Economics – The Cooperative Society

Domestic Damage Assessment of Trump’s First Three Months in Office

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
April 2025, Issue 52
By E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

Trump has begun his second term as President with a flurry of executive orders downsizing the federal government, reducing assistance to developing countries, and, in early April, doubling down on and then “PAUSE”ing a bewildering array of tariffs around the world: on traditional friends, trade rivals, small developing countries, and even a few uninhabited islands.

His America First Trade Policy, that’s essentially based on bullying the rest of the world, is likely to have serious negative consequences across the globe, including in the United States. I thought about cataloguing the international impacts of his quixotic words and deeds in this article, but decided that such an approach would be too overwhelming for me to write and for you to read.

Instead, the focus of this article is on a brief damage assessment of his administration’s actions at home – on the pocketbooks, health, and other quality of life issues in the United States. There is a caveat to this analysis. Trump changes course a lot. His tariffs and other actions should be viewed as “bargaining chips.” In the 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, which a ghost writer wrote for him, Trump gives his take on how he “masterfully” negotiates deals that are to his advantage. Too many people have the mistaken impression that Trump is a successful businessman and economic genius. Many well-researched analyses, however, have concluded that he is neither of the above. For example, see here and here. So, with his incompetence and self-serving unpredictability in mind, following is a summary of the downward economic spiral in which he is leading the country and its inhabitants.

Let’s start with his campaign promises. The American Federation of Teachers recently noted that during his campaign, Trump “vowed to make housing more affordable, lower grocery prices, . . . and reduce the overall cost of living. But since taking office, [he] has failed to deliver on these promises.”

Based on the analyses of numerous economists, quite the opposite of increasing American prosperity is already well underway. Both the cost of living and the unemployment rate are likely to go up rather than down during Trump’s administration. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as “stagflation,” and is measured by the “Misery Index” (the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate).

For example, the well-respected Budget Lab at Yale University recently published a report that projected the economic impact on American households of Trump’s tariff bombardment and retaliations to it by other countries as calculated on April 15: “The price level from all 2025 tariffs rises by 3% in the short-run, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $4,900 [in 2025] . . . .” As noted above, these estimated numbers will change during the year as the global tariff war transpires.

And that’s just the potential impact of tariffs on US consumers.

When economists analyze the combined hot mess that will result if his economic goals related to tariffs, cutbacks in the federal budget (which appear to be particularly targeting Medicaid’s 70-some million recipients), tax reductions (you guessed it – primarily for large corporations and the wealthy), and an increase in the national debt, they reveal the makings of an historic economic disaster for the United States, and less so, for the rest of the world, over the next couple of years.

And that’s just the fallout from his “economic agenda.”

Then there are the other major domestic disruptions that Trump is setting in motion. To name a couple near the top of the list: the deportation of about 1 million immigrants in 2025 and the slashing of federal health, education, social, and other services.

Again, as many economists are pointing out, the above actions are likely to worsen the quality of life in the United States rather than improve it.

One of the most egregious examples of Trump’s cabinet appointments is Robert Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Social Services. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, recently called for him to resign, citing “complete disregard for science.”

On top of all of the above, Americans are beginning to be viewed as pariahs in many other countries. We get booed at hockey games between Canadian and American teams. Tourism in the US by residents of other countries is already starting to suffer, creating a downturn in the US hospitality industry.

Those manufacturing jobs that Trump is promising? Forget about it. With a few exceptions, foreign corporations can’t just pick up and relocate their production facilities to the US overnight. Plus, there’s a good reason why many of those jobs have been outsourced in the first place. They don’t pay much. And without clarity on what Trump will decide to play with in his sandbox from day to day, companies can’t make informed decisions anyway.

Conclusion
In a recent Fox News interview, Trump asserted that “We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing. … It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.” As this article illustrates, we aren’t heading toward greatness with the bizarre, cobbled-together actions begun during his first three months in office.

Terms likes stagflation and the Misery Index have already come back into our vocabulary in 2025. It will take several years and a dramatic shift in leadership before we have a healthy domestic economy again.

Press Release: The Emerging Cooperative Economy

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
July 2024, Issue 47
By E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

Saving the world by 2050?
Why is this human-dominated world so deeply flawed by the powerlessness and uncertainty that most of us feel, by the dramatic differences in the quality of our lives, and by the damage that we inflict on our physical environment?

In The Emerging Cooperative Economy, author E.G. Nadeau makes the case that we can transition to an international economy based on increasing political and economic democracy, meeting human needs, and sustaining the environment. This new book presents a path for moving toward an economy that puts the well-being of the many ahead of the wealth and power of a few.

Advance Praise
“Your book is amazing! It is a sweeping look at how we arrived at today, and it presents a blueprint for survival – not just survival, but a world with hope, rooted in a cooperative economy.”
Mark Lefebvre, Former President and CEO of Stanton & Lee Publishers

“E.G. Nadeau’s call for growing alternatives to our current economic order is . . . an urgent call to action.”
Tom Webb, Cofounder of The International Centre for Co-operative Management, St. Mary’s University

About the author
E. G. Nadeau has been researching, promoting, writing, and teaching about cooperatives and cooperation for more than 50 years. His cooperative career began as a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal in 1970. He has participated in dozens of cooperative development projects in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia and has authored or co-authored five previous books and numerous articles on cooperatives and societal cooperation. He is currently Codirector of The Cooperative Society Project, a nonprofit initiative.

Availability
The Emerging Cooperative Economy can be ordered through local booksellers and from Amazon.

For more information, contact E.G. Nadeau at (608) 345-3984 or egnadeau3@gmail.com.

Taking on the most dangerous drug cartel in the world: the fossil fuel industry

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
April 2024, Issue 46
By E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

In early March 2024, Darren Woods, chief executive of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest investor-owned oil company, asserted that “‘The world is off track to meet its climate goals and the public is to blame.’ Exxon is among the top contributors to global planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions. But Woods argued that big oil is not primarily responsible for the climate crisis.”

