A Common Trait Among Mass Killers: Hatred Towards Women

Women’s Liberation Front  

15 hrs

A Common Trait Among Mass Killers: Hatred Towards Women
Misogyny and mass shootings in the United States are closely intertwined.

“The man who shot nine people to death last weekend in Dayton, Ohio, seethed at female classmates and threatened them with violence.

The man who massacred 49 people in an Orlando nightclub in 2016 beat his wife while she was pregnant, she told authorities.

The man who killed 26 people in a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., in 2017 had been convicted of domestic violence. His ex-wife said he once told her that he could bury her body where no one would ever find it.

The motivations of men who commit mass shootings are often muddled, complex or unknown. But one common thread that connects many of them — other than access to powerful firearms — is a history of hating women, assaulting wives, girlfriends and female family members, or sharing misogynistic views online, researchers say.

As the nation grapples with last weekend’s mass shootings and debates new red-flag laws and tighter background checks, some gun control advocates say the role of misogyny in these attacks should be considered in efforts to prevent them.

The fact that mass shootings are almost exclusively perpetrated by men is “missing from the national conversation,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom of California on Monday. “Why does it have to be, why is it men, dominantly, always?”

While a possible motive for the gunman who killed 22 people in El Paso has emerged — he posted a racist manifesto online saying the attack was in response to a “Hispanic invasion of Texas” — the authorities are still trying to determine what drove Connor Betts, 24, to murder nine people in Dayton, including his own sister.

Investigators are looking closely at his history of antagonism and threats toward women, and whether they may have played a role in the attacks.

Since the killings, people who knew Mr. Betts described a man who was offbeat and awkward; others recalled his dark rages and obsession with guns.

Those rages were frequently directed at female acquaintances. In high school, Mr. Betts made a list threatening violence or sexual violence against its targets, most of whom were girls, classmates have said. His threats were frightening enough that some girls altered their behavior: Try not to attract his attention, but don’t antagonize him, either.

“I remember we were all distant, like maybe we should just shy away from him,” said Shelby Emmert, 24, a former classmate. “My mom wanted me to just not associate. She said to stay away from Connor Betts.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, cited a statistic that belies the sense that mass shootings are usually random: In more than half of all mass shootings in the United States from 2009 to 2017, an intimate partner or family member of the perpetrator was among the victims.

(The study, by the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, defined mass shootings as those in which four or more people died, not including the gunman.)

“Most mass shootings are rooted in domestic violence,” Ms. Watts said. “Most mass shooters have a history of domestic or family violence in their background. It’s an important red flag.”

Federal law prohibits people convicted of certain domestic violence crimes, and some abusers who are subject to protective orders, from buying or owning guns. But there are many loopholes, and women in relationships who are not married to, do not live with, or have children with their abusers receive no protection. Federal law also does not provide a mechanism for actually removing guns from abusers, and only some states have enacted such procedures.

Judges can consider an individual’s history of domestic abuse, for example, under red-flag laws adopted in at least 17 states. Such laws allow courts to issue a special type of protective order under which the police can take guns, temporarily, from people deemed dangerous.

The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, has opposed efforts to expand the situations in which individuals accused of abuse can lose the right to own guns, saying that doing so would deny people due process and punish people for behavior that is not violent.

But Allison Anderman, senior counsel at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said measures that facilitate the removal of guns from abusers “are a critical step in saving the lives of abuse survivors.” And given the link between domestic abuse and mass shootings, she said, these laws may also help prevent massacres.

The plagues of domestic violence and mass shootings in the United States are closely intertwined. The University of Texas tower massacre in 1966, generally considered to be the beginning of the era of modern mass shootings in America, began with the gunman killing his mother and wife the night before.

Devin P. Kelley, who opened fire on parishioners at a Sunday service in Sutherland Springs, on Nov. 5, 2017, had been convicted of domestic violence by an Air Force general court-martial, for repeatedly beating his first wife and breaking the skull of his infant stepson. That conviction should have kept him from buying or owning guns, but the Air Force failed to enter the court-martial into a federal database.

