By Alex Dirmeier
There is an upcoming ecological catastrophe on this planet, which puts
in jeopardy the whole existence of life as we know it. This is an
insight which is nowadays generally accepted. Global warming, pollution
or the impending shortage and decline of fossil fuels are only some
aspects of this cataclysm. It is also commonly accepted that the
ecological problems are inherent to the economic activity of humans.
Particularly, the capitalist world economy is causing many of the
ecological problems. Not so common is probably the insight that these
problems do not have resilient solutions using the economic methods of
capitalism. This will be argued in the forthcoming sections.
The primary driving force of capitalism is the production for profit,
the re-investment of profit and the expansion of the capital stock.
Capitalism is dynamic and can be also innovative as long as there exist
possibilities of profitable investment in sectors that advance the
development of new technologies. At the latest when there are barriers
for investment by the existence of monopolies, capitalism becomes
technology-conservative. Here a reference to a previous chapter about
capitalism could be inserted. Monopolies impede the conversion of
production technologies. This particularly includes the change to
environmentally sustainable technologies. Additionally, all the sectors
relevant for questions of ecology are highly monopolized in today's
world economy and, in most cases, these monopolies are privately owned
companies, or are state owned enterprises that act according to the
profit motive. These ecologically relevant sectors of the economy
include basically the petrochemical industry, the transport sector
(including the producers of cars, trains, airplanes, and so on), energy
production and distribution, but also many parts of agriculture.
We can observe that production is changing, new technologies and
enterprises are emerging in the ecologically relevant sectors if and
only if there are incentives given or constraints imposed to the economy
from outside the economic system. In most cases this can only be done
by the state. Hence, for example, the increase in production of
renewable energy which we witnessed over the last 20 years, was only
possible because profits of new Green solar and wind energy companies
were largely subsidized by the state and, at the same time, the big
energy monopolies were tranquilized by various contracts that secured
the residual operating time of nuclear power plants and similar
arrangements. This is exactly what happened on the basis of the
amendment of the atomic energy act by the German Social Democrat/Green
government in 20021. The problem with this kind of ecological change is
twofold. Firstly, the ecological conversion does take place slowly, and
on a world scale it is not conceivable that proceeding in this manner
leads to the possibility of avoiding the ecological catastrophe at hand.
When we observe the political and economic events on a world scale
which deal with ecological problems (see e.g., the Kyoto-protocol2), it
is most likely that, in the long run, the interests of the capitalist
monopolies will always dominate. It is argued below that the interests
of the capitalist monopolies have to be broken in order to make
substantial achievements. Secondly, the state funding of profits has to
be paid for by somebody. As the state subsidizing of Green profits goes
along with profit guarantees for the monopolies, and not the skimming of
monopoly profits, the only possibility to pay for this kind of
ecological change is by the redistribution of money from the working
people into the capitalist pockets. Almost all ecological change that
took place up to now, is paid for by all of us through taxes, higher
energy prices and similar malpractices.
The ecological conversion necessary
If we look at the way our current world economic systems works in
relation to the environment, what are hence the immediate necessary
measures and changes to be made, so that the upcoming ecological
cataclysm can be avoided? Maybe surprisingly, this question is not so
difficult to answer when we look at the world with a bit of common
sense.
The most important sector one has to analyze for an answer is energy
production. This includes mainly the production of electricity, which is
the backbone of our whole society, economically and culturally. But
also the question of the production of thermal heat in the developed
countries and the first-time supply of electricity to people in the
underdeveloped countries by not using the same polluting energy
production techniques. This is a very important question as, e.g., still
60% of the people in Africa do not have access to electricity3. In
2005, 81% of the world energy consumption4 was attributed to the burning
of fossil fuels5. There are estimates that this proportion will rise to
90% in 20306 if there is no fundamental switch in the energy production
techniques. About 17% of the total world energy consumption is allotted
to electricity7. The burning of fossil fuels generates 21.3 gigatonnes
of carbon dioxide per year, only half of which can be reabsorbed by the
environment8. Hence, a conversion of energy production towards
techniques that do not burn fossil fuel is obviously necessary for
pollution reasons, as well as for the fact that we approach the end of
fossil fuel reserves on this planet9.