As the article in The Guardian goes on to report, “Experts say Woods’s rhetoric is part of a larger attempt to skirt climate accountability. No new major oil and gas infrastructure can be built if the world is to avoid breaching agreed temperature limits but Exxon, along with other major oil companies currently basking in record profits, is pushing ahead with aggressive fossil-fuel expansion plans.”

‘’‘It’s like a drug lord blaming everyone but himself for drug problems,’ said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia business school.’” (Quoted from the same article.)

In a similar vein to Woods’s comments, Amin H. Nasser, the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil and natural gas company, recently labeled the phaseout of fossil fuels as a “fantasy.”

The source of 80% of CO₂ emissions
To underscore what the real fantasyland is, one needs only to look at the recent headline-grabbing Carbon Majors Database Launch Report, page 31, published in April 2024. One of the most startling statistics in the report is that ”57 fossil fuel and cement producers [are] linked to 80% of global fossil CO₂ emissions since the Paris Agreement” signed by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015. In other words, the world’s fossil fuel emissions could be radically reduced by changing the behavior of a few dozen companies.

Why aren’t we able to swiftly ameliorate the climate crisis? The basic answer is that the world’s economic problem-solving model is broken. We are deferring to those most responsible for global warming and other world problems – large for-profit corporations, powerful governments, and their enabling political and economic elites – to solve the very problems that they are responsible for creating and perpetuating. Wagner’s reference to drug lords is a very apt analogy.

So, we need a new paradigm, one based on putting the well-being of the many ahead of the profits and power of the few.

Supply and demand
In a December 2023 article I outlined one strategy for outmaneuvering the fossil fuel industry: reducing the demand for their products by continuing to reduce the relative cost of clean energy compared to dirty energy. As I wrote, “Basic economics tells us that no matter how much fossil fuel companies can produce, they won’t be able to sell their products if they are not competitive in the marketplace. In other words, dirty energy companies can control supply of their products, but they can’t control demand for them. As demand dries up, the market for oil, gas, and coal disappears.”

I cited the example of the European Union as employing such a demand-side strategy that puts its 27 member countries on track for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. A key part of the strategy is an Emissions Trading System that transitions EU companies from fossil fuels to clean energy such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. A second component, as summarized by the European Commission, is to use a “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) . . . to put a fair price on the carbon emitted during the production of carbon intensive goods that are entering the EU, and to encourage cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries.”

Expanding the EU’s initiative
But the EU cannot fight this battle alone. The world needs a Carbon Reduction Initiative II – a broad, international coalition of countries that would accelerate their pace of change toward an increased use of clean energy. Coalition members could impose a tax on carbon emissions generated by domestic companies similar to the EU’s cap and trade system, and a border adjustment mechanism applied to the importation of carbon-intensive goods. If the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of other countries were to enact such carbon taxes on domestically produced and imported goods, China, India, Russia, and other major oil-, gas-, and coal-producing states and companies would be far more inclined to abandon their dirty energy ways.

There are a range of other components to this demand-side strategy favoring clean energy over dirty energy. Clean energy is less expensive (and on course to being even more economical in the decades ahead). It’s also a far less risky long-term investment for companies and countries that are likely to face stranded assets when the value of their fossil fuel energy reserves decreases as demand drops off. The longer these countries and companies wait to join the clean energy bandwagon, the more expensive their energy transitions will be.

Clean energy also doesn’t pose the health risks of fossil fuels such as polluted communities; accidents arising from production, distribution, and industrial applications; and environmentally ravaged landscapes.

Legal challenges against fossil fuel companies are also on the rise within countries and in international courts. These costly challenges are based on the environmental degradation, overvaluation, and lies that fossil fuel companies have spread about the “benefits” of their products.

In summary, we are already beginning to break our addiction to fossil fuels as the world’s primary sources of energy. We can accelerate this recovery through concerted efforts to rapidly reduce demand for fossil fuels among most of the world’s countries.

Islands and Renewable Energy:

The good, the bad, and the somewhere-in-between

Far too many islands are not taking advantage of their renewable energy resources

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
February 2024, Issue 45
By E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

As I began writing this article, I was sitting at a dining room table at the Vaoto Lodge on Ofu Island (population 200) in American Samoa. American Samoa is the southernmost territory of the United States. It has a total population of about 70,000, and is near the middle of the Pacific Ocean about 15° south of the equator.

There is a U.S. National Park here that spans parts of four islands. The islands are a combination of steep jungle-covered mountains, beautiful sand beaches, and reefs with patches of vibrant living coral and colorful fish, along with cemeteries of bleached dead coral that look like underwater ghost towns – mostly thanks to global warming.

I was there with my two sons, Luc and Isaac. We were on vacation, but we were also there to learn about the islands’ people and environment.

Powering the islands
I’m particularly interested in how the islands’ inhabitants have or have not replaced fossil fuel sources of energy with clean energy, especially solar and battery storage. A few miles to the east of Ofu, the island of Ta’u has 100% clean electricity due to a solar panel array and a battery storage system. Or so I thought. According to local sources, the system is currently meeting about 80% of the island’s electricity needs, due to some glitches that are in the process of being remedied.

There was a similar solar+battery system on Ofu until a few years ago, when the battery storage unit burned to the ground. After lengthy haggling with the insurer of the system, it is about to get repaired. In the meantime, most of the island’s electrical energy has reverted to very dirty and expensive diesel fuel.

Tutu’ila, where most American Samoans live, depends on diesel fuel for the majority of its electricity. When one walks around the island, the unhealthy smell of diesel fumes is pervasive. As a whole, the territory’s goal for 100% clean energy electrification is 2045 – an incredibly unambitious goal considering the financial and health costs of diesel, and the abundant availability of solar and wind energy. A transformation that could happen in the next few years is planned to take more than 20.

