DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS

Pandora Finalizes Publishing Deal With BMG

 

Handshake      Not content to wait for the greater music industry to enact significant changes, Pandora last week announced it has signed a direct deal for music rights with BMG, the world’s fourth-largest music publisher. The arrangement includes the portions of its catalog represented by ASCAP and BMI, the two major licensing groups that have long handled the rights for millions of songs in the U.S. As reported by The New York Times, BMG’s large roster includes songwriters who have written major hits for such performers as Adele, One Direction, Beyoncé, and Frank Sinatra; the company is part of German media conglomerate Bertelsmann.

Even though BMG remains a member of ASCAP and BMI, Pandora bypassed them by making the direct deal for what analysts believe is a higher royalty rate than those two organizations – which are governed by decades-old federal regulation – are able to obtain on their own. In exchange, the deal gives BMG and its songwriters unspecified “marketing and business benefits,” according to a statement issued by Pandora.

Last month Pandora struck a similar deal with Merlin, which represents thousands of independent record companies in digital licensing negotiations. That agreement is expoected to pay the record labels slightly better royalty rates than would be available through the compulsory licensing terms available to Pandora under United States copyright law, and also give the labels access to valuable marketing insights from Pandora’s vast collection of user data. “We believe direct deals with labels offer better content cost visibility in the longer term, and we think they improve relations between Pandora and the artists,” Nomura analyst Anthony DiClemente wrote in a research note following the BMG announcement. 

Liberty CEO: Sirius XM Is Eyeing Streaming

Expansion To Drive Competitive Growth

 

Sirius XM      It appears Sirius XM finally may be realizing digital streaming technology is leap-frogging right past satellite radio distribution. While the Liberty Media-backed company entered the streaming audio space several years ago, recent comments made by President/CEO Greg Maffei indicate the satcaster is studying the growth curves of other streaming music services and determining how to compete on a major scale.

“We are watching what happens in streaming,” Maffei said at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference in New York last week. “Taking Sirius XM’s unique content beyond the car in the home and in the office, it’s an opportunity we’ve not yet attacked.”

His comments make it clear that Sirius XM, which depends heavily on subscribers getting satellite-radio receivers in their cars, is interested in becoming a bigger player in the internet-based streaming space. According to the New York Post, subscribers who prefer to listen to the service on their mobile devices can get a stand-alone online radio package for $14.99 a month, less than the current “all-access” package, which costs $18.99. 

No Big Surprise, Really: Clear Channel

Changes Its Name To iHeartMedia

 

     Yesterday’s announcement that Clear Channel Media & Entertainment was changing its name to iHeartMedia seemed to cause a heart attack throughout the broadcasting industry, but a few analysts actually saw the change coming months ago. The company increasingly was using the “iHeartRadio” line to brand its stations on the local level, and the Clear Channel name – associated with billions of dollars of debt – was considered clunky by many folks inside the radio business and on Wall Street. While the “heart” part of iHeartMedia itself may seem a decade out of date, the name change re-brands the company among younger listeners (and ostensibly, media buyers) who associate it with the iHeartMusic Festival which, not coincidentally, begins Friday (Sept. 19) in Las Vegas.

The name-change is “a reflection of  the fact that the company has changed radically over last several years,” Clear Channel Chief Executive Robert Pittman said in a statement. “We have massive consumer reach and influence across our platforms because we know how to program the live content people want to hear. Right now we are the largest mobile media company in existence, and we deliver more live programming than any other media company today.”

Indeed, the aforementioned iHeartRadio Festival attracts tens of thousands of fans each year, and the TV broadcasts last year drew millions of viewers. Also televised are the iHeartRadio Jingle Ball, iHeartRadio Pool Party, and several iHeartRadio concerts a year. Additionally, Clear Channel’s inaugural iHeartRadio Music Awards on NBC in May attracted 5.5 million viewers.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, much of the public has come to equate the Clear Channel name with corporate consolidation of the radio and concert industries. However, according to a recent study released by Edison Research, iHeartRadio’s brand is second in recognition in audio streaming, behind Pandora’s 31% share with 9%, and ahead of iTunes Radio’s 8% share. While the name change affects all former Clear Channel radio stations and its digital audio platform, the company’s outdoor business will retain the name Clear Channel Outdoor. 

