Buffer resilience

see BUFFER 2

see restore the commons (build back better)

disagregate thing from property?

see mod tag and Moderation node

bak 1219 shift to physical systems eg OCEANS?

Buffers are reserves of resources that give systems resilience

but BAD buffer trade groups, are a reservoir of secret cash (that can be used for political donations, they are corps thus cu?], but have legal capability, some prolly have PR flaks the real deep state?

Tendency to engineer out as inefficient, eg just in time supply chain

yikes: aha: evil mirror of leverage/synergy jiu jitsu isbad juju: carbon/ methane bombs sudden release of vast old buffer (soil, ice)

---=

---

AHA DOH MODERATION BUFFER

AN 2 25

According to the Washington Post, as many as 200,000 federal workers may be fired because of efforts by the Trump Administration and the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to greatly downsize the United States' federal government. And the criticism of their efforts is coming not only from Democrats, but also, from voices on the right.

Former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania), during a February 17 appearance on MSNBC, slammed Trump and DOGE for carrying out mass government layoffs in a "haphazard" way. And the next morning, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (a Never Trump conservative and ex-GOP congressman) argued that while government "waste" needs to be reduced and the U.S. needs to balance its federal budget, the Trump Administration and DOGE are recklessly jeopardizing "food safety" and "air safety."

The Guardian's George Monbiot also fears that Trump's second term could trigger some type of major crisis.

In a February 18 opinion column, Monbiot lays out a variety of frightening scenarios and offers some tips for surviving a worst-case scenario.

"Though we might find it hard to imagine," Monbiot warns, "we cannot now rule it out: the possibility of systemic collapse in the United States. The degradation of federal government by Donald Trump and Elon Musk could trigger a series of converging and compounding crises, leading to social, financial and industrial failure…. A financial crisis in the U.S. would immediately become a global crisis."

Monbiot continues, "But the hazards extend much further. Musk, calling for a 'wholesale removal of regulations,' sends his child soldiers to attack government departments stabilizing the entire U.S. system. Regulations, though endlessly maligned by corporate and oligarchic propaganda, are all that protect us from multiple disasters. In its initial impacts, deregulation is class war, hitting the poorest and the middle classes at the behest of the rich. As the effects proliferate, it becomes an assault on everyone's wellbeing."

The columnist warns that undermining regulatory government agencies could make everything from a pandemic to "future climate disasters" worse.

"As Trump rips down environmental protections and trashes federal responsiveness," Monbiot explains, "the impacts will spiral. They could include non-linear shocks to either the insurance sector or homeowners, escalating into U.S.-wide economic and social crisis. If, or when, another pandemic strikes, which could involve a pathogen more transmissible and even more deadly than COVID-19 — which has so far killed 1.2 million people in the U.S. — it will hit a nation whose defenses have been stood down."

Monbiot urges Americans — as well as residents of the U.K., where The Guardian is published — by doing a lot of networking.

"So, though there is no substitute for effective government, we must seek to create our own backup systems," the Guardian columnist advises. "Start with this principle: don't face your fears alone. Make friends, meet your neighbors, set up support networks, help those who are struggling. Since the dawn of humankind, those with robust social networks have been more resilient than those without. Yes, we also — and urgently — need national and global action, brokered by governments. But it's beginning to look as if no one has our backs. Prepare for the worst."

*George Monbiot's full Guardian column is available at this link.

---

omfg

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/record-deforestation-amazon-tipping-point/

jake j cmn dr

the Brazilian government published data Friday showing that more than 2,500 fire hotspots were recorded in the Amazon rainforest last month, the highest number for June since 2007—one of the worst years ever for the critical ecosystem.

The latest report from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research showed that the Brazilian Amazon has lost 1,450 square miles of jungle since the start of 2022.

Greenpeace Brazil said in response to the alarming figures that the far-right Bolsonaro government's systematic rampage against basic environmental protections is responsible for the surge in rainforest fires and overall deforestation, which have helped transform parts of the Amazon—long known as a key carbon "sink"—into sources of planet-warming greenhouse gas.

"Agribusiness is hitting new records for forest destruction as the dry season arrives in the Amazon," said Cristiane Mazzetti, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Brazil. "Illegal burnings and deforestation have accelerated over the last three years as a direct result of the Brazilian government's anti-environmental agenda that encourages the destruction of the forest."

"If this trend does not change," Mazzetti added, "we will approach the tipping point of no return in which the Amazon could fail as a rainforest."

Brazilian academics have warned in recent months that a Bolsonaro victory in the October presidential election would mean total demise for the Brazilian Amazon. Recent polling shows that Bolsonaro is trailing leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has vowed to pursue "net-zero deforestation" if elected.

"If Bolsonaro remains in the power of presidency, it's hopeless in terms of the environment," Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the São Paulo-based Climate Observatory, told HuffPost in April, a record-shattering month for Amazon deforestation.

"There will be more deforestation," said Astrini. "The Amazon will fast forward to its collapse point."

Environmental groups have voiced dismay at the Biden administration's failure to confront Bolsonaro on the international stage over his government's assault on the Amazon. The U.S. is Brazil's second-largest trading partner.

Last month, during the U.S.-hosted Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, President Joe Biden went as far as to praise Bolsonaro for trying to "protect the Amazon."