The nearby island country of Samoa (if you’re interested, look up the reason why there is a U.S. territory right next to a nation with the same name) appears to be far ahead of its neighbor on the clean energy front, with the goal of achieving 100% clean electrical energy by next year.

Slow-walking
American Samoa is not the only island territory or nation that is slow-walking toward net zero energy. Despite all the negatives of fossil fuel for island energy, and the abundance of far less expensive, renewable energy resources, many of the 200,000 or so ocean islands around the world, comprising about 7% of the earth’s land surface and about 9% of its population, are in similar carbon-emitting boats. This, despite the increasing vulnerability of many of them due to rising ocean levels, hurricanes, tsunamis, and flooding, resulting from human-made global warming.

Here are a few more – bad and good – examples of approaches being taken by other island communities to clean up their sources of energy:

Examples of other approaches
Hawaii. To get to American Samoa from the mainland United States, one has to fly to Honolulu, take a left turn, and fly about another 5 ½ hours south. Hawaiian Electric Company is a monopoly utility providing electricity to all of Hawaii’s major islands except Kauai. Despite all the advantages of clean energy cited above, Hawaiian Electric has the same astoundingly weak net zero electrical energy goal of 2045 as American Samoa. Electricity fueled by diesel in Hawaii currently costs about $.43 per kilowatt hour. Homegrown solar, wind, and hydropower is about three times cheaper and much cleaner. So, go figure.

The beautiful Hawaiian island of Kauai has a different story to tell. The Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, owned by the island’s residents and businesses, bought out the previous, for-profit utility in 2002. Since then, it has been gradually transforming Kauai’s electrical energy system to solar, wind, hydropower, and increased energy storage. The co-op is shooting for 100% percent renewable energy by 2033, 12 years ahead of the state’s goal.

Puerto Rico. Shifting our attention to a U.S. territory in the Caribbean Sea, Puerto Rico was devastated by a direct hit from Hurricane Maria in September 2017, which knocked out much of the island’s power for almost a year. Six-and-a-half years later, the island is still 97% dependent on diesel fuel for its electrical energy. Puerto Rico had the opportunity after the hurricane to make its electricity much less vulnerable to the devastation of tropical storms by decentralizing it into interconnected, multiple smaller grids powered by solar, wind, water, and battery storage. Instead, Puerto Rico – with the support of its U.S. government enablers – sold the island’s power grid to a consortium of U.S. and Canadian companies – that made the jaw-dropping, but not unexpected, decision to rebuild a highly vulnerable, centralized grid similar to the one that was devastated in 2017.

We don’t have the time or space for another 190-some thousand stories, but you get the idea.

The Alliance of Small Island States and its supporters in the United Nations and elsewhere are doing their best to replace unsustainable fossil fuel energy in island communities with local clean energy. The future of these islands and our planet depends on it. The country of Samoa is a clean energy leader in this group of small islands. The U.S. territory of American Samoa unfortunately is not. My sons and I loved the people and the beauty of the territory but could have done without the diesel smog.

Following COP28, does the world now have an agreement to end fossil fuel use?

No way!

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
November/December 2023, Issue 44
By E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D

In early December, most of the countries of the world wrangled with Saudi Arabia and other petrostates at COP28 – the recent climate change conference in Dubai – over whether there should be an explicit reference to a phaseout of fossil fuels in the conference’s final agreement. The debate went far into overtime, and the pro-phaseout advocates appear to have won the battle.

But don’t believe it! This is a Swiss-cheese, non-binding agreement that “Dirty Energy” will find plenty of ways to subvert.

Despite the many loopholes, there is hope for a genuine phaseout of the vast majority of fossil fuels by 2050. It won’t happen by trusting the goodwill of the fossil fuel-producing companies and their allies but, instead, by reducing the demand for these fuels as quickly as possible.

How do we reduce demand?
The short answer is by continuing to reduce the relative cost of clean energy versus dirty energy. We need to accelerate the deployment of clean energy in both the Global North and the Global South, rapidly increase energy efficiency, make trillions of dollars available for the expansion of clean energy resources, provide support to energy-poor and vulnerable countries to cope with the harmful effects of climate change, and end subsidies to the producers and distributors of dirty fuels.

Basic economics tells us that no matter how much fossil fuel companies can produce, they won’t be able to sell their products if they are not competitive in the marketplace. In other words, dirty energy companies can control supply of their products, but they can’t control demand for them. As demand dries up, the market for oil, gas, and coal disappears.

Examples
Let’s dig a little deeper into this demand-side strategy for phasing out dirty energy. The best place to start is with a couple of good examples. In 2023, the European Union enacted “Fit for 55” as a package of programs to accelerate the EU’s reduction of carbon emissions – with the goals of achieving a 55% reduction of emissions in 2030 compared to those in 1990, and net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The main components of Fit for 55 are:

An emissions trading system (ETS) that gradually increases the cost of carbon emissions by both domestic “operators” and by companies wanting to export goods to EU member countries
The addition of several new target emitters to those already subject to the ETS, including shipping, aviation, road transport, and energy-inefficient buildings
Clear, measurable goals and increasingly severe consequences over time for operators failing to meet the goals that are built into the system
Periodic updating of the implementation strategy based on changing conditions
A carbon border adjustment mechanism that effectively imposes carbon taxes on companies operating outside the EU that market their products to the EU. These carbon taxes protect EU-based companies from unfair competition.

In summary, this strategy is a straightforward, clearly understandable means to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve the 2030 and 2050 Paris Agreement goals.

Thirteen states in the United States provide a second set of examples of demand-side programs to reduce fossil fuel use. Like the European Union, these states also use carbon-pricing mechanisms to ratchet down fossil fuel use by utilities and other companies. What makes this a big deal is that these states have a significant presence in the world economy. If California were a country, it would have the fifth largest economy in the world.