Apple’s U2 Music Giveaway Breaks Bad

 

     It all began with U2’s appearance with Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook last week. As the company made its predicted announcement of the new iPhone 6 and a new wearable wrist device, the company blundered into what Upstart Business Journal called an “unforced error” with its decision to automatically add the band’s new album “Songs of Innocence” to 500 million iTunes accounts. This meant that, if a user’s device was set to automatically download newly-purchased music, the brand-new U2 album would be sitting on the iPhone, iPad, etc.

One week later, in the midst of a massive backlash from angry iTunes customers, Apple has been forced to put up a special page for users who want to erase “Songs of Innocence” from their libraries with a removal tool that indicates how wrong a seemingly good idea can go. “Nothing pisses off the audience more than pushing something they don’t want and didn’t ask for,” media analyst Bob Lefsetz said in a newsletter. “They’d have been better off releasing it on YouTube; that’s where the digital generation goes for music. iTunes is a backwater. It may be the number one sales outlet, but it’s not the number one music platform… not even close.”

The stunt did little to help U2’s chart prospects, either. Billboard last week announced its refusal to count the album release on its charts, even though Apple paid $100 million to get it there. “While U2 surprised the music world by releasing its new album, ‘Songs of Innocence,’ as a free download to iTunes Store account holders and for streaming on Beats Music, you won’t see it on the Billboard 200 albums chart for another month and a half,” the industry magazine said in a statement.

“Free or giveaway albums are not eligible for inclusion on Billboard’s album charts and do not count toward sales tracked by Nielsen SoundScan. “Once ‘Songs of Innocence’ goes on sale beginning Oct. 14, it will then set its sights on Billboard’s sales charts. On that date, the album will be available in both standard and deluxe editions to physical and digital retailers, as well as on streaming services other than Beats. Until then, only current or new iTunes or Beats account holders will have access to the album.”

 

Deezer Launches High-End Audio Service

To Compete With Spotify And Beats

 

     French music streaming company Deezer has launched an elite service with what it calls higher sound quality for audiophiles as it tries to differentiate itself from rivals Spotify, Pandora, and Beats Music. According to the Financial Times, the company said it plans to launch the service in the U.S. through a partnership with Sonos, the speaker manufacturer that specializes in wireless audio.

Deezer ostensibly is betting that high-fidelity audio will enhance its appeal in an increasingly crowded and competitive market. The new service, to be called Deezer Elite, will stream “lossless” audio files at a standard of 1,411 kilobits per second. The higher the bitrate of a file, the more detailed the sounds, and Deezer’s high rate is more than four times the top bitrate of Spotify. The service will cost up to $19.99 a month, twice the $9.99 a month Spotify charges.

In a statement, Deezer North America chief executive Tyler Goldman said the company was “focused on super-serving the needs of underserved market segments” such as audio enthusiasts. Many audiophiles have shunned streaming services because their sound quality is usually inferior to that of high-quality downloads, vinyl albums, or CDs, he said.

Still, the market for high-end audio streaming may be limited, because of higher subscription and bandwidth charges costs, and the fact that most people stream music through smartphones and computers, which do not have the capability for high-end audio.

 

Warner Music Consolidates Biz-Dev Unit

 

     Warner Music Group this week consolidated its global business development functions under a single leadership team, with COO Rob Wiesenthal overseeing the company’s digital business development efforts while continuing to report to CEO Steve Cooper. At the same time, the label promoted Jonathan Dworkin to EVP of digital strategy and business development. Dworkin will report to Wiesenthal and continue working on “building global-minded partnerships that expand WMG’s success with artist development.”