In attacking the church, Mr. Kelley appeared to be targeting the family of his second wife.

In a case that highlights the so-called boyfriend loophole, in 2016, a man who had been convicted of stalking a girlfriend and had been arrested on a charge of battery against a household member shot Cheryl Mascareñas, whom he had briefly dated, and her three children, killing the children. Because the man had not been married to or had children with the woman he was convicted of stalking, his conviction did not prevent him from having or purchasing guns.”

A professed hatred of women is frequent among suspects in the long history of mass shootings in America.

There was the massacre in 1991, when a man walked into Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Tex., and fatally shot 22 people in what at the time was the worst mass shooting in modern United States history. The gunman had recently written a letter to his neighbors calling women in the area “vipers,” and eyewitnesses said he had passed over men in the cafeteria to shoot women at point blank range.

“Even some of the incidents that people don’t know about or aren’t really familiar with now or don’t come to mind, there definitely is a thread of this anger, and misogyny,” said James M. Silver, a professor of criminal justice at Worcester State University who has worked with the F.B.I. to study the motivations of mass gunmen.

In recent years, a number of these men have identified as so-called incels, short for involuntary celibates, an online subculture of men who express rage at women for denying them sex, and who frequently fantasize about violence and celebrate mass shooters in their online discussion groups.

Special reverence is reserved on these websites for Elliot O. Rodger, who killed six people in 2014 in Isla Vista, Calif., a day after posting a video titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution.” In it, he describes himself as being tortured by sexual deprivation and promises to punish women for rejecting him. Men on these sites often refer to him by his initials and joke about “going ER” — or a murderous rampage against “normies,” or non-incels.

Several mass killers have cited Mr. Rodger as an inspiration.

Alek Minassian, who drove a van onto a sidewalk in Toronto in 2018, killing 10 people, had posted a message on Facebook minutes before the attack praising Mr. Rodger. “The Incel rebellion has already begun!” he wrote. “All hail Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

And Scott P. Beierle, who last year shot two women to death in a yoga studio in Tallahassee, had also expressed sympathy with Mr. Rodger in online videos in which he railed against women and minorities and told stories of romantic rejection. Mr. Beierle had twice been charged with battery after women accused him of groping them.

Federal law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. was looking at whether the gunman in Dayton had connections with incel groups, and considered incels a threat.

Experts say the same patterns that lead to the radicalization of white supremacists and other terrorists can apply to misogynists who turn to mass violence: a lonely, troubled individual who finds a community of like-minded individuals online, and an outlet for their anger.

“They’re angry and they’re suicidal and they’ve had traumatic childhoods and these hard lives, and they get to a point and they find something or someone to blame,” said Jillian Peterson, a psychologist and a founder of the Violence Project, a research organization that studies mass shootings. “For some people, that is women, and we are seeing that kind of take off.”

David Futrelle, a journalist who for years has tracked incel websites and other misogynistic online subcultures on a blog called “We Hunted the Mammoth,” described incel websites as a kind of echo chamber of despair, where anyone who says anything remotely hopeful quickly gets ostracized.

“You get a bunch of these guys who are just very angry and bitter, and feel helpless and in some cases suicidal, and that’s just absolutely a combination that’s going to produce more shooters in the future,” Mr. Futrelle said.

Psychiatrists, however, say that the attention on mental health generated by mass shootings, and the common argument that mental illness is the explanation for these massacres, cannot explain the link between misogyny and mass shootings. Misogyny — or other types of hatred — is not necessarily a diagnosable mental illness.

Instead, said Amy Barnhorst, the vice chair of community psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, who has studied mass shootings, what ties together many of the perpetrators is “this entitlement, this envy of others, this feeling that they deserve something that the world is not giving them. And they are angry at others that they see are getting it.”

Some components of a Badger Green New Deal

Let’s urge the Governor’s office to do outreach to the local governments, to help re-set the relationship between local governments and our Wisconsin State Legislature.