One could be inclined to think that the expansion of energy production
by nuclear fission provides a way out of this mess. This is disputable
for various reasons. Firstly, the uranium needed to supply nuclear power
plants is an element whose natural occurrence is essentially limited as
well10. Secondly, one has to take into account the carbon dioxide
balance of the whole process from uranium extraction and enrichment to
the final disposal of nuclear waste. Expectedly, the figures for this
balance are highly controversial11. But it is safe to estimate that, in
total, the production of a kilowatt hour of electricity by nuclear
fission produces at least one third of the carbon dioxide emissions that
the production of a kilowatt hour of electricity by the burning of coal
does. It is clear that under the pretense of a necessary massive
extension of nuclear power to replace energy production by fossil fuels,
neither the pollution problem nor the global warming problem could be
solved. Thirdly, the nuclear disaster in Japan in spring 2011 has once
again shown that there are still many unaccounted security risks in the
operation of nuclear power plants. Moreover, the profit motive in energy
production is diametrically opposed to an extension of security
measures. Fourthly, the biggest problem with nuclear fission is the
final disposal of the highly radioactive and toxic nuclear waste. The
ecological problems connected with this are undisputed. Furthermore, the
total costs for this final disposal are normally not paid for, by the
energy companies operating the nuclear power plants, but are passed on
to the state, and hence, are to be paid by the whole society. Otherwise
energy production by nuclear fission was just not profitable. Opposed to
nuclear fission, nuclear fusion12 is a totally different kettle of
fish. Nuclear fusion, which aims to emulate the process of energy
production taking place inside the sun, has been researched for over 60
years. It uses factually inexhaustible hydrogen as an energy source and
is generally considered quite save. If it is really possible13 to
develop nuclear fusion to become a reliable technology of energy
production in the next few decades, it can play a fundamental role in
the future mix of renewable energy sources.
Therefore, there exists the necessity to start entering a circular flow
economy in the sector of energy production. This means the goal must be
to gain independence from limited energy sources and to not use a
technology of energy production that produces more pollution and carbon
dioxide emissions than can be absorbed by the environment. When we burn
fossil fuel we already use, in the last analysis, solar energy. Solar
energy that was stored millions of years ago in the genesis of coal, oil
and natural gas. So, obviously, we have to switch to a direct use of
solar energy that arrives on earth now. Together with energy production
by wind, waves, tides and geothermal sources this energy production
techniques are summed up as renewable, because they are factually
available in an unlimited amount. Concerning thermal heat, it is
necessary to consider thermal insulation of housing (as shelter against
cold in northern latitudes and as protection from heat in the warmer
latitudes) as a main field of necessary action. This needs large scale
infrastructure and construction programs. Bearing in mind the urgency of
the matter, due to the upcoming environmental disasters, it is
necessary to consider a time frame of about 20 to maximally 50 years, in
which the better part of this conversion of energy production should
have taken place. Of course, already a time frame of 20 years is far out
of the scope of profit oriented capitalist companies.
Another important sector of the economy which is intimately linked with
environmental problems is the mobility sector. This includes a whole
spread of sections of the economy. Maybe the most important among these
sections is the automotive industry, because it constitutes the backbone
of many national economies in the developed countries. But also
manufacturers of other means of transportation, like trains, airplanes
or bicycles are to be included in the mobility sector. Furthermore, the
whole public and private transportation sector including railways, road
networks, urban transportation, air travel and many more have to be
counted into this domain. It is estimated that the whole transportation
sector accounts for 20% to 25% percent of the world energy consumption
and carbon dioxide emissions14. A simple comparison of the carbon
dioxide emission per capita in urban transport between US cities and
Western European cities shows that fully developed public urban
transport systems can reduce pollution substantially15. It is quite
obvious that a fully developed, highly maintained and affordable urban
transport system is a key to reducing individual mobility and hence
carbon dioxide emissions and pollution not only in the big cities, but
also in mid-size towns. This is basically due to the facts that a public
transport system runs on electricity, which can theoretically be
obtained from renewable sources and that the energy expenditure per
capita is much lower than in individual transport, e.g., by car. The
only problem is that such public transport systems cannot be operated
along capitalist lines. This means for example if they are fully
developed and highly maintained, they can only be profitable for
somebody at the same time if they are not generally affordable. The same
hold mutatis mutandis for regional, national and international
transportation. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions and pollution caused
by transportation there is a need for planned and integrated transport
systems. This can only be achieved, in a way affordable for everyone, if
the urban transport systems, railways, airlines and so on are publicly
owned and are made to operate with the goal to provide the best possible
transport system. Of course, this is not possible without massive
investments into the transport systems and in many cases extra subsidies
for maintaining operation will be necessary. These subsidies have to be
provided by the state and have to be financed by taxes. If either the
majority of the population or the capitalist companies then pay for this
public transport system, is hence obviously a question of the balance
of taxation and therefore a question of who has the power.