As reported by Billboard, Cooper said the new unified structure will give artists a portfolio of “unmatched” innovative services and opportunities. “This move recognizes that digital technology is a driving force across all aspects of our business, and that the pace of change – both globally and locally – requires nimble experimentation,” he said in a statement.

Wiesenthal joined WMG in early 2013 to oversee the company’s partnership with Shazam, and also spearheaded the deal with Clear Channel to become the first U.S. major label to receive artist performance royalty payments when their master recordings are played on the radio. This new role at the label creates an opportunity to “establish new business approaches for artists, and build on WMG’s reputation as the most ambitious and progressive music company in the world,” he said in a statement.

 

A publication of Bunzel Media Resources © 2014

 

 

Leading tech investors warn of bubble risk ‘unprecedented since 1999′

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel
Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel, whose company was valued at $10bn despite having never turned a profit. Photograph: Jae C. Hong/AP

Two of the world’s leading tech investors have warned the new wave of tech companies and their backers are taking on risk and burning through cash at rates unseen since 1999 when the “dotcom bubble” burst.

Bill Gurley, partner at Silicon Valley-based investor Benchmark, sounded the horn of doom on Monday warning that “Silicon Valley as a whole or that the venture-capital community or startup community is taking on an excessive amount of risk right now.”

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Gurley, whose investments include OpenTable, Uber and Zillow, said startups were taking on risks in a way “unprecedented since ‘99”.

Gurley said that “more humans in Silicon Valley are working for money-losing companies than have been in 15 years”, and they’re burning through huge piles of cash.

“In 01 or 09, you just wouldn’t go take a job at a company that’s burning $4m a month. Today everyone does it without thinking,” he said.

His comments were backed up Tuesday by Fred Wilson, the New York-based co-founder of Union Square Ventures who has backed companies including Twitter, Tumblr and Zynga.

Burn rates – the amount of money a startup is spending – are “sky high all over the US startup sector right now”, he wrote in a blog post.

“We have multiple portfolio companies burning multiple millions of dollars a month. Thankfully its not our entire portfolio. But it is more than I’d like and more than I’m personally comfortable with,” he wrote.

“I’ve been grumpy for months, possibly for longer than that, about this. I’ve pushed back on long term leases that I thought were outrageous, I’ve pushed back on spending plans that I thought were too aggressive and too risky, I’ve made myself a pain in the ass to more than a few CEOs.”’

The comments come after a new generation of tech companies have attracted record levels of investments at levels that give the profitless businesses eye-watering valuations.

In August Snapchat, the social messaging service, was valued at $10bn after a new round of funding. The free service’s fans send 500m self-deleting messages a day, but Snapchat has yet to declare how it intends to make money. Among the other big tech valuations in recent months are Uber, the taxi app service, which was valued at $18bn after its last round of funding in June, and Airbnb, the short term rentals service, which was valued at $10bn in April.

But the valuations are not the immediate issue, according to the sceptical tech investors. “Valuations can be fixed. You can do a down round (investing at a lower valuation), or three or four flat ones, until you get the price right,” writes Wilson. “But burn rates are exactly that. Burning cash. Losing money. Emphasis on the losing.”

Asked if investors, and the people working for the companies, were distracted by the potential for reward, Gurley said: “Yeah, it’s a whole bunch of things. But you just slowly forget, and half of the entrepreneurs today, or maybe more – 60% or 70% – weren’t around in ‘99, so they have no muscle memory whatsoever.”

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/16/tech-bubble-warning-investors-dotcom-losing-money

Naomi Klein on the Great Clash Between Capitalism and the Climate


Klein discusses her new book, “This Changes Everything.”
 Naomi Klein’s new book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate is coming out just as the UN is meeting on climate change, and a massive rally to protest the lack of progress on global warming is shaping up in Manhattan on Sunday. Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine, one of the most influential books of the past 50 years. She sees her new book as the natural successor to The Shock Doctrine as she deepens her critique and insists we need to fundamentally rethink our approach to climate. The inconvenient truth about global warming is that it isn’t really about carbon, but rather capitalism. Our economic model is waging war on the earth, and unless capitalism is dramatically changed, we are doomed. Yet Klein is no pessimist. She sees the seeds of a broad cross-sectional mass movement emerging that will lead to a transformation of our failed economic system to something radically better. Sunday’s People’s Climate March in New York is a key step toward a future we must create in order to survive and thrive.

