Naomi Klein Has It Right - But Only To a Point.

How frustrating it must be. You've finally identified the disease that plagues you but there's no medicine for it and you haven't got nearly enough time left on this mortal coil to figure that one out.

That's kind of how I see Naomi Klein these days. She sees the problems but she really hasn't come up with any workable fixes and the clock is running out. In her recent take-down of Hillary Clinton, Klein lambastes Hillary for her ties to fossil fuel money which, she maintains, undermines Clinton's sincerity on tackling climate change.

To Klein the solution to climate change is to act quickly, perhaps precipitously, to bring down the fossil fuel industry - the lot of it - and the big banks that finance it.

Her urgency is understandable. She cites a new report out of Oxford that finds if we are to have a 50/50 chance of meeting the 1.5C warming limit agreed to at Paris last December, beginning next year - less than nine months hence - every new power plant has to be zero carbon. Okay, well that isn't going to happen so what's Plan B. Oh, there isn't one?

China has been done a great job cutting back on coal energy but, according to Greenpeace, permits have been issued for an additional 155-coal fueled power plants to be constructed this year. Fortunately most of those plants will never go into full operation. Some will be mothballed entirely. However China is a long way from weaning itself off coal.

You would have thought that might be economically devastating news for Australia that has seen great prosperity from coal exports to China. No worries, mate. While Chinese orders may wane, Australia's coal exports are looking at a healthy increase of thermal coal (used for steel making) exports of 4.5% over the next five years thanks to expanding markets in India.

Fortunately, global coal consumption is going to decline but that doesn't lead to a zero-carbon energy future anytime soon.

Klein quite rightly says we need to get off fossil energy "with superhuman speed" but doesn't get into how we're going to do that. Taking down the fossil fuel industry and the big banks is a fine idea but then what? It's one thing if the public was onside with the idea but I've seen no sign of that, have you?

What then must we do? Here's Ms. Klein's prescription:

If the next president wastes any more time, ...the climate clock will run out, plain and simple. If we’re to have any hope of avoiding catastrophe, action needs to be unprecedented in its speed and scope. If designed properly, the transition to a post-carbon economy can deliver a great many “wins”: not just a safer future, but huge numbers of well-paying jobs; improved and affordable public transit; more liveable cities; as well as racial and environmental justice for the communities on the frontlines of dirty extraction.

...For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing. And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.

Meanwhile, if solar panels proliferate on rooftops, big power utilities will lose a significant portion of their profits, since their former customers will be in the energy-generation business. This would create opportunities for a more level economy and, ultimately, for lower utility bills—but once again, some powerful interests will have to lose (which is why Warren Buffett’s coal-fired utility in Nevada has gone to war against solar).

A president willing to inflict these losses on fossil-fuel companies and their allies needs to be more than just not actively corrupt. That president needs to be up for the fight of the century—and absolutely clear about which side must win. Looking at the Democratic primary, there can be no doubt about who is best suited to rise to this historic moment.

The good news? He just won Wisconsin. And he isn’t following anyone’s guidelines for good behavior.

Not once does Klein even acknowledge the existence of America's "bought and paid for" Congress or suggest how a President Sanders is supposed to circumvent those greaseballs in a nation that isn't prepared to support her fanciful notions. How, short of a Constitutional coup d'etat, could Sanders implement measures of the scope and at the speed Klein suggests? Would the Chiefs of Staff support him for pretty obviously he would need to impose a state of emergency and martial law.

Klein's downfall is that, while she identifies the problem very well, she can't put forward a single practical solution. Sort of like being a passenger on the Air Canada jetliner that ran out of fuel as it passed Winnipeg saying "oh my God, we're out of gas. We must fill those empty wing tanks right now." Sure, but how?