There is no perspective of completely abolishing individual
transportation in the nearer future. It can be reduced by a proper
public transport system, but, especially in the rural areas, many people
are dependent on their vehicle. Although, recent technological
developments make it nowadays feasible for the first time to consider
the complete abolition of the internal combustion engine in the
automotive sector and its replacement by an electric drive16. The big
advantage of electric vehicles is their potential to operate on energy
obtained from renewable sources, provided there is a conversion of
energy production taking place. This reduces carbon dioxide emissions
form individual cars immensely. Nevertheless, at the same time there is
the need to further constrict individual transport and boost initiatives
like car-sharing, which of course goes at the expense of the revenues
of the automotive companies. Also recent developments of
vehicle-to-grid17 solutions provide a fascinating possibility for the
construction of electric smart grids.
The petrochemical industry18 manufactures various products from
petroleum besides gasoline. The most important ones among these products
are certainly the various kinds of plastics19. It is often forgotten
that not only packaging, beverage bottles or lawn chairs are made of
plastic, but all of our high-end technology products, that our modern
culture is based on, like computers, cell phones or airplanes depend
crucially on diverse, and often highly specific, kinds of plastics,
which in the manufacturing process are combined with other important
materials of metallic origin. Almost all these plastics are made of
petroleum. Hence, this part of our economy is also directly affected by
the upcoming shortage of oil. As plastics are nothing else than
rearranged chains of polymer, similar to proteins that also occur in
biological sources, it is theoretically possible to produce all
necessary plastics from renewable primary products. This already works
quite good for generic plastics, e.g., for packaging20, where
compostable bioplastics are already common. For the highly specific
plastics used in high-end technological products or for other
petrochemicals like industrial lubricants or paints, which are also
economically crucial in their own way, no bioplastic source exists up to
now. There are some scientific beginnings for this, but the truth is
for those petrochemical products, there is no clue how to make them
without relying on oil. Hence, there is the urgent need for research and
development programs that investigate bioplastics further. Some
research is already done in this direction, but not enough. The problem
is, that on capitalist terms, finding a new alternative production
method for a commodity is normally not as profitable as developing new
commodities that can be produced by the same old methods. This follows
from a simple consideration: sell more commodities, without investing in
a fundamental change in machinery and you will make much more profit.
An alternative source, and its development, for many petrochemical
products will become definitely profitable as soon as the oil price
rises much further. This will definitely happen in the future, but the
threat is that it is too late to conduct all the necessary research in a
speedy manner, then. Another important aspect to consider in this
context is recycling21 and the durability of commodities. Obviously, in
capitalist production, with many commodities the problem is, that
producing them in a way such that they can be more easily recycled or
such that they have a higher durability, directly affects the profits to
the negative side. This is the reason why many simple changes in
production are not made. Just one example to underline this assertion.
There is no technological reason why a modern smartphone could not be
designed in a more modular way, such that components of it can be
regularly upgraded. This could easily lead to an extension of the life
time of high-end technological products. But it is an economic decision
to design smartphones as integrated devices that can only be thrown away
after two years of usage. In addition to that, there is also no
technological reason why a smartphone cannot be produced, at least, in a
way such that its components can be separated and recycled more easily
after its life span. Not to do this is an economic, profit-based
decision, too.
Of course there are many more sectors of the economy and the society,
which ought to be considered in connection with the environment. Many of
the problems in these sectors also need a conversion of production
techniques or the development of new technologies. Many problems exist
for example in agriculture, especially, e.g., the land consumption in
food production, also in relation to the production of biofuel22 or the
production of green house gases by animal husbandry23. Other important
issues that could not be considered in this article are the protection
of the tropical rainforest24 and ecological problems caused by mining
operations. Some environmental problems appearing from time to time are
generally considered to be caused by human economic activity, but their
specific origin has yet to be properly researched. A famous example is
the colony collapse disorder of bees25. Thus, there are many topics
where resources of research are needed, but which most likely will not
have an outcome that is marketable in a capitalist sense.