In order to have a sustainable Wisconsin, we need to have our own Badger Green New Deal. I think you can Look to the Locals for ideas and visions of what this system might look like. Beyond Medicaid expansion, there’s three components that we need right now.

The first of these is to re-enable Regional Transit Authorities for a statewide system of renewable-energy, regional mass transit. In each County we have Mobility Managers, and they are stressed and strained by lack of funding to try and deliver mobility for our elderly, our poor people, disabled persons and young students and young workers getting their first jobs. All of these folks will benefit from a robust system of regional mass transit.

SolarBus

The second part of a Badger Green New Deal is an Affordable Housing System. Developers have told me that you can’t make money building affordable housing units. That may be true. The market is not the solution to our problem; the market IS the problem, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan correctly. Government is the solution. We need a State-owned bank to make loans to local governments to own/operate their own affordable housing systems locally.

AffordableHousingRenewable

Third component of a Badger Green New Deal is to address our agricultural crisis. Another function of a State-owned bank will be to help prevent further bankruptcies by changing to a more sustainable agriculture. This bank could fund new start-up agricultural ventures based in local communities. Build on the successes of local food movements. Fund local start-ups of smaller-scale, cooperative, regenerative agriculture farms based in organic no-till practices, specialty high-value crops, more biodiversity, small scale locally-owned cooperative food processing ventures, fewer CAFOs and more grazed animal ops.

RegenAg

Conservatives may object, where will you find the money for all these free ponies?

Well, we’re not broke,
we need to get woke.

We know where the money is at. It’s hoarded behind the tallest wall of wealth inequality the nation has ever seen. We need to break down that wall. It’s our workers, farmers, and consumers who created that hoarded wealth. Let’s use the power of taxation to…

Jailbreak that wealth
to restore communities’ health.
WealthInequalityWallmeme

WI- Local Government Resolution to Enable Regional Transit Authorities

Abbie Hofmann had written a book in the 1960s humorously-titled “Steal This Book.” The author of this Resolution to be introduced in Counties, League of Municipalities members, Towns Association members and even Wisc. Association of School Board members, urges you to totally plagiarize (claim authorship) of it and introduce it to the local governmental body of which you’re an elected member. This might have some odds at least of becoming part of State Statutes again if the largest number of the widest assortment of governments from the widest geographic dispersal will pass the resolution (or similar ones).

Regionalizing mass transit will be only the first, minor, step towards sustainability for Wisconsin. Without this step, odds of achieving sustainability in time to avert rather dire consequences, are small.

AbbieHofmann

Resolution: Demand on the WI Legislature to Re-enable Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs)

To be Submitted to all levels of local governments throughout Wisconsin during 2019.

WHEREAS, In 2009 the Wisconsin Legislature passed legislation included in Act 28, enabling the formation of Regional Transit Authorities, complete with the power of taxation necessary to fund their start-up and operations;

WHEREAS, In 2011, as part of Act 32, the Wisconsin Legislature passed legislation disabling the same Regional Transit Authorities, with no rational explanation or narrative for undoing what had been done two years earlier;

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Association of Mobility Managers (WAMM) said, introducing their 2016 Legislative Priorities, “Wisconsin is the only Midwest state without enabling legislation to create these authorities. Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) are a quasi-governmental entity that provides a governance structure for a unified transportation system and has taxing authority, therefor offering a funding alternative to property taxes;”

AWRPCs

WHEREAS, WAMM added, “Regional Transit Authorities allow for a regional and comprehensive look at transportation. They encourage connectivity and multimodal approaches since the planning takes place with one body for the whole region. A multimodal and coordinated system improves the mobility, connectedness, and quality of life for those who are unable to drive themselves, particularly older adults, individuals with disabilities and those with low incomes;

WHEREAS, WAMM further noted that “Medical centers, employers, job centers, educational facilities are very often regional in nature; why should transportation be any different? Developing transportation systems requires flexibility to create innovative services that can cross municipal and county borders and account for communities of different sizes. RTAs enable this to be done in a more efficient, effective and sustainable manner;”