This demand-side approach could be enlarged dramatically in the next few years, especially if funds were available to developing countries to accelerate their clean energy growth. After all, the large, developed countries in the world caused the current climate crisis through their profligate use of fossil fuels, especially during the last century. And yet, developing countries are suffering the main consequences of this profligacy in the form of droughts, starvation, floods, excessive heat, and other climate-related disasters. Countries in the Global North have a responsibility to provide technical and financial support to these developing countries. Such aid would be part of a broader strategy to reduce worldwide carbon emissions and global warming.

As reported by a UN press release, “The United Nations Climate Change conference, COP28, has concluded with a historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels, triple renewable energy and increase climate finance for the most vulnerable.”

We have the potential to make this agreement more than just a set of vague promises, especially through concerted efforts to increase the use of clean energy and to rapidly reduce demand for fossil fuels. This demand-side strategy can make a dramatic difference by 2030 despite the disingenuous actions of Dirty Energy to continue the world’s dependency on fossil fuels for as long as possible.

A neglected source of clean energy

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
September 2023, Issue 43
By E. G. Nadeau

From rural Uganda to Madison, Wisconsin, renewable natural gas (RNG) is an important source of clean energy that also has other major environmental benefits.

What is RNG? It’s a gas derived from organic waste material such as livestock manure, food waste, garden and lawn clippings, and other animal and plant-based material. It is often concentrated on farms, in landfills, and in waste treatment facilities.

The big difference between “natural gas” and renewable natural gas is that the former is a fossil fuel and the latter is a clean energy resource derived from current waste products.

I first encountered the use of renewable natural gas as a clean energy resource when I was doing a research project on dairy cooperatives in Uganda in 2006. I met a middle-aged widow who was raising two daughters from the proceeds of a two- or three-cow dairy farm. She sold the milk to her local co-op and used the cow manure to produce biogas. She had learned a simple technique from a dairy co-op advisor on how to build a small manure digester and to pipe the gas into her house. The biogas provided the energy for two small lamps and a gas cooking stove. She was able to pay the school fees for her daughters from the sale of milk and to provide lighting for them to study in the evenings.

Biogas and its more purified product, renewable natural gas (RNG), can be generated by an anaerobic digester that can be as simple as the one used by the Ugandan dairy farmer or it can be a multi-million-dollar processing facility.

Renewable natural gas is a valuable environmental resource not only in communities in developing countries but those in developed countries as well, including Madison Wisconsin, where I live.

The difference between so-called “natural gas” and renewable natural gas
Many people have the misconception that “natural gas” is a clean fossil fuel. In fact, it’s a dirty, nonrenewable source of energy. Natural gas is made up of almost 90% methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and is a major contributor to global warming. Natural gas produces slightly more than half as much carbon dioxide as coal when it is combusted, but it is prone to leak significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere at the wellhead, during its distribution, and at the point of combustion. Some scientists have concluded that because of this leakage, natural gas may be just as bad for global warming as coal.

Renewable natural gas, in contrast, is carbon neutral because it is derived from an ongoing recycling of plant and animal products. It also has the benefit of reducing methane emissions from landfills, livestock, food scraps, and other degradable waste products.

According to the American Biogas Council, there is a cornucopia of benefits from RNG and other biomass processing. “Biogas systems protect our air, water, and soil by recycling organic waste into renewable energy and soil products, while reducing GHG emissions.

“In the U.S., there is an urgent need to manage the millions of tons of food, water and animal waste. The main benefits of biogas systems come from the fact that they are recycling all this material while also producing renewable energy and soil products which displace fossil fuels.

“When you put these and other benefits together, we can prevent tons of carbon emissions from entering our air, prevent nutrients from entering our waterways, create healthier soils with natural, non-fossil fuel-based fertilizers, and produce reliable, baseload renewable energy.”

The American Biogas Council identifies substantial growth opportunities for these biogas-related benefits. In the United States alone, the Council projects that more than 15,000 new biogas systems could be developed. Worldwide, there is massive potential for these systems.

A cluster of anaerobic digesters process organic waste to become renewable natural gas.

Following are two brief examples of biogas and RNG use

East Africa

In East Africa (including Uganda), farmers and local communities are turning organic waste into biogas for cooking, lighting, and other household uses, while at the same time reducing carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

Since the vast majority of households in developing countries use dirty and unhealthy fuels such as bottled natural gas or scarce resources such as wood or charcoal for cooking and heating, biogas is an excellent clean energy alternative.

Madison, Wisconsin, USA

My favorite thing about living in Madison is the chain of lakes that runs through the city and the surrounding countryside. This beautiful resource, however, is not what it used to be. Seventy years ago, the lakes were crystal clear – excellent for swimming, boating, and picnicking along the shorelines. Today, the lakes are plagued with weeds and periodic blooms of blue-green algae that are toxic to humans and animals. On several summer days each year, the lakes stink because of the decaying vegetation.

The primary cause of this deterioration of the lakes‘ quality? Phosphorus runoff from the increasingly large nearby dairy farms that provide nutrients for the weeds and algae. In the past few decades, far more phosphorus has been imported to the Madison-area watershed in the form of chemical fertilizers and animal feed than has been exported from it as dairy, meat, and grain products. Thus, the mess the lakes are in today.

Madison, Wisconsin, is situated on a chain of lakes that runs through the city and the surrounding countryside.

What does this lake problem have to do with renewable natural gas? Anaerobic digesters can radically reduce the amount of phosphorus runoff as well as the amount of methane generated by cow manure, landfills, and other sources of waste.

In fact, for the first time in the past seven decades or so, the Madison-area watershed is on the verge of exporting more phosphorus per year than it imports because of two recently installed manure digesters and one planned for 2024 or 2025, all of which will not only extract RNG from manure, but also remove harmful chemicals such as phosphorus. The long-term result will be increasingly clear lakes as well as the reduction of harmful methane emissions into the atmosphere.