The ecological conversion possible
Is it technologically feasible to switch the technology of energy
production in the whole world economy to renewable energy sources,
while, at the same time, supplying the underdeveloped parts of the world
with electricity for the first time and applying a massive
infrastructural program for thermal insulation, within the next few
decades? Do we need some kind of bridging technology to achieve this?
To begin with, one has to observe that all scientific surveys and
papers, which deal with the technological feasibility of the conversion
to renewable energy, basically agree that all the technological
prerequisites are either existent today, or there is a clear idea of
which further scientific developments are necessary and how they are to
be done26. This is important because it shows that all the world's
energy production can be converted to renewable energy sources without
the need of a completely unknown or new technology or science. The
potential for the conversion is present in today's technology and is
nothing as distant as, say, space travel to the outer solar system.
However, the main controversial roots in the question of the time frame
necessary to implement this energy conversion. When one looks around in
different papers the estimates of the time frame differ from two decades
to two centuries27. It is simply very unlikely that most of these
surveys are scientifically flawed and, in fact, one can easily check the
logical consistence of the conclusions in most of these papers. The
reason for the different estimates of the time frames can, hence, only
be caused by different, more or less implicit, assumptions on available
resources for technology development, the possible pace of the
redirection of investments and available monetary resources. Thus, one
must conclude that there are no technological obstructions to implement
the conversion of energy production within the next two decades, because
these different assumptions can all be changed by political decisions.
There is no law of physics that limits the deployment of resources into
the development of necessary electricity storage facilities or smart
electric grids. There is no law of nature that prevents the radical
skimming of profits of the energy monopolies and their investment in
Green technology. And at last, there is only a limit of monetary
resources of the masses of working people if one would like to let them
pay by redistribution of wealth for the ecologic conversion. The total
wealth produced in society is so large that this ecological
restructuring can be easily afforded. The only problem is that this
wealth drains away into the profits of the technology-conservative big
capitalist companies and into the speculation in the finance sector.
Hence, there are only political obstruction to the implementation of the
ecological conversion of energy production, but political conditions
are made by humans and can, thus, be changed by humans. We have to
conclude that the time frame necessary for the conversion of energy
production to renewable sources is essentially a political and not a
technological problem.
Hence, also the discussion about bridging technologies has no proper
foundation. Maybe the most famous of these technologies, discussed
nowadays, is the carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology28. The idea
is to capture the carbon dioxide in the burning process of fossil fuel,
mostly coal, and to transfer it to final disposal, i.e., to store it
below ground. Firstly, one causes with this procedure an ecological
problem similar to the final disposal of radioactive waste, because we
have to make absolutely sure that this carbon dioxide will never come
out again. It is controversial if this is even possible. Secondly, the
whole idea of the necessity of any bridging technology is the attempt to
solve a political problem by technological means. If there were an
all-embracing political decision for the entry into a circular flow
economy in energy production, no bridging technology is needed. The “big
advantage”29 of these bridging ideas is that they coincide with the
profit interests of the big capitalist energy companies, themed by: keep
at it! Just a few years more to squeeze some more profit out of old
coal-burning power plants until the last cent of invested capital has
amortized.
Thermal insulation of housing is a very important issue connected with
energy production. A large part of the world's energy consumption is due
to domestic heating or cooling, depending on the latitude. Also more
northern countries have a higher demand for heating energy and in many
cases heating is the biggest fraction of domestic energy usage30. The
main factor responsible for this is old and badly insulated housing.