"In addition to being divorced from reality, Biden's statement is remarkably tone-deaf," Maria Laura Canineu and Luciana Téllez Chávez of Human Rights Watch wrote on the final day of the summit, where the two leaders met for the first time. "Biden has shamefully squandered the opportunity to leverage his meeting with Bolsonaro to support the courageous defenders of the Amazon."

"These defenders are putting their lives on the line to protect the world's largest rainforest and a vital bulwark against climate change," they continued. "Biden should correct this mistake and press Bolsonaro to reverse his damaging policies, urging Bolsonaro to get Brazil back on track in fighting deforestation and protecting forest defenders from violence."

Diana Ruiz, the head of forests at Greenpeace USA, said in a statement Friday that "up to now, the Biden administration has only legitimized the Brazilian government's anti-Indigenous and anti-environmental agenda."

"The U.S. has a responsibility to act and stop making deals with President Bolsonaro, who continues to wage an assault against Indigenous Peoples and environmental defenders," Ruiz added.

yikes another kind of bad buffer: Peltzman Effect / risk compensation

The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation Author(s): Sam Peltzman Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Aug., 1975), pp. 677-726. Sam Peltzman criticises the quality of his own analysis here. (seat blts? --> graham air bag BS? --> risk asses?

I kinda forgot about this until

https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-june-22-2022/ nordhaus fraction of % gdp 2100 now 14%/yr much earlier, he got nobel; state CA fla pick up when mkt bails, perfect design to go over cliff?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkpBizCFYo apr 2022 commonwealth

Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the Present

https://www.harvard.com/book/fire_and_flood/

Eugene Linden wrote his first story on climate change, for Time magazine, in 1988; it was just the beginning of his investigative work, exploring all ramifications of this impending disaster. Fire and Flood represents his definitive case for the prosecution as to how and why we have arrived at our current dire pass, closing with his argument that the same forces that have confused the public’s mind and slowed the policy response are poised to pivot with astonishing speed, as long-term risks have become present-day realities and the cliff’s edge is now within view.

Starting with the 1980s, Linden tells the story, decade by decade, by looking at four clocks that move at different speeds: the reality of climate change itself; the scientific consensus about it, which always lags reality; public opinion and political will, which lag further still; and, perhaps most important, business and finance. Reality marches on at its own pace, but the public will and even the science are downstream from the money, and Fire and Flood shows how devilishly effective moneyed climate-change deniers have been at slowing and even reversing the progress of our collective awakening. When a threat means certain but future disaster, but addressing it means losing present-tense profit, capitalism’s response has been sadly predictable.

Now, however, the seasons of fire and flood have crossed the threshold into plain view. Linden focuses on the insurance industryas one loud canary in the coal mine: fire and flood zones in Florida and California, among other regions, are now seeing what many call “climate redlining.” The whole system is teetering on the brink, and the odds of another housing collapse, for starters, are much higher than most people understand. There is a path back from the cliff, but we must pick up the pace. Fire and Flood shows us why, and how.

doh human health depends on enviro/planet health

1021 an comm dr

Just ahead of a major United Nations summits on biodiversity and the climate—and amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic—a global consortium has launched a planetary health declaration in which they "raise an alarm that the ongoing degradation of our planet's natural systems is a clear and present danger to the health of all people everywhere" that must be countered with a fundamental paradigm shift transforming nearly every aspect of society.

"The planetary health science is clear," the São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health, published Tuesday atThe Lancet, states. "We can no longer safeguard human health unless we change course."

Authored by the Planetary Health Alliance, a global coalition hosted within the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the declaration is endorsed by over 250 organizations representing 47 countries.

"The urgency of this moment is hard to overstate," said declaration lead author Sam Myers, director of the Planetary Health Alliance and research scientist at Harvard, in a statement ahead of the launch.

The document centers on what various stakeholders—from urban planners to governments to artists—must urgently do as part of the "Great Transition," what the declaration authors frame as the necessary "fundamental shift in how we live on Earth."

To the agricultural sector, the document recommends utilizing "all ways of knowing, including the latest science and millennia of traditional and Indigenous knowledges, to implement agricultural systems that meet demand and reduce pressure on natural systems."

Economists, meanwhile, are urged to reject a focus on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in favor of "metrics and investments that support preservation and regeneration of Nature, human well-being, equity, and happiness—the things we truly value."

Numerous recommendations are laid out for governments with "an urgent first step" being promoting "public access to health services as a human right." Covid-19 recovery plans must also focus on decarbonizing the energy sector and ensuring equity for the most disenfranchised and marginalized communities.

The general public is also called to action.

"We invite you to consider yourself a partner in planetary healing," states the declaration. "We all live together in an interconnected world and the actions of each of us inspire others. Therefore, together, we pledge to dedicate our lives to the service of humanity, and to the protection and restoration of the natural systems on which humans and all other species who share our home depend."

Put together, the document says its recommendations should serve as "a compass guiding us towards the most promising pathways to support a more just and resilient post-pandemic world."

Courtney Howard, an emergency physician in Canada and a contributor to the declaration, put the document in the context of global vaccine inequity.

"In the midst of Covid, disparities in vaccine accessibility must be part of the same conversation as addressing planetary emergencies," Howard said in a statement.