The county landfill also has a new state-of-the-art processing facility that converts methane from landfills into RNG. The facility inserts this renewable gas – and that generated by manure digesters and other sources – into natural gas pipelines which allow the clean energy fuel to be used locally as well as transported to other parts of the country.

Conclusion

Renewable natural gas needs to become a better-understood and more frequently utilized resource for creating a clean energy future on small dairy farms in Uganda as well as in metropolitan areas in the United States and other countries.

Solar panels and agriculture can be best buds

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
July 2023, Issue 42
By E. G. Nadeau

The word agrivoltaics, defined as “the use of land for both agriculture and solar photovoltaic energy generation,” was coined in 1981, but it has not become a significant area of research and development until the past few years. This is a brief article about how agrivoltaics can be a boon to both clean energy production and farming.

NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States, has been assisting a number of agrivoltaic experiments since 2020. Some examples of solar farming are presented below.

Jack’s Solar Garden is researching a diverse array of crops under solar panels in Colorado.

BlueWave Solar is combining solar panels with blueberry farming in Maine.

Pine Gate Renewables and other organizations are experimenting with elevated solar panels above cranberry bogs in Massachusetts.

Silicon Ranch is partnering with White Oak Pastures to graze several thousand head of sheep in combination with solar panels in Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri.

Bare Honey is locating honeybee hives near solar panels that provide shade for pollinator-friendly plants on farms in Minnesota.

Cattle are grazing among solar panels on Knowlton Family Farms in Massachusetts.

Agrivoltaics is taking off in other countries

Researchers in South Korea are successfully growing broccoli underneath solar panels.

Solar panels are being used to reverse desertification in Algeria.

A large solar power installation on salt flats in China is serving a triple function of facilitating salt farming, growing shrimp, and generating electricity.

A Kenyan project is using shade from solar panels to shelter vegetables from heat stress and water loss.

To put it simply: Solar panels produce clean energy; reduce the cost of electrical energy; reduce global warming; provide lease income to farmers, who in turn spend money in their local communities; generate jobs; provide shade that many crops and livestock need to thrive; are more efficient when they don’t get too hot; increase carbon sequestration; and can be configured in a variety of ways to accommodate different agricultural products.

What’s the combined result? Something in the range of a win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win.

Controversy
With all of these benefits, why all the controversy about solar arrays on farms? One source of opposition is that some neighbors don’t like the looks of a large expanse of solar panels. Whether a field of solar panels is ugly or beautiful is in the eyes of the beholder. No matter what the potential benefits are, some local community residents are likely to express concern about the NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem.

One genuine problem that some solar arrays cause is that they reduce the amount of productive agricultural land. This article makes the case that more and more solar arrays are being constructed in ways that complement and, in some cases, improve agriculture, rather than harm it.

By some estimates, solar panels may need to be located on 1% of the land area in the United States and other countries. Some panels may be on rooftops or on land surfaces that are not agricultural, but there is no question that many of the solar arrays will need to be located on farmland. Thus, it is critically important to develop a range of strategies in which such arrays and farming are mutually beneficial.

We also shouldn’t forget that much farmland is currently not being used sustainably. For example, in the state of Wisconsin alone, a million acres of corn are used for the production of ethanol, a “renewable” energy use that is considered by many to be highly inefficient in, if not detrimental to, combating global warming. Agrivoltaics can play a very constructive role in reducing this kind of wasteful production and replacing it with more sustainable agricultural uses.

Let’s dig a little deeper into the list of ”wins” cited above

Solar panels produce clean energy.
No need to make a case for this. It’s not a subject of much debate.

They reduce the cost of electrical energy.
The cost of solar electricity has dropped dramatically during the past decade or so, and is on track to keep dropping. Solar is the least expensive of all sources of electricity.

They reduce global warming.
Because solar panels do not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, they meet our electricity needs without raising the world’s temperature.

They provide lease income to farmers.
“Farming the sun” can be a lucrative source of income for many small- and medium-size farms, sometimes making the difference between staying on the land or selling out. Those farmers, in turn, spend some of this money in their local communities.

They generate jobs.
There are over a quarter-of-a-million solar jobs in the United States. Constructing solar arrays requires a significant amount of labor. Even though the labor for each array is not huge, the anticipated growth of these arrays over the next several decades will keep hundreds of thousands of people employed in the United States alone.

They provide shade that benefits crops and livestock.
Sheep, goats, cattle, and other livestock can benefit from the cooling effects of taking a break under a solar panel. In the case of cattle, the poles supporting the panels must be built strongly, because cows enjoy rubbing up against them. Many crops benefit from the shade provided by solar panels, especially on farms located in hot, dry areas.

Solar panels are more efficient when they don’t get too hot.
Crops can help to cool them by generating water evaporation, reducing heat reflection, and letting more air pass under the panels (because they are mounted higher on cropland than on non-crop surfaces).

Some crops sequester carbon.
Some crops, especially perennial grasses, are excellent at sequestering carbon both above and below ground. Grasses grow very well under solar panels. A recent article by All Native Seed, LLC, put it this way: “While trees have long been used for carbon sequestration, native grasses . . . are increasing in popularity for this purpose along with other benefits. Grasses like switchgrass and Miscanthus have deep, complex root systems that are ideal for storing carbon in the soil. Their root structures also help stabilize the soil, increase moisture levels, and retain nutrients. . . . Finally, grasses . . . establish in 1-3 years so maximum carbon sequestration is realized much sooner than with trees.”

Custom-designed solar panels.
Solar panels can be custom-designed to address different kinds of agriculture. Solar panels can be installed at different heights and in different configurations so that livestock and agricultural equipment can pass underneath them, and crops can be planted and harvested efficiently.