WHEREAS, WAMM concluded the 2016 document, “Transportation systems are a part of the infrastructure that helps people get to jobs, medical appointments, and remain active and engaged members of the community and local economy. Where there are strong systems and meaningful mobility choices, there are strong communities. People want to live and work in these communities and are seeking them out; and,

WHEREAS, Our County places great importance on our system of mobility for the populations most in need of the services that a Regional Transit Authority could provide our residents, and residents of lower-income counties in our immediate region; and

WHEREAS, Our County places high value on the principles of “sustainability,” and

WHEREAS, lack of mobility for low-income workers and retired persons is a factor contributing to their lack of “sustainability,” while Regional Transit would allow easier access to jobs, schools, health care, and basic needs;

THEREFORE, Our County calls upon the Wisconsin Legislature to quickly craft and pass Legislation once again enabling Regional Transit Authorities in Wisconsin, and “making an appropriation” to fund such;

FURTHER, that there be no limitations placed on the number of such Authorities, barring duplication of services or geographic overlap;
SolarBus

FURTHER, that Legislative obstacles to proceeding with near-100% renewable energy power for such RTAs be removed, keeping in mind future tightening of petroleum and natural gas supplies; and,

FURTHER, that agencies and Legislative Committees charged with overseeing transportation needs, make the creation and link-up of these RTAs into one seamless working statewide system a top priority.

ALICE in Marathon County, WI (County Seat, Wausau)

Politicians are all excited about the “super low unemployment” in Wisconsin, and of course, north-central Wisconsin politicians are excited too.  What is the reality for Marathon County’s working-class people?

The concept is called “ALICE,” and it comes from the United Way of Wisconsin’s two-year and four-year studies of Asset – Limited, Income-Constrained, Employed persons (A.L.I.C.E. is the  acronym, and it doesn’t stand for ALICE in Wonderland for sure).

Here’s a couple graphics from the United Way ALICE Wisconsin Report:

ALICE-MarathonCountyP2-bALICE-MarathonCountyP2-a

The question we should be asking ourselves — whatever our role in the community, whether elected official, or grassroots activist, or struggling worker — is this:

What good is “the lowest unemployment ever, when almost every city or large village in every Wisconsin County, has over 40% of its working people living under stress, unable to “make ends meet” adequately so as to be financially stable?

That is the question. Not, “what number can we report to the media to make our political regime look good?”

 

Non-conspiracy theory: Robotics/AI really IS about eliminating workers

The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

This year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where business leaders’ public positions on automation’s impact on workers did not match the views they shared privately.

By Kevin Roose

Jan. 25, 2019 New York Times
Click to read the whole story

DAVOS, Switzerland — They’ll never admit it in public, but many of your bosses want machines to replace you as soon as possible.

I know this because, for the past week, I’ve been mingling with corporate executives at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos. And I’ve noticed that their answers to questions about automation depend very much on who is listening.

In public, many executives wring their hands over the negative consequences that artificial intelligence and automation could have for workers. They take part in panel discussions about building “human-centered A.I.” for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — Davos-speak for the corporate adoption of machine learning and other advanced technology — and talk about the need to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs as a result of automation.

But in private settings, including meetings with the leaders of the many consulting and technology firms whose pop-up storefronts line the Davos Promenade, these executives tell a different story: They are racing to automate their own work forces to stay ahead of the competition, with little regard for the impact on workers.

All over the world, executives are spending billions of dollars to transform their businesses into lean, digitized, highly automated operations. They crave the fat profit margins automation can deliver, and they see A.I. as a golden ticket to savings, perhaps by letting them whittle departments with thousands of workers down to just a few dozen.

“People are looking to achieve very big numbers,” said Mohit Joshi, the president of Infosys, a technology and consulting firm that helps other businesses automate their operations. “Earlier they had incremental, 5 to 10 percent goals in reducing their work force. Now they’re saying, ‘Why can’t we do it with 1 percent of the people we have?’”