"On an interconnected planet, no one is safe until everyone is safe," she added. "We need vaccine equity, and in the long run, protecting nature will be the true vaccine against future pandemics and other planetary emergencies."

doh/belated: enough fails of right kind and magnitude (or inter-lock/ cascade) can lead to systemic failure/crisis? texas is failure to think sys b/c we know weather chaos coming, cold as well as warm; free mkt dereg bs is reductive sys theory; naomi k says texas // to covid fail, mkt see "excess" capacity as inefficiency so no resilience to bigger shocks sys tell us are coming; me vs we, short vs long term

who said small price to pay to keep gubmint out of our business?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/green-new-deal/

Author and environmentalist Naomi Klein argued in a New York Times column Sunday that Republicans rushed to attack the Green New Deal as disaster struck in Texas because the popular push for a sweeping transformation of the U.S. energy system poses a genuine threat to the deregulated, fossil-fuel dependent status quo that left the Lone Star State vulnerable to extreme weather driven by the climate crisis.

"Texans are living through the collapse of a 40-year experiment in free-market fundamentalism, one that has also stood in the way of effective climate action," Klein wrote. "Fortunately, there's a way out—and that's precisely what Republican politicians in the state most fear."

Klein characterized the ongoing power, water, and food crises in Texas as the consequence of "an energy-market free-for-all" stemming from "a fateful series of decisions [that] were made in the late-'90s, when the now-defunct, scandal-plagued energy company Enron led a successful push to radically deregulate Texas' electricity sector."

"As a result, decisions about the generation and distribution of power were stripped from regulators and, in effect, handed over to private energy companies," Klein wrote. "Unsurprisingly, these companies prioritized short-term profit over costly investments to maintain the grid and build in redundancies for extreme weather. Today, Texans are at the mercy of regulation-allergic politicians who failed to require that energy companies plan for shocks or weatherize their infrastructure (renewables and fossil fuel alike)."

In the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri, ordinary Texans are beginning to see the direct impact of the deregulatory push on their material wellbeing as electric companies hit them with bills topping $17,000—"a consequence," Klein argued, "of leaving pricing to the whims of the market."

Alluding to her previous work on "the shock doctrine"—a term she coined to describe how the right has exploited past disasters to force through unpopular privatization and austerity agendas—Klein noted that "large-scale shocks... become ideal moments to smuggle in unpopular free-market policies that tend to enrich elites at everyone else's expense."

"I often quote a guru of the free market revolution, the late economist Milton Friedman," Klein wrote. "In 1982, he wrote about what he saw as the mission of right-wing economists like him: 'Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."[gop sez BO cos chic guy]

The difference between past shocks such as the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the 2008 financial crisis and the current emergency in Texas, Klein argued, is that "Republican ideas are no longer lying around—they are lying in ruin."

Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott attacked the Green New Deal—a proposal that has not even been implemented—in an appearance on Fox News last week because he knows its promise to "create millions of union jobs building out shock-resilient green energy infrastructure, transit, and affordable housing" is "extremely appealing" to Texans as they "suffer under the overlapping crises of unemployment, houselessness, racial injustice, crumbling public services, and extreme weather," Klein wrote.

"All that Texas' Republicans have to offer, in contrast," Klein added, "is continued oil and gas dependence—driving more climate disruption—alongside more privatizations and cuts to public services to pay for their state's mess, which we can expect them to push in the weeks and months ahead." [death spiral]

As The Houston Chroniclereported last week, Republican members of the Texas state legislature are already signaling that "one of the most immediate reforms they will push for is recalibrating the state's electricity grid to ensure more fossil fuels are in that mix and fewer renewables."

But Klein contended that "unlike when the Republican Party began deploying the shock doctrine, its free-market playbook is no longer novel."

"The horrors currently unfolding in Texas expose both the reality of the climate crisis and the extreme vulnerability of fossil fuel infrastructure in the face of that crisis," Klein wrote. "So of course the Green New Deal finds itself under fierce attack. Because for the first time in a long time, Republicans face the very thing that they claim to revere but never actually wanted: competition—in the battle of ideas." twt

in recent days, as Common Dreams has reported, progressive advocacy groups such as the youth-led Sunrise Movement and Greenpeace USA have made the case that—contrary to the GOP's bad-faith attacks—a Green New Deal is precisely what's needed to help Texas equitably recover from the present emergency and build the resilience necessary to withstand future climate-driven disasters.

"Many people across the country are realizing for the first time that fossil fuels are not only polluting, they are unstable. Millions of Texans are being let down by coal, oil, and gas right now," Greenpeace climate campaigner Ashley Thomson said last Thursday.

On Monday, activists with the Sunrise Movement of Texas are expected to rally at the state capitol in Austin to demand immediate relief for struggling Texans, the resignations of Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.), and passage of a Green New Deal that would "make our state and country more resilient to future disasters, and create millions of good union jobs in the process of transforming these necessary structures."

"Texas is the perfect example of what happens when our politicians cater to fossil fuel executives instead of the young people who have been shouting from the rooftops for years, warning of an impending climate emergency like this," said Chante Davis, a 17-year-old Sunrise Movement leader and Houston resident.