Conclusion
As the use of solar panels on agricultural land increases in the future, the two forms of gathering energy from the sun will become more and more mutually beneficial. We are in the very early stages of figuring out the best ways to make this happen.

COVID-19’s effect on population trends and poverty

COVID-19 is disrupting more than 70 years of population trends and setting back poverty alleviation by more than a decade.

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
September 2021, Issue 31
by E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

This is the third in a four-part series of newsletter articles on the impact of the pandemic on major issues affecting progress toward a more cooperative society. The May article focused on economic concentration and wealth inequality. The July article was about conflict and democracy. The November article will look at the effects of the pandemic on the climate crisis.

This issue analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on global population trends and the quality of life around the world during the past year and a half.

Population

COVID-19 is affecting the world’s population in several major ways. It is lowering the average lifespan, decreasing the birth rate, and slowing current and projected population growth.

Let’s take a look at each of these demographic changes.

Life expectancy

The number of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 is expected to exceed 5 million sometime in October. This is probably an undercount, because some countries are attributing coronavirus deaths to other causes.

In the United States, there were almost 350,000 COVID deaths in 2020, and another 350,000 by the end of September or early October 2021. Deaths from the coronavirus are estimated to have reduced the average life expectancy of Americans by one and a half years in 2020, the biggest single-year decline in life expectancy since World War II. This reduction in average life expectancy does not include the effects of the 2021 death toll. COVID deaths among Blacks and Hispanics are substantially higher than among Whites in the U.S.

Life expectancy in many other countries has not been as dramatically affected by the coronavirus as it has been in the United States. ”It is impossible to look at these findings and not see a reflection of the systemic racism in the U.S.,” Leslie Curtis, chair of the Department of Population Health Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, told NPR. “The range of factors that play into this include income inequality, the social safety net, as well as racial inequality and access to health care,” Curtis said.

Birth rate

The global birth rate has been declining each year since 1964. It is projected to drop off somewhat more sharply in the United States in 2021, and to a lesser extent, in a number of other countries as a result of the pandemic. According to a recent article in New Security Beat, “The pandemic has caused many young people to delay major life events, such as marriage. This delay will likely manifest in lower birthrates in the years to come. Likewise, pandemic-related unemployment and financial insecurity, particularly among young people, women, and marginalized groups, may cause further decline.”

The impact of the pandemic on lowered birth rates may continue for several years as the world economy gradually gets back on track.

Long-term demographic trends

In the remainder of the 21st century, the effect of COVID-19 on population change is likely to be a minor, but painful, blip. Longevity very probably will continue to increase gradually after the brief, virus-related, downward spike. The lower birth rate, however, may have a longer lasting, if modest, impact.

Independent of COVID, however, a group of analysts, writing in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, recently projected a more rapid deceleration and then a downturn in world population growth in the remainder of this century:

Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. A sustained TFR [total fertility rate] lower than the replacement level in many countries, including China and India, would have economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.

Primarily due to the effect of this projected lower birth rate, world population (now at 7.8 billion) is expected to peak at about 9.7 billion in 2064, and then decline to around 8.8 billion by 2100. This pattern of population growth and decline is likely to occur unevenly across the world, with some countries experiencing significant reductions in population, and others, especially many low-income countries, continuing to grow through most of the rest of the century. (The author will not go into an in-depth analysis or discuss the policy implications of these trends here, but will address them in future articles and the next edition of The Cooperative Society.)

Quality of life

There has been a recent slowdown in accomplishing the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those directly related to the quality of life of poor people around the world, that began before the coronavirus. The slowdown appears to be the result of reduced commitment by some UN members, an overly ambitious agenda by the UN, and the magnitude of the climate-change crisis overshadowing other SDGs.

The first two sustainable development goals are, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” and “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.” This section of the newsletter focuses on the impact of COVID-19 on these two goals of ending poverty and hunger by 2030.

Poverty

Extreme poverty, defined as, “Living below the international poverty line of $1.90 a day,” rose for the first time in over 20 years in 2020 as approximately 100 million people were pushed back into extreme poverty, bringing the total number of the world’s population in this category to about 730 million. Even though the World Bank recently projected that there will be a decrease of about 20 million people in extreme poverty in 2021, it will take several years to get poverty reduction back on its pre-COVID track. Despite the overall upward trend in 2021, many low-income countries in Africa will continue to experience an increase in extreme poverty this year, and thus suffer through a longer time period before they return to pre-COVID trends of extreme-poverty reduction.

Despite these grim data on COVID-related poverty around the world, there was actually a decrease in poverty in the United States in 2020. A headline in The New York Times recently reported that, “Poverty in U.S. declined last year as government aid made up for lost jobs.” The percentage of people living below the poverty line dropped from 11.8% in 2019 to 9.1% in 2020. This decline in poverty may not continue in the coming years if Congress doesn’t pass several anti-poverty measures this fall.

Hunger

The COVID-related story for world hunger is much the same as that for poverty. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations:

The number of people in the world affected by hunger continued to increase in 2020 under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. After remaining virtually unchanged from 2014 to 2019, the PoU [prevalence of under nourishment*] increased from 8.4 percent to around 9.9 percent between 2019 and 2020, heightening the challenge of achieving the Zero Hunger target in 2030.

The above percentages mean that about 120 million more people were undernourished in 2020 than in 2019, bringing the world total to about 768 million. More than 80% of undernourished people live in Asia and Africa.

The conclusion that the FAO draws related to world hunger applies equally well to extreme poverty:

With less than a decade to 2030, the world is not on track to ending world hunger and malnutrition; and in the case of world hunger, we are moving in the wrong direction. This report has shown that economic downturns as a consequence of COVID-19 containment measures all over the world have contributed to one of the largest increases in world hunger in decades, which has affected almost all low- and middle-income countries, and can reverse gains made in nutrition. The COVID-19 pandemic is just the tip of the iceberg, more alarmingly, the pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities forming in our food systems over recent years as a result of major drivers such as conflict, climate variability and extremes, and economic slowdowns and downturns. These major drivers are increasingly occurring simultaneously in countries, with interactions that seriously undermine food security and nutrition.

