists. Beginning in the 1970’s, those capitalists in the United States and Europe utilized their wealth to launch a counterattack against the welfare state and the power of labor unions. Larson believes that progressive movements must make central to their agenda a demand to completely expropriate the means of production from private ownership. Businesses should be taken out of the hands of owners and managers and placed under the democratic control of the group that actually produces society’s wealth: the workers. This is the true meaning of socialism.

As to how society might secure the complete expropriation of the means of production, radical left readers will be well familiar with Larson’s exhortations for ordinary people to form mass movements. It is understandable that Larson offers cliches on this point; there is no magic formula for securing radical economic and social change; by far the most realistic method to do so is patient organization of social movements and mass struggle over a long course of time. Regarding current mass movements, Larson offers a useful summary of recent worker organizing efforts at Amazon and Starbucks.

Larson offers no description of the nuts and bolts of the operations of a potential post-capitalist society where workplaces are democratically controlled. It is likely that he believes that such structures would have to be worked out through trial and error according to the specific circumstances and needs of particular regions and locales. In any case, Larson’s book makes an effective case that economic exploitation under capitalism has derailed the achievement of full human freedom for far too long.

 

Source: Pressenza


Image by Heinz-Josef LĂĽcking, Creative Commons 3.0

The first-of-its-kind study, Carbon Inequality Kills,” tracks the emissions from private jets, yachts and polluting investments and details how the super-rich are fueling inequality, hunger and death across the world.

The report comes ahead of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, amidst growing fears that climate breakdown is accelerating, driven largely by the emissions of the richest people.

If the world continues its current emissions, the carbon budget (the amount of CO2 that can still be added to the atmosphere without causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5°C) will be depleted in about four years.

However, if everyone’s emissions matched those of the richest 1 percent, the carbon budget would be used up in under five months.

And if everyone started emitting as much carbon as the private jets and superyachts of the average billionaire in Oxfam’s study, it would be gone in two days.

“The super-rich are treating our planet like their personal playground, setting it ablaze for pleasure and profit. Their dirty investments and luxury toys —private jets and yachts— aren’t just symbols of excess; they’re a direct threat to people and the planet,” said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar.

“Oxfam’s research makes it painfully clear: the extreme emissions of the richest, from their luxury lifestyles and even more from their polluting investments, are fueling inequality, hunger and —make no mistake— threatening lives. It’s not just unfair that their reckless pollution and unbridled greed is fueling the very crisis threatening our collective future —it’s lethal,” said Behar.

The report, the first-ever study to look at both the luxury transport and polluting investments of billionaires, presents detailed new evidence of how their outsized emissions are accelerating climate breakdown and wreaking havoc on lives and economies.

The world’s poorest countries and communities have done the least to cause the climate crisis, yet they experience its most dangerous consequences.

Oxfam found that, on average, 50 of the world’s richest billionaires took 184 flights in a single year, spending 425 hours in the air —producing as much carbon as the average person would in 300 years. In the same period, their yachts emitted as much carbon as the average person would in 860 years.

  • Jeff Bezos’ two private jets spent nearly 25 days in the air over a 12-month period and emitted as much carbon as the average US Amazon employee would in 207 years. Carlos Slim took 92 trips in his private jet, equivalent to circling the globe five times.
  • The Walton family, heirs of the Walmart retail chain, own three superyachts that in one year produced as much carbon as around 1,714 Walmart shop workers.

Billionaires’ lifestyle emissions dwarf those of ordinary people, but the emissions from their investments are dramatically higher still —the average investment emissions of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires are around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined.

Through these investments, billionaires have huge influence over some of the world’s biggest corporations and are driving us over the edge of climate disaster.

Nearly 40 percent of billionaire investments analyzed in Oxfam’s research are in highly polluting industries: oil, mining, shipping and cement.