"I've survived three once in a lifetime storms in my 17 years of life," added Davis, whose family moved to Texas in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. "We need change, and the Green New Deal is the obvious, urgent solution. As our communities come together to fill the void of our government, our leaders must invest in us to provide jobs that directly address the crises we face."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Turns out letting ‘efficient’ monopolies control our food supply was a terrible idea

Claire Kelloway / Washington Monthly

For many Americans, grocery shopping has become an intensely stressful experience. To maintain social distancing, people must queue before entering stores. Once inside, they must scramble to find increasingly scarce…

ctr-pt: to covid bailout bill as dis cap'l NEW STORY? WE CAN SAVE $ AND PPL BY GOING GREEN

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-economic-growth-2645724784.html

Every country around the world would see economic gains from combating the climate crisis and trying to keep global heating within the bounds of the Paris agreement, according to a new study published in Nature Communications.

The straw man argument against taking action on the climate crisis is that the cost of limiting emissions and investing in green infrastructure is too steep and would cripple economies. It turns out, according to the research, that the opposite is true.

In fact, the study found that if nations around the world fail to curtail greenhouse gas emissions within the bounds of the Paris agreement, the global economy will lose anywhere from $150 trillion to nearly $800 trillion by the year 2100, as CBS News reported. The upper end of the range is if countries fail to meet their current commitments, which are inadequate to meet the Paris agreement as they are expected to lead to 3 degrees Celsius in warming.

The study's authors, from the Beijing Institute of Technology and other Chinese institutions, billed their findings as a self-preservation strategy for government, according to The Guardian.GUK

The researchers calculated the potential benefits of emissions reductions by looking at the social welfare aspects of cutting greenhouse gases and its affect on economic growth. They found that the benefits from cutting emissions would provide the largest boost to developing countries with large populations of poor and vulnerable people, who are most likely to be negatively affected by droughts, floods, fires, storms and food shortages, as The Guardian reported.

While all countries would benefit in the long term, the most immediate benefits would go to developing countries with high emissions, such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria and China, according to The Guardian.

The Paris agreement is composed of voluntary commitments known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, made by each country in the accord. The main aspect of the commitments is to reduce greenhouse emissions by cutting the burning of fossil fuels, thus reducing global warming and the adverse impacts of warming. However, many countries are witnessing economic damage from the coronavirus lockdowns and are rethinking their commitment to their NDCs. Already, government bailouts for the fossil fuel industry and the airline industry are in the works, as well as a rollback of their carbon emission reductions, as CBS News reported.

"A number of studies have proved that current [NDCs] are not enough to achieve the global warming targets," said Biying Yu, from the Beijing Institute of Technology and a co-author of the study, as CBS News reported.

The research shows that the choice between climate action and economic growth is in fact a false dichotomy. The authors' work concludes that countries could reach their climate goals and at the same time see an increase in their net income.

According to CBS News, Yu and her team calculated ideal strategies for countries to improve their NDCs, minimize economic losses and maximize gains. They found that if nations are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then the net global economic benefit would range between $127 trillion and $616 trillion by the end of the century.

"Early and quick action will provide a better chance to close the widening emissions gap, even though a large amount of abatement cost would occur in the short term," said the study.

"The literature overwhelmingly shows the economic benefits of serious mitigation efforts exceed the costs in the long run," said Noah Kaufman, a climate and energy economist from Columbia University, to CBS News.

However, Yu is concerned that governments will be short-sighted and balk at the upfront cost of investing in infrastructure to combat the climate crisis. She also sees that the climate emergency takes commitments from every country.

"Combating climate change is not a matter for one country. It requires collective action and cooperation from all countries around the world," Yu explained, as CBS News reported. "Let's work together and save ourselves"...

220

aha: recessions are periodic, fed no suffic buffer? trump keeps money free to goose stock mkt so can boast 401k; blew up fed deficit, houshold debt and student debt high; authoritaian growing everywhere, what effect of worldwide reecession again? Greece?

what if we get hit by huge agw costs at the same time as worldwide recesion? how wd such costs affect economies?

a GOOD one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/corporate-giants-form-alliance-to-create-a-boom-in-us-clean-energy.html

Some of the nation's top tech firms, manufacturers and consumer companies are banding together to create a boom in renewable energy purchases throughout corporate America.

The corporate giants and their nonprofit partners on Thursday launched the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance, a trade organization that will help companies take advantage of new ways to purchase clean energy. The goal is to support construction of new green power projects by striking renewable energy deals pioneered by companies such as Google parent Alphabet, General Motors and Walmart in recent years.

"This is really about bringing as many players to the market as possible and giving everyone access to clean energy," said Michael Terrell, head of energy market strategy at Google.

Over the last six years, a handful of corporate giants have created a new way of meeting their sustainable energy goals. By striking deals to buy blocks of energy from utilities and power plant owners, they are underwriting the construction of new wind towers, solar farms and other renewable projects.

local power grid resilient b/c it's local, not dependent on larger system.

3rd industrial revo non-hier; must be glob-LOCAL; feed-in tariffs let local ppl go to bank and get loan b/c knew could repay

merkel

china big green grid investment 12 wks after mtg w/ Jeremy Rifkin wrote The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth audio interview 9/19.

rifkin

diversity?

mitchell the nation amazon

As a result of the economic shifts that Amazon is helping to propel, the country is being divided into a starkly unequal geography. Only a handful of metro areas are gaining significant numbers of good jobs from Big Tech. And as the formation of new businesses declines, they’re also being consolidated into fewer places: In contrast with previous recoveries, when new firms were widely dispersed, half of all businesses started between 2010 and 2014 were located in just five metro areas. Even winning cities are marked by disparity: In Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, the median home value now exceeds $700,000, while the unsheltered homeless population doubled over 10 years. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which Amazon’s cashier-less supermarkets and nondescript bookstores populate better-off neighborhoods, while other communities become increasingly barren of commercial activity.