AlterNet editors Don Hazen and Jan Frel spoke with Klein via phone in Canada, where she lives, on Friday, Sept. 12, prior to her traveling to New York and participating in a wide range of protest events, debates and discussions. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

AlterNet: Let’s start with the big climate march on Sunday and your support of and involvement in it. Do you have a reaction to Chris Hedges’ critique of the march which seems to be consistent with your critique of the big enviro groups in your book? Basically he says the demands are amorphous, anybody can join, it doesn’t have much meaning.

Naomi Klein: Knowing the amount of work, energy and coalition-building and care that has gone into the organizing, the march—which you know obviously it’s not perfect—but I think it was grossly mischaracterized as being simply some big green thing. When It’s actually been incredibly grassroots.

Do I think a march is going to do anything? No. The point is this march is different in that it’s a manifestation of real rooted movements that are fighting fracking in their backyard, and refineries that are giving their kids asthma, and students who are demanding divestment of fossil fuels at their universities, and faith groups who are doing the same in their churches and synagogues. And what the march will be is a moment where people feel the size of this movement, and it will give people the strength to go home and continue at these moments of convergence too. Every once in a while it’s nice to see how big you are. Especially since so many of these movements are local. It can feel small and isolated. There haven’t been many moments of convergence like this for the climate movement, so I think it’s great.

And I don’t see the point of throwing stones. The decision was made to have an open call so that any group could endorse the march as long as they abided by certain organizing principles. And so the groups that are drawing attention, some of which I’ve gone after in the book, are not the groups who organized it. They’re just groups that endorsed because, for whatever reason, they thought it would be useful for them. Which I think speaks to more of the strength of this movement, and that everyone wants to be a part of it. But I just think to dismiss all of this incredible organizing in this kind of guilt-by-association way; frankly I’m a little offended by.

AlterNet: Hedges seems to have sit-ins and protest at the U.N. as his priority.

Klein:Well there’s going to be direct action. And I support the direct action, I support the Flood Wall Street action on Monday as well, and the people who are organizing that also support the climate march. So I don’t see what the point of sowing these divisions is right now. I don’t. I’m not saying it’s perfect. But there was a big debate about the fact that Zionist groups are also marching. And the response to that is that there’s going to be a really strong Free Palestine bloc, which I think is fantastic, and they have all my support…I’ll just leave it there.

AlterNet: Here’s a different kind of question. You mentioned privatization and deregulation as pillars of neoliberalism, which of course are true, but shouldn’t we add militarization? And there’s nothing like wars to really screw up the environment. And since 9/11 we’ve had nothing but war, and now we’re heading into a new war with massive pollution. And there’s no end in sight: more bombs, more deaths, more messes. How do you reconcile the constant presence of war all over the world with the need to change everything in terms of the climate?

Klein: Well, it’s a huge piece of the puzzle and I think a lot of the original peace organizing activities in the region had fossil fuels at their heart, and continue to. So it’s intimately linked. It’s something I do talk about—the pollution associated with the military, carbon pollution, and also the need to just get that money, huge resources that are spent on the military, and funnel it toward the building of the new economy that we need. Because part of what’s standing in our way is that we’re told that we’re broke all the time. And we’re not broke, it’s just that the money is in the wrong places. So we need to get more of the resources from polluters, whether they’re fossil fuel companies or whether it’s the military.

But I could easily have had a chapter in the book on drawing stronger connections between the anti-war movement and the climate movement. It’s a big book and it does a lot, but it doesn’t do everything. And my greatest hope, frankly, and already in having conversations about the book, is that it will inspire lots of smart people to go, hey it’s about this, and what about this, this is also a climate issue. And, it’s like, yes, exactly, write that. Having the anti-war movement more engaged in climate and vice-versa, is exactly what we need.