On average, a billionaire’s investment portfolio is almost twice as polluting as an investment in the S&P 500. However, if their investments were in a low-carbon-intensity investment fund, their investment emissions would be 13 times lower.

Oxfam’s report details three critical areas, providing national and regional breakdowns, where the emissions of the world’s richest 1 percent since 1990 are already having —and are projected to have— devastating consequences:

  • Global inequality. The emissions of the richest 1 percent have caused global economic output to drop by $2.9 trillion since 1990. The biggest impact will be in countries least responsible for climate breakdown. Low- and lower-middle-income countries will lose about 2.5 percent of their cumulative GDP between 1990 and 2050. Southern Asia, South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will lose 3 percent, 2.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. High-income countries, on the other hand, will accrue economic gains.
  • Hunger. The emissions of the richest 1 percent have caused crop losses that could have provided enough calories to feed 14.5 million people a year between 1990 and 2023. This will rise to 46 million people annually between 2023 and 2050, with Latin America and the Caribbean especially affected (9 million a year by 2050).
  • Death. 78 percent of excess deaths due to heat through 2120 will occur in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

“It’s become so tiring, to be resilient. It’s not something that I have chosen to be —it was necessary to survive. A child shouldn’t need to be strong. I just wanted to be safe, to play in the sand —but I was always fleeing when storms came. Counting dead bodies after a typhoon isn’t something any child should have to do. And whether we survive or not, the rich polluters don’t even care,” said Marinel Sumook Ubaldo, a young climate activist from the Philippines.

Rich countries have failed to keep their $100 billion climate finance promise, and heading into COP29, there is no indication that they will set a new climate finance goal that adequately addresses the climate financing needs of Global South countries.

Oxfam warns that the cost of global warming will continue to rise unless the richest drastically reduce their emissions.

Ahead of COP29, Oxfam calls on governments to:

  • Reduce the emissions of the richest. Governments must introduce permanent income and wealth taxes on the top 1 percent, ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury consumptions —starting with private jets and superyachts— and regulate corporations and investors to drastically and fairly reduce their emissions.
  • Make rich polluters pay. Climate finance needs are enormous and escalating, especially in Global South countries that are withstanding the worst climate impacts. A wealth tax on the world’s millionaires and billionaires could raise at least $1.7 trillion annually. A wealth tax on investments in polluting activities could bring in another $100 billion.
  • Reimagine our economies. The current economic system, designed to accumulate wealth for the already rich through relentless extraction and consumption, has long undermined a truly sustainable and equitable future for all. Governments need to commit to ensuring that, both globally and at a national level, the incomes of the top 10 percent are no higher than the bottom 40 percent.

Download Oxfam’s report “Carbon Inequality Kills” and the methodology note.

Oxfam’s research shows that that the richest 1 percent, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those earning $310,000 ($140,000 PPP) or more a year, accounted for 16 percent of all CO2 emissions in 2019.

On average, a billionaire’s investments in polluting industries such as fossil fuels and cement are double the average for the Standard & Poor 500 group of corporations.

Oxfam’s analysis estimates the changes in economic output (GDP), changes in yields of major crops (it considers maize, wheat, and soy, which are among the most common crops globally) and excess deaths due to changes in temperatures that can be attributed to the emissions of the richest people.

Economic damages are expressed in International Dollars ($), which adjusts for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

Based on estimates from the International Renewable Energy Agency, Oxfam calculates that, if invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency measures by 2030, billionaires’ wealth could cover the entire funding gap between what governments have pledged and what is needed to keep global warming below 1.5⁰C.

Rich countries continue to resist calls for climate reparations. Climate activists are demanding the Global North provide at least $5 trillion a year in public finance to the Global South “as a down payment towards their climate debt” to the countries, people and communities of the Global South who are the least responsible for climate breakdown but are the most affected.

 

Source: The Conversation


CC BY-NC-ND 2.0



Some of the ways migrants are exploited in the workforce get a lot of public attention. We hear tragic stories about wage theft, forced unpaid overtime, unsafe work conditions or discrimination. And we are likely to hear more such grim stories revealed at a NSW parliamentary inquiry that will examine modern slavery in Australia.