In the left-behind towns and neighborhoods, the despair that has set in stems from more than just economic hardship. There is a pervasive sense of powerlessness that is toxic to democracy. In 1946, the sociologist C. Wright Mills and the economist Melville J. Ulmer published a detailed study of several matched pairs of cities. The cities in each pair were similar in all respects except for one main difference:One city’s economy was composed of many locally owned firms, while the other’s was largely controlled by absentee corporations. The cities that possessed a degree of local economic power had a bigger middle class and a greater variety of jobs, Mills and Ulmer found. But their most important findings had to do with civic health. The cities with a robust local economy invested more in public infrastructure and services, and their residents were involved in community affairs in greater numbers.

ca farm bureau

3/19 primary, evil pending, BUFFER on chemicals and water

11 tags

===

aha:

offshore banks are secret vs transparency thus boost corruption, but also allow tax dodge for rich ppl and corps to park assests offshore, thus evade tax thus extraction from economy (as our country becomes de-industrialized/finanacialized) so a huge buffer untapped to stimulate economy and build infrastructure

COURTS:

see hope, holding actions

Our Children's Trust (lives as of 11/18)

consistently saving our ass

pension plan preserves bench strength, as does gerrymandering; big money discourages challenge by rival (tho flank a danger which drive begging for war chest, which makes pol further in debt/corruption)

https://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-australia-battery-2568719032.html

Tesla's Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million in Four Months

Since switching on in December, Tesla's massive battery in South Australia has already drastically lowered prices in the region's frequency and ancillary services market (FCAS) and has taken a major share of that market, Renew Economy reported.

During Australian Energy Week, McKinsey and Co. partner Godart van Gendt boasted about the stunning efficiency of the 100-megawatt Powerpack system, which is connected to Neoen's Hornsdale wind farm....

https://www.alternet.org/world/why-denmark-dominates-world-happiness-rankings-year-after-year

new World Happiness Report again ranks Denmark among the top three happiest of 155 countries surveyed – a distinction that the country has earned for seven consecutive years.

The U.S., on the other hand, ranked 18th in this year’s World Happiness Report, a four-spot drop from last year’s report.

Denmark’s place among the world’s happiest countries is consistent with many other national surveys of happiness (or, as psychologists call it, “subjective well-being”).

Scientists like to study and argue about how to measure things. But when it comes to happiness, a general consensus seems to have emerged.

Depending on the scope and purpose of the research, happiness is often measured using objective indicators (data on crime, income, civic engagement and health) and subjective methods, such as asking people how frequently they experience positive and negative emotions.

Why might Danes evaluate their lives more positively? As a psychologist and native of Denmark, I’ve looked into this question.

Yes, Danes have a stable government, low levels of public corruption, and access to high-quality education and health care. Thecountry does have the the highest taxes in the world, but the vast majority of Danes happily pay: They believe higher taxes can create a better society.

Perhaps most importantly, however, they value a cultural construct called “hygge” (pronounced hʊɡə).

The Oxford dictionary added the word in June 2017, and it refers to high-quality social interactions. Hygge can be used as a noun, adjective or verb (to hygge oneself), and events and places can also be hyggelige (hygge-like).

Hygge is sometimes translated as “cozy,” but a better definition of hygge is “intentional intimacy,” which can happen when you have safe, balanced and harmonious shared experiences. A cup of coffee with a friend in front of a fireplace might qualify, as could a summer picnic in the park.

A family might have a hygge evening that entails board games and treats, or friends might get together for a casual dinner with dimmed lighting, good food and easygoing fun. Spaces can also be described as hyggelige (“Your new house is so hyggeligt”) and a common way of telling a host thank you after a dinner is to say that it was hyggeligt (meaning, we had a good time). Most Danish social events are expected to be hyggelige, so it would be a harsh critique to say that a party or dinner wasn’t hyggelige.

Research on hygge has found that in Denmark, it’s integral to people’s sense of well-being. It acts as abuffer against stress, while also creating a space to build camaraderie. In a highly individualized country like Denmark, hygge can promote egalitarianism and strengthen trust.

It would be fair to say that hygge is fully integrated into the Danish cultural psyche and culture. But it has also become a bit of a global phenomenon – Amazon now sells more than 900 books on hygge, and Instagram has over 3 million posts with the hashtag #hygge. Google trends data show a big jump in searches for hygge beginning in October 2016.

Nor is Denmark the only country that has a word for a concept similar to hygge – the Norwegians have koselig, the Swedes mysig, the Dutch gezenlligheid and the Germans gemütlichkeit.

In the U.S. – which also places a high value on individualism – there’s no real cultural equivalent of hygge. Income is generally associated with happiness; yet even though the country’s GDP has been rising and its unemployment rates have been declining, levels of happiness in the U.S. have been steadily decreasing.

What’s going on?

Income inequality continues to be an issue. But there’s also been a marked decrease in interpersonal trust and trust toward institutions like the government as well as the media. In the end, more disposable income doesn’t hold a candle to having someone to rely on in a time of need (something that 95 percent of Danes believe they have).

At its core, hygge is about building intimacy and trust with others.