Today housing and also office buildings can be constructed in a way, so
that do not need any classical heating31. It is even possible today to
insulate old buildings in a way, so that they nearly do not need any
classical heating any more32. Of course, this becomes more and more
costly with more northern latitude. But it is estimated that with
today's technology all housing as well as public and office buildings,
at least south of the polar circle, could be insulated in such a way
that for them no specific energy usage for heating or cooling is
necessary any more33. That means, for example, all additional heating
could be provided by heat sources available anyway, for example by a
teleheating network34. Hence, while this is technologically possible,
the problem of implementation is a political and economic one. Because,
what is needed for the implementation of such an insulation program? A
large-scale program of investment in construction measures to insulate
all or nearly all buildings and to build new ones, as well as a lot of
infrastructural tasks to construct teleheating networks. But, although
possible, this investment does not, or only at a very small scale, take
place, because it is not profitable. People do not pay for not heating,
they pay for heating to the electricity, gas or oil companies. A
large-scale thermal insulation program is nothing that can be profitably
sold to the masses of people who benefit from it. So this only takes
place within capitalism if profits of the construction companies are
paid by the state, and the state very often only does this if it can
reallocate the costs to the people. Hence, it seems quite unlikely that
such a thermal insulation program, which is both possible and necessary,
will ever take place under capitalist conditions.
The provision of electricity to all urban and rural areas in the
developed countries took decades to achieve. Part of the reason for this
is that a large-scale infrastructure of electricity transmission lines
and networks together with centralized big power plants had to be
created. In the past the steady provision of the same electric voltage
in a large network could only be guaranteed in this way. Today with the
development of smart grids35 this is changing. The step to more
localized energy production, e.g., by solar and wind sources, which can
by the smart grid technology nevertheless provide a steady electric
voltage, away from centralized power production should be viewed as
technological progress and as an important development of the means of
production. Of course, there is still the need for central electric
backbones in the network, which can for example be actualized by
hydro-electric power. Still, the conversion of all power grids to smart
grids require substantial investments into infrastructure and the
replacement of coal-burning power plants is opposed to private profit
interests embodied in them. Hence, there is a need for a public program
of environmental investments into big infrastructure projects and the
conversion of energy production, which is opposed to the interests of
the big energy monopolies. Moreover, localized electricity production is
the only way to electrify rural areas in the underdeveloped
countries36. It is completely illusive to believe that the development
of theses countries could proceed along lines which emulate the path of
development that took place in the industrial nations. To try do
implement the development this way would even be an ecological disaster.
Here a reference to China could be inserted.
All considerations in the previous paragraphs also hold mutatis mutandis
for the sectors of mobility and the petrochemical industry. The
necessary reduction of individual transport by the investment into
public transportation systems goes in any case against the profit
interests of the international automotive companies. Even with the
simultaneous promotion of and conversion to electric cars, it is quite
obvious that the total number of individual vehicles in the world is not
sustainable. And the transport systems in the threshold countries
cannot grow in a way emulating the individual transport culture in the
industrialized nations. This leads straight into ecological disaster.
Thus, it is clear that there must be a conversion of production of the
automotive companies and also a redirection of capital and investment to
other sectors of the economy. It is doubtful that this can be
accomplished by market forces within capitalism. There must be a
political decision for this and the companies have to be coerced to obey
the political will. The same holds for the companies in petrochemical
industry.
No Green capitalism
The idea of a Green New Deal37 is discussed also among the political
left and in the labor movement since the impact of the world financial
and economic crisis. The basic question in this debate is the following.
Can capitalism develop a new dynamic of growth from the investment into
Green technology and the conversion to sustainable production? Maybe
with an initial push by state subsidies?
Based on the considerations in the previous sections such a scenario
seems unlikely and additionally would not be very desirable for the
majority of the people. As we described above, capitalism is dynamic and
grows if there is the possibility for profitable investment into the
expansion of markets and production. Many sectors of the present
capitalist world economy are highly monopolized and profit rates are
low. This is one reason for the redirection of much capital into
speculation. But the necessary measures to enter a sustainable circular
flow economy, which were described here, most of the times do not
constitute an expansion of markets and production, but a conversion.
Often a redeployment of capital is necessary before it has fully
amortized. For example, when it comes to switching off nuclear power
plants in the nuclear power phase out or the massive extension of public
transport at the expense of automotive profits. This can be a bit
different in the threshold or underdeveloped countries, were also the
factor of imperialism has to be considered. Simply because where no
coal-burning power plants exist, energy production does not have to be
converted, but can be build up in a sustainable way from scratch. Most
of the measures necessary for a sustainable future are of public
interest, but can not be transformed into commodities to be sold and
extracted profit from. Therefore, ecological sustainability cannot be
achieved as a classical abstract economic growth, but has to be achieved
as the growth of specific sector of the economy and the research and
development at the expense of others.