AlterNet: Speaking of how a book can’t do everything, your previous book, The Shock Doctrine, had a tremendous impact and influenced many people. The book basically makes the case that capitalism is at its worst when there are crises. And as the climate crisis gets worse, isn’t the response of capitalism going to get worse if we believe what you wrote in your previous book? Do you see any contradiction here?

Klein:I don’t think it’s a contradiction. I think that’s exactly why I wrote this book. The Shock Doctrine really ends with the disaster of apartheid in New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina and this is the future that we will have if we stay on this road. We can count on neoliberalism to respond to climate change as an opportunity for land grabbing, for trading weather futures. If we don’t radically change course the weather is going to get hotter, things are going to get way more brutal. And I think we, on some level, know that.

That’s why every disaster flick seems to be about a future of post-apocalyptic 1 percent, the 1 percent of the 1 percent at the front of the train or up on a planet of their own. Whatever it is—Hunger Games, Elysium, Snowpiercer—we just keep telling ourselves the same story. What I argue in The Shock Doctrine is that crisis either makes us fall apart or makes us grow up.

And there are precedents of crises being progressive moments. That’s what brought us the New Deal. We responded to crisis in a way that actually got at the roots of why the crisis was happening. So that’s when you had the most dramatic regulation of the banking sector. And that’s when you had the kind of huge investments in the public sphere that we need in this moment. So we are capable of responding to crisis differently than in the way that I described in The Shock Doctrine. And the fact that I argue in The Shock Doctrine that the whole technique was developed by right-wing think tanks because they knew that in natural crises, if you don’t get in there, it will become progressive moments. The Right is afraid of another New Deal moment. Everything about the right in the states is about undoing the gains of the New Deal and making sure it never happens again. That’s why the whole think tank infrastructure exists. And that’s why that whole tactic was developed.

So, yes, there are lots of precedents for crises being moments where inequality is deepened unless things get a whole lot worse. And no one knows that better than me. I don’t see there’s a contradiction there. I’m trying to prevent that from happening with climate change. For me, it follows quite naturally.

AlterNet: So would you say you are more optimistic after writing this book than after writing Shock Doctrine?

Klein:You know, what makes me optimistic is that I see a lot of movement. I saw a lot of things changing, in the first couple of years I was writing this book. At first I think I was really quite depressed because I was seeing Shock Doctrine tactics repeated all over Europe in the context of the economic crisis, and in the U.S., and even though people were resisting, it wasn’t working to prevent even worse things from happening. And the climate science is never fun. But in the last few years of this research, there’s just been such an explosion of grassroots activism. And this new militancy within the climate movement, led by indigenous people and by young people. As I say at the end of the book, it’s been happening so fast that I couldn’t write fast enough to keep up with it. So I feel more hopeful because I feel like we are at the beginning of a real movement moment.

I think things are changing and it isn’t about a brand-new movement. It’s about so many of our past movements coming together. You know, I’ve talked to journalists, and they’re like, well movements don’t work, look at Occupy. Occupy didn’t disappear. Everybody who was engaged during Occupy is still deeply involved in trying to fight for a better world, and lots of them are now engaged on climate change, and a lot of them are involved in the Flood Wall Street organizing. And many were involved in Occupy Sandy. So movements change and different strings come together, and I think we’re in one of those movements of convergence where we’re seeing patterns, we’re seeing common threads, and people are feeling more courageous, too. So that always makes me feel hopeful.

AlterNet: As your book opens, you talk about your “aha” moment, meeting with the young Brazilian ambassador Angélica Navarro Llanos, and how her imagination of how first-world countries, the major polluters, must come to the aid of third-world countries suffering from climate change through mostly no fault of their own. Can you tell us how her vision helped shape your vision?