These vulnerabilities all relate to what researchers call workplace precarity – insecurity or uncertainty at work. But too often, a major piece of this picture gets overlooked.

My recent analysis of more than 900 court cases brought by migrant workers shines a light on migrants being sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or trafficked for sexual reasons in their workplaces.

Yet, with the exception of a recent landmark research report on sexual harassment experienced by migrant women, this issue has not received the attention it deserves.

The taboo nature of sexual crimes likely plays a role in this neglect. When it is covered, there is often a somewhat sensationalist focus by the media on the sex work industry.

In the process, we may overfocus on sex work and neglect many other workplaces in which migrant workers can face forms of sexual violence. Any reckoning with workplace precarity more broadly cannot afford to ignore the risk of sexual exploitation.

What is ‘precarity’?

Workplace “precarity” – insecurity or uncertainty at work – can affect us all.

It can encompass a wide range of aspects, including a lack of workplace protections, job insecurity and social or economic instability at work.

Visa status, a lack of knowledge of local laws and language barriers can all make migrants more vulnerable to workplace precarity.

Unscrupulous employers may exploit these known vulnerabilities to extract favours and take advantage.

Many theories of economic precarity do not consider sexual risk at all.

What my research uncovered

My research, drawn from more than 900 court cases brought by migrant workers, uncovered some harrowing examples.

In one case in Canada, an employer sexually harassed and in one case raped two migrant women who worked in his business as fish filleters. One of the women felt she had to comply with demands for fellatio to avoid deportation back to Mexico.

Following a ruling, the women were awarded damages under Ontario human rights law.

In another highly publicised case in Australia, a farmer was found guilty of raping a young British backpacker, threatening refusal to sign off on her farm work if she did not comply.

Such a “sign off” is required for a working holiday maker to be able to extend their visa for an additional year.

Sex slavery

further case concerned sex slavery. Two Thai women entered Australia fraudulently on tourist visas with the intention of undertaking sex work. The sex work began, with their consent.

However, they came to be subjected to work that went beyond what had been contracted in terms of the number of clients, the nature of sexual services provided, frequency and rest periods.

One woman suffered damage to her sexual organs. They also had their mobile phones removed. After several legal appeals, this behaviour was found to amount to sex trafficking and the defendant employer was imprisoned.

An attempt to overturn the conviction was refused.

Recent research by the NSW Anti Slavery Commissioner’s Office with migrant workers on NSW farms also suggests allegations of sexual violence could be unreported due to a perceived risk of retaliation.

Interwoven risks

These cases, and many others, all demonstrate that economic and sexual exploitation can commingle for migrant workers.

In such cases, employers may use economic and visa vulnerability to extract sexual favours. At times in these cases, there are also egregious examples of underpayment or even non-payment.

To capture this relationship in migration systems, I developed the term sexual precarity. This has five core components:

  1. restrictive visa conditions
  2. debt bondage
  3. live-in arrangements that heighten exposure to employers during non-working hours
  4. entrapment and slavery
  5. the combination of sexual violence with economic exploitation or other forms of physical injury.

What needs to be done?

First, as with broader migrant worker rights, education campaigns for migrants are required.

These would extend beyond making them better informed about their rights on economic exploitation to issues of discrimination and protection from sexual exploitation.

Second, practical safeguards can be put in place to protect migrant women in isolated workplaces.

This might include female-only sleeping dorms, female-only agriculture workforces, support person rules for meetings with male employers and general advice on sexual consent laws for both employers and employees.

Third, policymakers could consider whether sexual offences that are accompanied by a visa threat should suffer additional penalties under criminal or immigration law.

This has already been made the case with recent changes to visa sponsorship where employers who coerce migrants into breaching their visa conditions are subjected to certain penalties.