FoxconnRobotsDontGoStrike

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFeMyuGt0mw

Few American executives will admit wanting to get rid of human workers, a taboo in today’s age of inequality. So they’ve come up with a long list of buzzwords and euphemisms to disguise their intent. Workers aren’t being replaced by machines, they’re being “released” from onerous, repetitive tasks. Companies aren’t laying off workers, they’re “undergoing digital transformation.”

A 2017 survey by Deloitte found that 53 percent of companies had already started to use machines to perform tasks previously done by humans. The figure is expected to climb to 72 percent by next year.

The corporate elite’s A.I. obsession has been lucrative for firms that specialize in “robotic process automation,” or R.P.A. Infosys, which is based in India, reported a 33 percent increase in year-over-year revenue in its digital division. IBM’s “cognitive solutions” unit, which uses A.I. to help businesses increase efficiency, has become the company’s second-largest division, posting $5.5 billion in revenue last quarter. The investment bank UBS projects that the artificial intelligence industry could be worth as much as $180 billion by next year.

FoxconnRobots-betterThanFoxconnRobots-normalPeople

Kai-Fu Lee, the author of “AI Superpowers” and a longtime technology executive, predicts that artificial intelligence will eliminate 40 percent of the world’s jobs within 15 years. In an interview, he said that chief executives were under enormous pressure from shareholders and boards to maximize short-term profits, and that the rapid shift toward automation was the inevitable result.

FoxconnMKEoffice

The (proposed) Milwaukee offices of the Taiwanese electronics maker Foxconn, whose chairman has said he plans to replace 80 percent of the company’s workers with robots in five to 10 years. (TMJ4 photo)

“They always say it’s more than the stock price,” he said. “But in the end, if you screw up, you get fired.”

Other experts have predicted that A.I. will create more new jobs than it destroys, and that job losses caused by automation will probably not be catastrophic. They point out that some automation helps workers by improving productivity and freeing them to focus on creative tasks over routine ones.

But at a time of political unrest and anti-elite movements on the progressive left and the nationalist right, it’s probably not surprising that all of this automation is happening quietly, out of public view. In Davos this week, several executives declined to say how much money they had saved by automating jobs previously done by humans. And none were willing to say publicly that replacing human workers is their ultimate goal.

“That’s the great dichotomy,” said Ben Pring, the director of the Center for the Future of Work at Cognizant, a technology services firm. “On one hand,” he said, profit-minded executives “absolutely want to automate as much as they can.”

“On the other hand,” he added, “they’re facing a backlash in civic society.”

For an unvarnished view of how some American leaders talk about automation in private, you have to listen to their counterparts in Asia, who often make no attempt to hide their aims. Terry Gou, the chairman of the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Foxconn, has said the company plans to replace 80 percent of its workers with robots in the next five to 10 years. Richard Liu, the founder of the Chinese e-commerce company JD.com, said at a business conference last year that “I hope my company would be 100 percent automation someday.”

One common argument made by executives is that workers whose jobs are eliminated by automation can be “reskilled” to perform other jobs in an organization. They offer examples like Accenture, which claimed in 2017 to have replaced 17,000 back-office processing jobs without layoffs, by training employees to work elsewhere in the company. In a letter to shareholders last year, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, said that more than 16,000 Amazon warehouse workers had received training in high-demand fields like nursing and aircraft mechanics, with the company covering 95 percent of their expenses.

But these programs may be the exception that proves the rule. There are plenty of stories of successful reskilling — optimists often cite a program in Kentucky that trained a small group of former coal miners to become computer programmers — but there is little evidence that it works at scale. A report by the World Economic Forum this month estimated that of the 1.37 million workers who are projected to be fully displaced by automation in the next decade, only one in four can be profitably reskilled by private-sector programs. The rest, presumably, will need to fend for themselves or rely on government assistance.

In Davos, executives tend to speak about automation as a natural phenomenon over which they have no control, like hurricanes or heat waves. They claim that if they don’t automate jobs as quickly as possible, their competitors will.