The United Nations recently held a world summit on food systems, in which, “. . . more than 150 countries made commitments to transform their food systems, while championing greater participation and equity, especially amongst farmers, women, youth and indigenous groups.”

But the summit was not without controversy. For example, in an article entitled, “The UN summit on food systems took two years to plan. It’s offered nothing to help feed families,” Michael Fakhri, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, made the following comment:

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted what we have known for decades – hunger, malnutrition and famine are not caused by inadequate amounts of food. They are caused by the political failures that restrict people’s access to adequate food.

Conclusion

COVID-19 has significantly contributed to a global reduction in longevity and the birth rate. It has also increased poverty and hunger around the world. The effects of these negative impacts are projected to last for a number of years. In particular, poor people, especially in Africa and Asia, will continue to experience economic hardship and undernourishment well beyond 2021. The optimistic UN goals of ”No poverty” and “Zero hunger” by 2030 will almost certainly not be realized.

It would be a mistake, however, to throw up our hands in despair at these recent setbacks. Since the UN Millennium Development Goals , the predecessors to the sustainable development goals, were first established in 2000, there have been dramatic improvements in the social, health-related, economic, and environmental well-being of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The recent setbacks related to COVID-19 and other factors mentioned above can be overcome, especially through universal access to coronavirus vaccines, and a recommitment to the 17 sustainable development goals by the international community.

__________

* Prevalence of undernourishment is “an estimate of the proportion of the population whose habitual food consumption is insufficient to provide the dietary energy levels that are required to maintain a normal active and healthy life.”

The impact of Covid-19: The pandemic’s effects on progress toward a more cooperative world society in 2020 and 2021

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
May 2021, Issue 28
by E.G. Nadeau, Ph.D.

We have been writing about whether or not humans have been moving toward or away from a more cooperative society since 2016. The pandemic, which began in December 2019, has had a profound effect not only on our health and mortality, but on the world’s economy, political landscape, social well-being, and the environment. That impact is continuing in 2021, and very probably will have significant consequences in subsequent years.

We will talk about the effects of Covid-19 on our lives in three installments of The Cooperative Society Newsletter, beginning with this May issue and continuing in July and September.

First, a little background on The Cooperative Society Project.

There are three core premises to the Project:

We have reached a point in human history at which there are adequate resources for all human beings to experience a decent quality of life. Similarly, humans are now able to establish and maintain a sustainable relationship with nature. The problem is: We are not yet achieving these goals.
It is important to measure the extent to which we humans are moving toward a sustainable quality of life for all and a sustainable environment, and, when we are falling short, to take corrective action.
Achieving these goals does not depend on forces outside of our control. We have the power to shape the conditions of our lives and those of future generations. We are the agents of history, not its powerless subjects.

The 2018 edition of The Cooperative Society: The Next Stage of Human History and “The Cooperative Society 2020 Report” both review progress (or the lack of it) related to seven measures: economic power, the distribution of wealth, conflict, democracy, population, quality of life, and the environment.

Following is an update on the first two of these variables – economic power and wealth distribution. The other five measures will be addressed in the next two newsletters.

Economic Power

Key questions
To what extent has the pandemic affected the concentration of corporate and country-related domination of the world’s economy in 2020 and so far in 2021? Are checks and balances, along with alternative forms of business, being applied and planned to reduce the negative consequences of this concentration?

Importance of this measure
As long as economic decision-making is dominated by the few, the rest of us are dependent on the choices that they make. This concentrated economic power is the primary cause of periodic, large-scale disruptions to the economy (for example the Great Recession of 2008-2010). It also has a significant impact on how we deal with crises such as those precipitated by the pandemic and global warming.

Major trends in economic concentration in 2020 and 2021:

The largest, publicly traded corporations in the world increased their combined market value by 47% between mid-April 2000 and mid-April 2021 – from $54 trillion to $80 trillion.
The United States and China are headquarters for the world’s corporations with the largest combined market values. As of April 2021, the U.S. accounted for 35% and China 7% of the market value of the top 100 corporations in the world.
Due to the pandemic, the world gross product (WGP) – the combined value of the goods and services produced by all countries – declined by a little over 4% in 2020. The only other time in the last 50 years there has been a decline in WGP was in 2009 during the Great Recession, and the drop that year was only .1%.

Analysis

These data indicate that the world’s most powerful corporations and the countries in which they are located became even more powerful during the pandemic. This was at a time when the rest of the world economy made a significant downturn.

Corrective action

The biggest factors that would reduce the power of these corporations are changes in the policies of International bodies such as the United Nations and the world’s most developed countries toward them. Tighter international anti-trust policies and enforcement of these policies, concerted efforts to thwart tax evasion by large companies, and progressive corporate taxation systems could reduce their inordinate influence on the world economy. Taking actions to strengthen small- and medium-size businesses, and including cooperatives and social enterprises, would also make a huge difference. These approaches to creating a fairer world economy in the post-pandemic era are increasingly being discussed by world leaders, including President Biden, but so far, there has been little action.

Wealth distribution

Key question
Is the distribution of wealth becoming more or less unequal around the globe?

Importance of this measure
The concentration of wealth has consequences for everyone’s economic and social well-being. Large differences in wealth and income mean that many of us earn less, receive fewer social benefits, and have less influence over the political decision-making that affects our day-to-day lives than we would have in a more equitable society. Inequality also leads to social unrest and conflict.