Americans could probably use a little more of it in their lives.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Marie Helweg-Larsen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment

https://www.alternet.org/environment/new-map-reveals-which-countries-are-most-likely-survive-climate-change

Climate change is one of the most pressing crises facing humanity. Caused by an immense and continual buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere as a result of human activity, climate change is already causing a series of alarming environmental events.

Once snowy landscapes are slowly melting away to leave an uninhabitable and barren wilderness, rising sea temperatures are killing thousands of miles of coral reef and marine life, while freak weather events are becoming more common and costing affected nations billions of pounds. For example, early estimates suggest that 2017’s Hurricane Harvey caused between $66 billion and $185 billion worth of damage.

These serve as a worrying indication of the catastrophic effect that climate change could have on our planet in the future if nothing is done to tackle the phenomenon.

While it's clear that no single corner of the globe is safe from the changes that are happening to our climate, we wanted to find out which countries are the most (and least) at risk of the effects of climate change.

To answer this question, we looked at data from the University of Notre-Dame's ND-Gain Index. This report analyzed 181 countries on their vulnerability to climate change and how ready they are to adapt to a warming planet, based on factors such as healthcare, food supply and government stability.

We also scrutinized how much carbon dioxide all 181 countries emit every year to give an indication of each nation's contribution towards climate change. This allowed us to compare a country’s likeliness to survive changes to the global climate against their responsibility for the phenomenon.

So which country is the most likely to survive climate change?

The answer is Norway, thanks to its low vulnerability score and high readiness score. The nation's Nordic neighbors also fared well, with Finland (3rd), Sweden (4th), Denmark (6th) and Iceland (8th) landing 5 out of the 10 top spots for survivability. So we should all flee to the countries of northern Europe and theNorthh Atlantic to live out our final days should our planet become uninhabitable.

Interestingly, the U.K. and U.S. did not make the top 10, ranking 12th and 15th respectively. Both these nations were named among the 10 countries most likely to survive climate change in the 2015 version of this map, but an overall worsening of their vulnerability and readiness scores led to this slip in rank.

Even more surprising is China's position in the ranking: 59th. Despite arguably being the world's biggest contributor towards climate change—emitting a massive 9,040 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year—the country is somewhat sensitive to the effects of a warming planet. This is largely due to the nation's growing population which is putting a strain on China’s natural resources and public services. Rather ironically, China's vulnerability to climate change, therefore, means that they may eventually reap what they sow.

And who are the biggest losers?

At the other end of the scale, it comes as no surprise that the world's poorest and least developed nations have the lowest chance of surviving climate change. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa fill the bottom 10 spaces for survivability, with Somalia being named the country least likely to survive climate change.

Chad, Eritrea, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo also fared badly, owing to their unstable governance, poor infrastructure, lack of healthcare and a scarcity of food and water.

....

GOOD BUFFER is a knowledge repository, eg university, library, WWW? (unfiltered) [no censor can be good or bad]

Love canal led to "clearinghouses" so greens did not have to reinvent wheel every time a new toxic leak found: repertoire of political and legal strategies: lawsuits and grassroots [evil perversity is SLAPP and astroturf).

BAD BUFFER reduces transparency and accountability: if we don't know about evil actions of corps, we can't resist through regulations, boycotts, divestment: trade groups function as fronts/buffers to launder money.

API takes over from Exxon, replaced by Donors Trust (term fun to explore,as in trust buster, but also as in the psychological quality re the commons), gives insulation from accountability b/c of lack of transparency, money laundering, which is interstingly agaijst "personal responsibility" and magic of market rw rhetoric). v Powell Memo explictly laws this out as role of USCoC

Mira Michelle Kennedy - Cultivating Resilience: At the Personal, Community and Ecological Levels

What is resilience? This workshop will define personal resilience, community resilience and ecological resilience. We explore how these three dimensions of resilience are interconnected and how resilience can be fostered at each level. The workshop will then offer a hands-on experiential activity about how to cultivate resilience in our daily lives. Participants will explore expressive arts using materials from nature in order to identify personal strengths and challenges. The workshop will incorporate resource mapping, applied ecopsychology, and permaculture principles.

Mira Michelle Kennedy

Mira Michelle Kennedy has worked in the field of education and sustainability for the last fifteen years. She was the residential coordinator at the Program in Community and Agroecology (PICA) at UCSC, which focused on food justice issues and training student leaders. Mira also established a program for young women focusing on personal empowerment through self-expression. She has presented at the International Expressive Art Therapy Conference, the Ecopsychology Conference and the Awakening Global Action Conference in Bali. She currently works with author Fritjof Capra, managing a course on the systems view of life and principles for building sustainable communities.