Klein: I was in Geneva at the time writing a story for Harpers about reparations for slavery and colonialism and was covering a UN conference where somebody told me that I should meet with Angélica Navarro. And I did and she put the case to me that the perennial question of how we address these deep scars left behind by colonialism and slavery that has so distorted the distribution of wealth around the world and within the our own country in the Global North—that climate change could be a tool to heal these wounds.

Because, of course, the history of colonialism and the history of slavery are intimately tied to the history of fossil fuels. You know, coal built the modern world. And when European countries gained access to the steam engine, that sort of supercharged the coal exchange between North and South. And while that was happening we were also pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And the thing about carbon is it sticks around for a couple of hundred years and is steadily warming the planet. So the legacy of that today is the legacy of climate change. So in addressing climate change in a just way and a way that recognizes historical responsibility, which our governments have all agreed to do when they signed the UN Climate Convention, we have an opportunity to address these core inequalities. We have another chance, really.

And that was Angélica’s argument. If we live up to our historical responsibilities and have a just climate response it would mean that the countries that created the crisis would lead the way, would cut our emissions first, but also help developing countries to pull themselves out of poverty without repeating our errors by leapfrogging over fossil fuels and moving straight to clean energy. Which would mean that this could really be a tremendous force for social justice.

And when she laid out this case, which she called the Marshall Plan for Planet Earth, I suddenly saw how climate change could be a catalyst for tremendously positive change. And then as I started paying attention to climate negotiations and going to Copenhagen and covering the Copenhagen Summit, it became clear that this issue of whether or not the Global North is going to live up to its responsibilities, whether there’s going to be a just response, its the fundamental issue at the heart of the negotiations. And it’s why so little progress has been made because Northern countries refuse and generally refuse to acknowledge that responsibility. And that’s the intractable problem.

AlterNet: As you point out clearly in the book, climate deniers know full well the ramifications of dealing with climate change. It’s going to mean a huge dent in capitalism, which is probably why they’re deniers. How will they be convinced to provide the billions of dollars for the Marshall Plan when they’re going to think, at least economically, that they’re going to be victims of climate change as well?

Klein: Well, I don’t think this is about convincing climate deniers. It’s about engaging a much larger constituency of people who do believe that climate change is real, or not actively denying the science, but are looking away because there doesn’t seem to be a way out of this crisis that is in any way hopeful, is any way inspiring, is any way doable. So really the book is a call for a revival of the kind of broad-based social movements that have won mass progressive victories in the past. We don’t have that anymore. We have slick NGOs, and everybody’s in their silos, and everybody tackles their issue and they only talk to each other. And climate change connects the dots between so many issues: labor, women’s right, indigenous rights, like I said, reparations, the decay of our cities, the dismantling of the public sphere, racial justice. I mean it’s everything, immigration. And why wouldn’t it be? This is our home, this is not an issue. This is everything. So it is a framework, really, for bringing movements together.

And that is the only way that we have ever changed our economy. If we think about, how did social movements win the victories of the New Deal? Or win social security and healthcare? Any of the great progressive victories of the past have been won by large broad-based social movements. And climate change hasn’t had that kind of movement before. There’s been a theory that you had to do it from the top down. It had to be a former vice-president and billionaires and Hollywood celebrities who are going to get together and fix this for us. And I think that’s part of the reason why a lot of lefties tuned out, because it seems to be this very elite. And it was, but it doesn’t have to be.

And I think that that’s really changing. We’re going to see in New York in the Climate March, the face of a much broader grassroots climate movement that is born out of frontline struggles against fossil fuel extraction. And it’s the flip side of the fossil fuel frenzy that has been ripping up our continent of late, and these fossil fuel companies have been so aggressive in laying claim to more and more land and more and more waterways that they’ve built their own opposition in the form of the anti-fracking movement, and the anti-tar sands and anti-tar sands pipeline movement, anti-coal movement. They’ve gone into a lot of hostile territory. People are fighting back but they’re also connecting with one another. And I think what will be exciting about the Climate March is that a lot of these connections are happening online, and are happening in small pockets, but I think we’re going to see the physical manifestations of that on the streets of New York.