Major trends in wealth inequality during the pandemic:

According to Oxfam:
- We could face the greatest rise in inequality since records began, with the pandemic increasing economic inequality in almost every country at once.
- It could take more than a decade for billions of the world’s poorest people to recover from the economic hit of the pandemic while the 1,000 richest people recouped their COVID-19 losses within just nine months.
- Just 10 people – the world’s richest billionaires, all men – have seen their combined wealth skyrocket by half a trillion dollars since the pandemic began. That’s more than enough to pay for a COVID-19 vaccine for everyone and to prevent the pandemic from pushing anyone into poverty.

The World Bank estimates that the number of people living in extreme poverty – defined as $1.90 per day or less – increased by between $119 and $124 million in 2020 because of the pandemic. This is the first increase in extreme poverty in 20 years.
The World Food Programme estimates that the total number of acutely food-insecure people increased to 272 million in 2020, compared to 149 million people in 2019.
According to the United Nations, the pandemic could force almost a billion people into destitution by 2030 “unless nations introduce energy, food and climate reforms.”

Analysis

The above data clearly indicate that the pandemic has “made the rich richer and the poor poorer.” Although there has been a long-term pattern of increasing concentration of wealth around the world, the level of extreme poverty had been dropping dramatically during the two decades prior to 2020. But the pandemic reversed the long-term trend in the decrease of extreme poverty.

Corrective action

This projection of widening inequality in the decade ahead is not a foregone conclusion. It can be addressed in two primary ways: by increasing taxes on the wealthy, and by implementing reforms to drive down the poverty rate.

Along with an increase in corporate taxes, President Biden is proposing more progressive taxes on individuals and families that would particularly focus on the very wealthy. Other developed countries have instituted such tax reforms, or are considering doing so.

International economic reforms could get the world back on track in reducing extreme poverty between now and 2030. According to the United Nations Development Programme,

“These measures include investments aimed at changing patterns of food, energy, and water consumption and increasing internet access as well as supporting low-carbon economies.

Rich nations also face calls to look beyond their own economic woes and support developing countries by increasing foreign aid, cancelling debt, and financing affordable vaccines.”

Conclusion

Both the trends of increasing economic power of large corporations and increasing inequality between the wealthy and the rest of us accelerated as a result of the pandemic in 2020 and the first half of 2021. In addition, the progress that had been made in reducing extreme poverty during the past 20 years suffered a significant reversal.

But, progressive policies during the next decade can reduce the power of large corporations and decrease the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

Beware of “isms”

The Cooperative Society Newsletter
September 2019, Issue 18
by E.G. Nadeau

Far too often, people use the same words, but mean very different things. This can be confusing, even dangerous, especially in the world of politics. With the lead-up to the 2020 presidential and congressional elections in the United States, it is particularly timely to take a close look at some of the major “isms” being bandied about by politicians, journalists, and pundits.

What does “populism” mean?
The word can apply to “a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of ‘the people’ and often juxtapose this group against ‘the elite’.”[1] But, right off the bat, use of the P-word runs into big trouble. You can have right-wing populists, left-wing populists, and demagogues like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela who claim to be populist, but have questionable popular support.

So, ultimately, the word populism has become meaningless. To use it spreads confusion and disinformation rather than political understanding.

How about “socialism”?
Socialism is another word that has become a lightning rod for mystification as we approach the 2020 elections. Although running as a Democrat for president, Bernie Sanders refers to himself as a socialist. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, both members of Democratic Socialists of America, were elected as Democrats to the House of Representatives in 2018.

So, what is socialism? The classic definition with origins dating back to Karl Marx and others in the mid-1800s is, “Economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”[2]

But, these three self-proclaimed “socialists” sound much more like Northern European-style social democrats, who favor mixed economies that combine elements of both regulated private enterprise and a public sector that limits economic inequality and attempts to provide a minimal quality of life for all citizens.

To further complicate the meaning of socialism, President Trump and other Republicans accuse progressive Democrats of being out to destroy the US economy by nationalizing corporations and turning the US into an economic backwater like Cuba or Venezuela.

We would all be better served by dropping the word “socialism” from the rhetoric of the 2020 campaigns and focusing on the specific positions that candidates take related to healthcare, climate change, gun control, and other issues.

What does “capitalism” mean?
A typical dictionary definition of capitalism is: “An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”[3]

The problem with a definition like this is that it doesn’t reflect the reality of the contemporary world economy, in which government regulation, taxation and incentives, and international trade agreements (and trade wars) play major roles in shaping the market in which corporations operate.

Virtually every country in the world – including such outliers as North Korea and Cuba – has a mixed economy, which combines private enterprise and public involvement in the market.

For example, Forbes’ Global 2000, the world’s largest publicly traded corporations, includes the four largest Chinese banks in its Top Ten list. These banks are predominantly government-owned, but also have limited investor-ownership.[4] The phrase “state capitalism” is often used to characterize the Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, and other national economies in which the government has a major, direct involvement in the market.

The purpose of corporations is also being redefined by some of the largest publicly traded companies in the world. CNBC recently reported that the Business Roundtable, comprised of almost 200 CEOs of major U.S. corporations, stated that the foremost function of their companies should not be to “serve their shareholders and maximize profits.” Instead it should be “investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers, and supporting outside communities.”[5]

Conclusion
Thus, as with populism and socialism, capitalism is not a useful term to describe a national economy, or a political ideology. The reality is that in different countries and in the international arena, there is a wide range of ways in which private enterprises, public enterprise, mixed enterprises, and various forms of public intervention interact to shape economic activity. The word “capitalism” is useless in capturing this diversity.

Thus, as we consider candidates for public office and the track records of those who already are in office, it’s not the “isms” we should be looking at, but the specific actions they have taken or propose to take to improve our social, economic, political, and environmental well-being. For more on what The Cooperative Society Project perceives as major components of a better society, please click www.thecooperativesociety.org

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

[4] https://www.forbes.com/global2000/#68933a01335d

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-ceos-of-nearly-two-hundred-companies-say-shareholder-value-is-no-longer-their-main-objective.html