RWI has a pipeline to recruit and train (and support) more IDEOLOGICAL ENTREPRENEURS and thus higher quaity ppl: BUFFER then it provides lots of ways for them to openly or clandestinely fight [a full employment plan, leave no flack behind], then if they get damaged, there's the pension plan; moreover the revolving door and rwi preserves bench strength in DC [if only the VA was as faithful and effective for wounded vets] . gerrymander. THE RIGHT IS REALLY CLOSET LIBERALS

FREEDOM [GOD TERM] TO HAVE A GUN

FREEDOM TO FIRE/BEAT UP ON UNIONS, DUMP PENSIONS

Insurance/hmo is pooled resources, spreads risk

right destroys buffers:

AlterNet [1] / By David Atkins [2]

5 Reasons the Rich Are Ruining the Economy by Hoarding Their Money

June 26, 2014 |

It has been nearly four decades since the Reagan revolution in supply-side economics came to power in the United States. Tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are at near record lows, asset values have been pumped up to record highs, and corporate America is sitting prettier than ever before. There can be no question but that the ideologues who promoted supply-side economics have succeeded in enforcing their vision policy on our lives. But their decades-long experiment has also proven to be structural failure at every possible level (except for padding the pockets of the top 1%.) Here are five things we know without doubt about supply-side economics today:

1. The money doesn't trickle down.

Of all the failures of supply-side economics, this is the most damning. Conservatives often excuse poor wage growth and high unemployment as part of the global competitive marketplace, saying that everyone needs to tighten their belts. But not everyone is struggling--in fact, the rich are better off than ever. They control half of all the wealth [3], and the top 10% control almost 9/10ths of it [4]. Corporate profits are at or near record highs [5], disproving the myth that the middle class must suffer due to competitive pressures. The Dow Jones index is threatening to burst past 17,000. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated since the Reagan era [6], even though productivity continues to increase [7]. Corporate executives, in other words, are forcing workers to toil longer, harder and smarter than ever, but all the proceeds are going into the hands of the very rich while the people actually creating the wealth are struggling harder than ever to get by. Republicans either wave away this phenomenon as insignificant, or desperately attempt to blame regulation and "crony capitalism." Of course, the last time economic trends were so disproportionately imbalanced against workers was the era before the regulatory and tax increases of the New Deal, nor is there any significant sense (outside perhaps of military contractors favored by the GOP establishment) in which government contracts play a larger role in the economy. Instead, the truth is obvious: corporations don't exist to create jobs but to rake in money, and most rich people didn't get rich by being generous. When you give corporations and the rich more money, they simply hoard it and find ways to make themselves even more money--preferably by employing as few people as possible, at the lowest wages possible.

2. The rich aren't investing almost half of their resources.

This one is almost comical. In concept, supply-side economics is supposed to work by the corporate rich taking money gleaned by tax breaks and subsidies, and plowing it back into investments that theoretically employ people. Now, we already know that the economic life doesn't actually work that way: when wealthy individuals and companies invest, they tend to do it in financialized vehicles, mergers, acquisitions and interest-bearing accounts while employing the fewest people possible at awful wages.

But even if it did work as supply-siders theorize, the brutal reality is that the rich aren't investing almost half of their money [8] (corporations aren't doing much better, as their record profits sit largely idle [9] avoiding taxation). 40% of the assets of the wealthy are sitting in deposits: the rich person's equivalent of stuffing money into a mattress. Money sitting in deposits in Swiss and Cayman Islands accounts is essentially wasted wealth. It does as little good for the world economy as gold hoarded by a dragon in Middle Earth. It essentially sits there uselessly as an economic security blanket for the very people who need it least. By contrast, putting more money into the hands of the poor and middle class pays off immediately for the economy, as most people living paycheck to paycheck spend the money immediately or at least create a small backstop against bankruptcy and delinquency--thus creating immediate economic and social benefits. So not only does giving the rich more money not pay off when they do invest, it doesn't even have the opportunity to pay off at all since almost half of the money isn't even being invested.

3. Supply-side economics leads to a bubble economy with bigger and longer recessions.

One of the most dramatic and intentional yet underreported effects of supply-side economics was to convert a stable wage-based economy into an unstable asset-based economy[10]. An economy focused on wage growth and broad prosperity tends to have slower overall growth and is at somewhat greater risk for inflation. It was understandable after the 1970s that some political elites would want to steer far in the other direction.But one of the many downsides to boosting asset growth at all costs is that assets fluctuate in value. Stocks and real estate both tend to rise over the long haul, but in the short term they are subject to bubbles and crashes. And the more money gets thrown into asset markets, the greater is the risk of irrational exuberance, the larger are the bubbles--and the worse are the plunges and panics.

This is extremely problematic at both the individual and macro levels. Individuals whose investments are inadequately diversified and/or who lack enough liquid cash face ruin during downturns. Individuals who lack assets at all find themselves out of work and underpaid when increasingly large recessions slash both wages and jobs. At the broadest level, entire societies bear the burden of asset bubbles when the downturns are so devastating as to threaten the very solvency of the markets themselves. Taxpayers are then forced to shoulder the burden of socializing the market's losses even though its gains are privatized and go almost entirely to the top 1% of incomes. Lastly but not least, inflating housing markets by orders of magnitude within a generation may help those who already own homes to feel richer despite their stagnant wages--but at the severe social cost of making housing largely unaffordable to younger generations [11].

4. High inequality frays society and reduces trust in institutions.

It is not an accident [12] that trust in major institutions has declined on a linear track with rising inequality. Study [13] after study [14] has shown that trust in our fellow citizens and in institutions at large are dependent on the level of inequality and corruption in society. This stands to reason: people know when they're getting the short end of the stick, even if they can't agree on why. Conservatives wrongly blame government spending and regulation. Liberals rightly blame disproportionate rewards going to the very wealthy. Not surprisingly, then, high levels of inequality also create strong partisanship within society [15] as politicians and pundits alike ratchet up the rhetoric of blame. As both secular and religious institutions seem equally powerless to address increasing economic and social insecurity, the social fabric begins to fray and people tend to self-segregate in many ways, including politically [16]. Economic tension and social tension tend to go hand in hand.