AlterNet:Following up on your last answer you must have grappled many times as you wrote this book with the effects that messages of looming apocalypse have on people. Setting up the situation where informing people of the nature of the problem encourages them to do nothing about it, not unlike, say, telling someone that their shoelaces are untied. Did you feel like you arrived at the best way to convey these messages for social change?

Naomi Klein: Because the climate movement has been so ineffective, it’s very sort of faddish in terms of messaging. So one year it will be like, okay, scare people, make them really scared. And then the next year it’s like, okay don’t scare people, don’t scare people. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with scaring people if it’s true. I think we need to be honest that this is a scary moment and we don’t have that much time left. What I think is ineffective is thinking that just scaring people is going to turn people into activists. Just scaring people just makes people scared. And when people are scared, they want to curl up in a ball.

I think it’s the combination of telling the truth about how serious the situation is and that we’re out of deadlines, that this is the real one, and that there’s nowhere to run to. We need to leap, but we need somewhere to leap to that is exciting. Like you go to a UN conference and it’s on mitigating the effects climate change. And it’s just like, is that the best we can do, mitigating it back? It just sounds terrible. And is there a way that we can survive? Is there a way that we can have better cities, and better communities, and better relationships, and better jobs, and a better relationship to work, and can we address so many other things that aren’t working in our societies?

So I think if we allow ourselves to dream a little bit and take a picture of a place that could leap to, I believe that we may leap. And I say leap because I’m not here to be Pollyannaish about this. I don’t believe we are doomed, nor do I believe that success is guaranteed. I think we’ve got a shot and we have to do our best. But in terms of being afraid of scaring people and painting pictures of looming apocalypse, when the World Bank is telling you you’re headed for 4 degrees warming, and Pricewaterhouse Coopers is saying no, it’s 6 degrees, you’ve got to listen up, you know, and pay attention to what that actually means. Because that, first of all, is Celsius. Somebody made the argument that the big problem of climate change is that it’s all in Celsius and Americans think it’s vaguely Communist.

At any rate, I think it’s the combination of that real fear and we should be scared. And the deadline, and I really believe in deadlines because I’m a writer, and I know how important deadlines are, and having somewhere to run. I think that’s the combination.

AlterNet: One followup on this question of “we.” There is the mass society but there’s pretty clear evidence from history and in our industrial past, that the strongest arrangements are between manufacturers, financiers and governments that preside over them. And say, for example, in the case of Bangladesh, where there were factories that collapsed, and huge media attention, there were only just the slightest tweaks in the arrangements between those parties. So you have, say, a warning from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, but how do you actually get the folks who are part of “we” but really have a much bigger role in the way society is structured in reforming those agreements when they’re hugely profitable and they’re the means of staying powerful. Have you entertained the possibility that those are the very parties that are going to need to have a way to stay rich and powerful revealed to them without extracting carbon-based fuels?

Klein:It’s not that there’s no money to be made and no wealth in a green economy, in a renewable economy, or regenerated economy. That it’s not going to generate the kind of wealth that fossil fuels develop. Fossil fuels really do create a hyper-stratified economy. It’s the nature of the resources that it’s concentrated, and you need a huge amount of infrastructure to get it out and to transport it. And that lends itself to huge profits and they’re big enough that you can buy off politicians.

And the problem with renewable energy is not that you can’t make money off of it, but you’re never going to make that kind of huge money off of it because it’s inherently decentralized. The air and wind are free, first of all, and they’re everywhere. So it’s a different kind of economy. It’s a more decentralized economy. It’s a more level economy. So does power concede anything without a fight? No. It doesn’t mean that there’s no role for the powerful in this, but the idea that they’re just going to do it for us, which is basically the model that the UN is still advancing. If you look at the plans for the official summit in New York, it’s all about the politicians and it’s the idea that they are going to address this problem of the goodness of their hearts… Well it’s not going to happen that day. So we haven’t quite solved it. We haven’t solved the problem of entrenched wealth. I’m going to leave that to you guys.