“They will be disrupted if they don’t,” said Katy George, a senior partner at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

The choices made by the Davos elite — and the pressure applied on them to act in workers’ interests rather than their own — will determine whether A.I. is used as a tool for increasing productivity or for inflicting pain.

“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.”

RobotABB-helpYouAbolish
Kevin Roose is a columnist for Business Day and a writer-at-large for The New York Times Magazine. His column, “The Shift,” examines the intersection of technology, business, and culture. @kevinroose • Facebook
A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 25, 2019, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Automation Agenda Hidden by the Davos Elite.

Why Will Fracked-Shale Oil and Gas Worsen the Climate Crisis?

The Biggest Problem Behind The U.S. Shale Boom

Nick CunninghamOilprice.com

U.S. shale production is expected to continue to soar well into the 2020s. And that is a major problem.

Over the past decade, U.S. oil production has more than doubled, surging from 5 million barrels per day (mb/d) to close to 12 mb/d today. Natural gas also rose significantly, rising from 21 trillion cubic feet per year (Tcf/y) in 2008 to 29 Tcf/y in 2017.

Natural gas has been likened to a “bridge fuel,” allowing the U.S. to lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) while it transitions to cleaner energy. Cheap shale gas has killed off a lot of coal plants, and with a GHG-profile half that of coal, the switch has been a boon for the fight against climate change.

That narrative, to be sure, remains up for debate. Shale gas operations emit methane, and at some point high volumes of fugitive methane emissions completely offset the benefit that gas has over coal. Various studies, for and against, argue over exactly how much methane is and has been emitted.

The major oil and gas fracked-shale zones in the USA now:

FrackingShaleZones

But there are other reasons why the coal-to-gas narrative has been oversold. Billions of dollars of investment in gas drilling and gas-fired power plants sucks capital away from renewable energy. Cheap shale gas has also killed off nuclear power, the largest source of carbon-free electricity.

More to the point, new power plants are long-lived investments, and their owners expect to be using them for decades to come. In other words, the U.S. has been locking itself into gas, even though the science dictates a relatively short timetable for the energy transition.

Still, knocking off coal does have its benefits, and the case against gas isn’t exactly clear cut.

However, what about crude oil? The surge in oil production in the U.S. and the resulting impact on greenhouse gas emissions has not been studied all that much. A new report from Daniel Raimi of Resources For the Future (RFF) studies the impact on GHG emissions from a variety of future oil production situations. Raimi is the author of the very even-handed book, “The Fracking Debate.”

Raimi laid out several scenarios looking at the GHG impact of U.S. oil and gas production (higher or lower production; more or less stringent climate policies; assumptions about methane) and found that GHG emissions are the highest in all scenarios in which the U.S produces more oil relative to the EIA’s baseline reference case.

Notably, even climate policy was outweighed by the precise level of oil and gas production. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which required a significant overhaul of the electricity sector and would have shut down a number of coal-fired power plants, was a landmark policy and one of the most significant efforts by the government to accelerate the energy transition. The CPP was stayed by the Supreme Court and is being replaced by the Trump administration.

However, according to Raimi’s study, even if we assume the full implementation of the CPP, emissions are still higher in the “high oil production” scenario, even when compared to the no CPP but lower oil and gas production.

“In other words, low levels of oil and natural gas production do more to reduce emissions than implementation of the CPP,” Raimi concluded, noting that the only caveat that undercuts this conclusion is if methane estimates have been vastly overstated.

The conclusion is worth repeating. The Obama-era CPP – President Obama’s signature climate policy, and the one at the core of the U.S.’ participation in the Paris Climate Agreement – is of less consequence to GHG emissions than the precise level of oil and gas production.

Put another way, the climate penalty in an aggressive scenario in which U.S. shale production continues to rise over the next decade more than offsets the benefit of shutting down a bunch of coal plants.

The main reason for this is not CO2, but methane. It’s not people burning more gasoline in their cars because of higher oil production. Demand is relatively inelastic in the U.S.