A kind of Green capitalism is conceivable as the continuation of today's
situation of state subsidizing of Green (e.g., solar) companies, by
redistribution of the costs to the majority of the people and rising
energy prices. This would simply mean a further worsening of living
standards for the majority of the people and a kind of
eco-for-high-income-earners capitalism. This could maybe absorb some of
the global ecological problems, but their final solution in this way is
doubtful, as their ultimate capitalist cause would not have been
eradicated, but an eco-version of capitalism would have been allowed to
grow besides it. Moreover, the majority of the people would be made pay
for that partial conversion, instead of the capitalist causers, who
would still make a fortune.
On Eco-socialism
Within the broader Left and Green movement there is a current which
calls itself eco-socialist or is attributed this label. Some strongholds
of this current are in the Left-Green parties in Scandinavia and in the
Green Party of the United States. Two main eco-socialist thinkers are
Joel Kovel38 and James O'Connor39. A good overview of the eco-socialist
ideas can also be found on the associated Wikipedia page40.
The ideas, goals and methods of the eco-socialists, in political praxis
as well as in theory, root in Marxism and the Greens movement. Their
aims are compatible and largely coincide with the program outlined in
this work. However, their original contribution to the movement is the
construction of a specific theory of Eco-Marxism and the enrichment of
classical socialist and Marxist ideas and programs with ecological
considerations. This makes the eco-socialist current a valuable ally and
an important integral part of the left and the labor movement.
Certainly, the attempt to create a consistent eco-Marxist theory is an
interesting task in its own right, but it is not necessary to draw up a
program of ecological measures required today to avoid the imminent
ecological catastrophe under capitalism. As it was tried to outline in
the previous sections, classical Marxist economics is sufficient to
analyze today's ecological disaster caused by capitalism, as well as the
socialist way out of it. In order to draft the concrete measures
necessary and possible to start into a circular flow economy, one does
not even need Marxist theory. Basically, these tasks already follow from
common sense.
Planning investment
It should be understood from the considerations in the sections above
that the prevention of a world wide ecological disaster, requires a
conscious redirection of the world economy. This can only be put into
practice as a democratic program. The key monopolies and industry
companies in the energy sector, in petrochemical industry and in
mobility have to be taken away from private profit oriented control and
have to be taken under public control. This can be achieved by various
means including direct nationalization, nationalization and state
control of the funding banks or similar measures. The key is to have the
possibility to bring programs of controlling and redirecting flows of
investment, first into public discussion and then into public and
democratic decision-making. The completion of a program of
sustainability requires also funds from other sectors of the economy. It
should include a scheme of skimming of profits and revenues of other
private and public sectors of the economy, e.g., by taxes and their
redirection to the necessary infrastructure and conversion programs.
This ought to and can be done while maintaining the present high living
standards of the majority of the people and even improving them. The
costs do not have to be redistributed to the working masses if the
sustainability conversion is planned properly in their interests (see
also the references in the next section).
Suggested Further Reading and Viewing
This article can only crack superficially many important issues. The
Wikipedia and WWW pages in the various footnotes should provide access
to the subject and can also give directions to further reading.
Especially recommended is the film The Fourth Revolution: Energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Revolution:_Energy,
to get an overview on what ecological changes are technologically
easily possible nowadays. The same topics are covered in the books by
Hermann Scheer: Der energethische Imperativ, 2010; The Solar Economy,
2004; The Solar Manifesto, 2005; Energy Autonomy, 2006 (all Earthscan
publisher), which are also highly recommendable. Hermann Scheer was a
German social democratic member of parliament and devoted his live to
the advance of solar energy. His books also contain politically
necessary and possible measures to bring about the ecological conversion
of the economy. What makes his work so valuable is that it shows how
the ecological change is feasible and affordable in an economic sense.
However, from the emphasis and Marxist perspective developed in this
article, there are two flaws in his vision, that avert their simple
implementation within capitalism. Firstly, Hermann Scheer underestimates
the power of the energy monopolies which can only be broken by
nationalization and democratic control. He thinks that this power of the
monopolies can somehow be bypassed by relying on market mechanisms.
Secondly, we argued here that the full implementation of an ecological
economic program can only be achieved by the conscious direction of
investments within economic planning.
For references and better formatting see the attached PDF