Visit Naomi Klein’s official website to learn more about her new book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate.

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Forty five million in poverty in the US

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/2012-07/B-US-Poverty.jpeg

By Andre Damon
17 September 2014

Forty-five million people are living in poverty in the United States, according to figures released Tuesday by the Census Bureau. The 2013 Income and Poverty in the United States report found that the number of people in poverty remained at a record high last year, while the income of a typical household remained stagnant. According to the Census figures, the median household income in the US has fallen 8 percent since 2007.

The continuing prevalence of mass poverty and the stagnation of the incomes of working people are an expression of the fact that the so-called economic “recovery” touted by the Obama administration is a recovery only for the financial elite: corporate profits hit a record in the year covered by the report, while stock values increased by a third that year, fueled by the Federal Reserve’s money printing operations.

The White House praised the report, saying that it showed that “key indicators of poverty and family income improved.” In reality, the report is yet another confirmation of the fact that there has been no real improvement in the living conditions of working people.

The report follows the publication earlier this month of the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, which found that between 2007 and 2013, the income of a typical US household fell 12 percent. According to the survey, the median American household now earns $6,400 less per year than it did in 2007.

The poverty threshold, which currently stands at $23,624 for a family of four with two children, or $12,119 for an individual without children, is abysmally low. Using this measure, the latest Census Bureau report finds that the official poverty rate fell by .5 percent, to 14.5 percent, the first fall in the poverty rate since 2006. While the poverty rate fell, the total number of people in poverty remained at the same level as the year before.

One in five children in the US were in poverty in 2013, and the child poverty rate stood at 19.9 percent in 2013, down from 21.8 percent the year before.

The stagnation of real wages shown in 2013 is part of an ongoing decline in workers’ wages. According to an analysis of the Census figures by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the inflation-adjusted median earnings for a man in 1973 was $52,419, higher than the present figure of $50,033. According to the EPI’s data, “the decline in median non-elderly household income from 2000 to 2013” was $7,337, or 11.2 percent.

According to the Census figures, while the Gini coefficient, a measure of social inequality, increased 4.9 percent from 1993 through 2012, it remained largely unchanged in 2013.

The report also noted that there were 42 million people in the United States, or 13.4 percent of the population, who did not have health insurance in 2013. The share of the population that does not have health insurance dropped as a result of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which imposes fines on those who do not have health insurance.

As a result of the 2008 economic crash, a growing number of people avoided getting their own homes or apartments, or moved back in with their parents or acquaintances. According to the Census Bureau, such “shared households” are defined as “those that include at least one ‘additional’ adult: a person 18 or older who is not enrolled in school and is not the householder, spouse or cohabiting partner of the householder.” The number of such households had increased from 17 percent to 19 percent by spring 2014, according data referred to in the Census report.

The Census figures do not reflect a series of drastic cuts to social spending that were implemented in 2013, including elements of the “sequester” budget cuts, $11 billion in cuts to food stamp benefits, and the expiration of federal extended jobless benefits at the end of the year. These draconian spending cuts together removed tens of millions of dollars in income from the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the population.

The Census report follows the publication of a number of social indicators showing growing poverty and social distress in the US. In April, Feeding America published its annual report on hunger, which showed that 49 million people, or 16 percent of the population, lived in food insecure households in 2012, up from 11.1 percent in 2007. The level of food insecurity among children is even worse, affecting 16 million children, or 21.6 percent of all children in the US.

The collapse of workers’ incomes and the growth of inequality express the basic response of the ruling class to the economic crisis that erupted in 2008. The Obama administration seized upon the economic downturn in order to carry out wage-cutting in the auto companies it restructured, incentivize companies to slash workers’ health care benefits through the Affordable Care Act, and slash billions of dollars in social programs.

As a result of these policies, the top 1 percent of income earners in the US took in 95 percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2012.