Instead, the major climate penalty comes from higher methane emissions associated with upstream production. CO2 emissions remain enormous and a massive problem to tackle, but these emissions don’t change all that much. Methane emissions inordinately jump relative to the reference case if oil and gas production exceeds the baseline.

“Under a scenario with high levels of oil and natural gas production, increased methane emissions are likely to swamp the GHG effects of policies such as the CPP unless methane emissions are dramatically reduced below current levels,” Raimi warned.

Meanwhile, higher U.S. oil production has global effects, lowering prices and boosting demand. The effects are more difficult to tease out, but by 2030, the world could consume 1.6 mb/d more than it otherwise would under the high U.S. production scenario. U.S. oil is exported abroad, lowering prices and boosting demand.

The world then ends up emitting 200 to 50 MMT of CO2 more than it otherwise would, according to RFF. For context, Brazil emitted 417 MMT in 2016. In other words, higher U.S. oil and gas production could add another Brazil’s-worth of greenhouse gases by 2030.

There are plenty of uncertainties and assumptions built into any model, and that needs to be kept in mind. But the RFF study offers a stark warning. In short, the ongoing U.S. shale bonanza is calamitous for the fight against climate change.

A report last month from Oil Change International was more direct. The U.S. oil and gas industry “is gearing up to unleash the largest burst of new carbon emissions in the world between now and 2050.”

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

The Job Guarantee with Pavlina Tcherneva at Left Forum 2018

#JobGuarantee, not “Job Creation.”

America’s state governments, county governments, and municipal governments are at the mercy of gigantic corporations acting as hostage takers.

Hostage-takers of jobs, that is. The corporations say, give us our demand for $X____ Million in special concessions–tax breaks, a building site, an addition to your technical college to train our workforce, etc.–and we’ll “create” Y____ number of jobs to reduce the level of unemployment misery in your communities.

More often than not, it seems the Y_______ number of jobs never materialize. Sometimes the hostage-taker corporation merely takes the money on the basis of their vague job creation promise, and actually moves out of the area, rather than expanding there.

See the intriguing history of the looting that went on in Walker’s Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) in Wisconsin, by former State Senator Kathleen Vinehout.  In her piece, Ms. Vinehout reports,

“Earlier this year, the Wisconsin State Journal reported that WEDC’s claims of jobs created were based on “faulty calculations”. They went on to report, “The agency gave out almost $90 million more in awards, but the total number of related jobs fell by nearly 6,000.”

“Job creation” has really nothing to do with providing livelihood for our people, and everything to do with plutocrats looting the public treasuries of the nation.

With all the interest being generated in the Green New Deal proposals (there are several afloat on the cyberseas), we think it’s time to abandon the dead paradigm of “job creation” — which serves no one except corporations in their “rent-seeking behavior.”  It’s time instead to take a look at the Job Guarantee proposal of Pavlina Tcherneva.

TchernevaLeftForum

Here’s Dr. Tcherneva speaking at Left Forum 2018 on her Job Guarantee proposal, a working paper from Levy Institute:

 

 

 

 

Stephanie Kelton: Modern Monetary Theory at Left Forum 2018

Stephanie Kelton gives a brief introduction to the field of Modern Monetary Theory (searchable in Twitter as #MMT).  It’s also a demolition of some old brittle paradigms left over from conservative think-tanks and politicians. Paradigms such as “pay-as-you go” or “pay-fors,” and the every popular (but incorrect, she says) “find the money” paradigm (e.g., “Where is Bernie going to find the money to give away all those free ponies”).  If you want to explore this field in more detail, search through Dr. Kelton’s Twitter feed, or do a search engine for Modern Monetary Theory.

This video is a segment from the longer video hosted at the Next System Project
at this web address (with transcript).  (Click to go there)

 

 

 

 

Stephanie Kelton’s Twitter profile:  @StephanieKelton – Prof. of Economics & Public Policy . Was Chief Economist for the Dems on U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Contributor

KeltonProfile

 

>