5. Supply-side economics creates deficits.

Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman will note up front that deficits don't matter nearly as much as most conservative economists claim they do, and that conservatives only seem to care about the deficit when Democrats are in power.Still, insofar as government deficits do matter, it's clear that supply-side economics exacerbates them. Remember that supply-side economics requires tax cuts for the wealthy in order to work. There was a time when conservatives could claim without derision that reducing tax burdens on the rich would lead to so much increased growth that government revenues would actually expand to cover and surpass the upfront tax losses.

That argument has been proven laughably untrue. Government deficits nearly tripled under Ronald Reagan [17]. The tax cuts passed by George W. Bush dramatically increased the budget deficit [18] without even considering increased military and homeland security spending after 9/11. We now know beyond a doubt that whatever the inflection point on the Laffer curve [19] where decreased taxes do lead to greater revenues actually is, it's apparently far higher than the pre-Reagan marginal rates on the wealthy. Liberals often accuse conservatives of intentionally creating large deficits while in power, then using deficit hysteria to "starve the beast" and slash government spending--which in turn damages the economy, reduces consumer demand and slows growth, thus increasing deficits again. Regardless of the merits of that claim, however, we do know for certain today that conservative economics inexorably increases government deficits.

In short, whatever excuses there might have been for voters and policymakers to buy into conservative economic theories in the 1980s, those excuses are now gone.

We know better. We know that supply-side money does not trickle down to workers. We know that corporations and the rich don't even bother to invest a huge portion of their wealth. We know that pumping up assets and investments leads to more unstable economies. We know that supply-side economics is creating larger deficits, and we know that the rampant political corruption and massive inequality caused by supply-side economics is eroding the very fabric of our society.

rich [21]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-rich-are-ruining-economy-hoarding-their-money

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/david-atkins

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/richest-1-percent-wealth_n_4072658.html

[4] http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

[5] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/27/3420092/corporate-profits-record-2013/

[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-sorscher/we-all-do-better-when-we-all-do-better_b_1469635.html

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

[8] http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/11/the-worlds-richest-people-are-sitting-on-gigantic-piles-of-cash-that-arent-earning-them-anything/

[9] http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/07/16/idle-corporate-cash-piles-up/

[10] http://www.salon.com/2014/05/04/how_the_rich_stole_our_money_and_made_us_think_they_were_doing_us_a_favor/

[11] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/31/millennials-failure-to-launch-is-a-function-of-poor-u-s-housing-policy/

[12] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/

[13] http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/uslaner/uslanersocialcapitalhandbookelgar.pdf

[14] http://blogs.iq.harvard.edu/sss/attachments/Social.Trust.You.081905.pdf

[15] http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5395/inequality5.pdf

[16] http://www.economist.com/node/11581447

[17] http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

[18] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/

[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[20] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on 5 Reasons the Rich Are Ruining the Economy by Hoarding Their Money

[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/rich

[22] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

The Nicotine Network

How Big Tobacco and Republican congressional leaders help each other gain power.

By Peter H. Stone | Tue Apr. 30, 1996 11:00 PM PDT

Just four blocks from the headquarters of RJR Nabisco in Winston-Salem, N.C., is a small company called the Ramhurst Corp., which has been playing an instrumental role in the beleaguered tobacco behemoth's political fortunes. Its key mission: to quash the biggest political and financial challenges the tobacco industry has ever faced--from federal efforts to regulate tobacco at the Food and Drug Administration to state attempts to impose excise taxes and smoking restrictions.

Launched in 1993 with the support of RJR, Ramhurst--which coordinates many of its activities closely with RJR--combines "grassroots" lobbying with inside-the-Beltway influence-peddling. "Grassroots" coalitions have become a vital tool for tobacco's survival because of the industry's increasingly negative public image.By forming coalitions with business groups, conservative activist organizations, and other industries, tobacco companies like RJR obtain useful cover and, in effect, go from being a "black hat" to a"white hat"in the political world.

Ramhurst occupies a special niche among grassroots organizers for tobacco, however: Its operatives have also forged ties with some of the most powerful GOP leaders in Washington, including Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, Newt Gingrich'shand-picked choice to succeed him as director of the powerful political action committee GOPAC.

Most significantly, a key Ramhurst operative has been tapped to head House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's leadership PAC, considered by many the pre-eminent fundraising vehicle in the GOP, after Newt Gingrich's money machine.

Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/05/nicotine-network

12 lev pts:

11: Size of Stabilizing buffers: we've touched on this above, but institutional memory (diversitry of viewpoint), checks and behaviors of fair play are important and have accumulated over time. Analogy of FM radio: easy to destroy and difficult to reconstitute. {aquifer)

Barry Commoner points out that the slowest cycle is often the limiting factor. 24/7 compresssed news cycle creates appetite which elcitis bad information is is corrected belatedly if at all.

It's usually easier to slow down than speed up a system, since some (at least natural processes like the growth of a child) cannot be accelerated. Moreover, if we could slow economic system, it would lessen GHG and give us more time to cope.

Ctr-cultural tactics of 60's are the commons, the earth's immune system see hawken multitude of NGO, autonomous but united; efficient b/c small w/ few resources.

WWW is a buffer of memory, but also unfiltered, too fast moving, "narrow-casting" so polarizing