Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 907 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good to know I now have a name for my complaint.
Is it the opposite to
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211011912
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
“Standard theories of learning hold that people adjust their expectations when faced with disconfirming information. One puzzle of optimism is thus that people maintain overly positive expectations despite a lifetime of experience with reality.”
đ
But here is yet another rather gloomy report
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47203344
The IPPR says many scientists believe we have entered a new era of rapid environmental change.
The report warns: “We define this as the ‘age of environmental breakdown’ to better highlight the severity of the scale, pace and implications of environmental destabilisation resulting from aggregate human activity.”
Will society take the solutions on offer?Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at University College London, told BBC News: “IPPR are right to say that environmental change is happening ever-faster and threatens to destabilise society.
“Future problems with food supplies could cause price spikes that drive civil unrest, while increases in levels of migration can strain societies.
Just followed up a link in that article I gave attacking collapsology. It says that the name of the present/coming geological age should not be Anthropocene (age of human influence on climate and environment) but Capitalocene (age of capitalism’s influence). That’s more like it.
https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-2/view-dominica-anthropocene-capitalocene
The SOYMB blog first drew attention to the term capitalocene here
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/11/anthropocene-v-capitalocene.html
and further explained it
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/01/is-it-anthropocene-or-financialobscene.html
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-age-of-capitalocene.html
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/05/capitalocene-or-age-of-capital.html
Last used on the SOYMB blog
“Within the environmentalists, we find entrenched a hotchpot of misconceptions, myths, and even mystical New Age beliefs. A number hold Malthusian misanthropic anti-human dogmas. Out of a concern about the environment, they draw the mistaken conclusion that it is ourselves, humanity, interfering with âMother Earthâ and not capitalism which is leads to ecological destruction. Thus they call this the Anthropocene period and not the Capitalocene epoch. A number of Greens fail to acknowledge the inevitability of human action in changing nature and consequently fail to demand the rational and democratic organisation of this interaction.” –Â https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-to-save-world.html
But isn’t part of the problem is that even those who actively campaign against climate change can be charged with a form of climate change denialism yet another depressing fact and evidence that collapsology has a strong element of reality within it.
However, even when the right-wing accepts climate change, what they come up with is Green New Nationalism, rather than Green New Deal
https://theweek.com/articles/823083/case-green-nationalism
“…What country is the largest contributor to climate change today? It’s not the United States â it’s China…. If they can’t get rich without threatening the Florida coastline, then they’ll have to stay poor… A nationalist approach, by contrast, would mobilize the full weight of America’s economic power to force China to adapt….”
“…If we’re going to prioritize the climate, then, we have to cut back on immigration. We can do that by simply throttling back on both legal and illegal immigration. Or we can take a more market-friendly approach and charge immigrants a carbon “bond” to cover the cost of offsetting the expected increase in their carbon footprint, which would have the effect of shutting most immigrants from poor countries out…”
Good stuff about Capitalocene, but what do you mean by this:
But isnât part of the problem is that even those who actively campaign against climate change can be charged with a form of climate change denialism yet another depressing fact and evidence that collapsology has a strong element of reality within it.
Do you mean that because they deny that capitalism has caused the problem they are contributing to the problem not being solved?
That’s what I was getting at, ALB.
We can applaud the protests and demonstrations about climate change Extinction Rebellion here and Sunrise in the US , and the school student walk-outs but rather than system change we witness the Green New Deal as the resolution of the crisis, not revolution.
By not understanding capitalist dynamics, they have not made capitalism their enemy. In fact, the sub-text is a denial that capitalism is the root cause but as you linked to – people and overpopulation and that institutions like governments and corporations are the issue and palliative remedies are the cure.
We witness it in practically every scientific report no matter how damning it is. There is no indictment of the system that has created and still advances climate change. Just optimistic references to “it is not too late” for green policies to be implemented by born-again politicians.
Isn’t this denialism by those who should now know better?
IF we cannot detect an effective environmentalist movement that understands the problem and addresses it rather than treat the symptoms then the idea of system collapse is not simple diagnosis of what ails society but a terminal prognosis (to keep the medical metaphor going) on the future.
But some good news.
The UK has its first carbon capture energy plant at Drax
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47163840
“…Many scientists believe it will be needed because they don’t trust politicians to curb the CO2 emissions that are over-heating the planet…”
I see. Fair enough but they might be contributing to something being done so that the worst case scenario of the collapsologists won’t be reached (even if the capitalist authorities might not need prompting as they are not going to do nothing either).
I agree that a better socialist approach might be to record, not the predictions of doom, but technological developments which bring out that there are known technological solutions that could be applied in socialism but which are not being applied (or not quickly enough) under capitalism. The main one that is awaited is an efficient system of electrical storage as this would allow energy generated by renewables such as solar power and wind energy to be stored when there’s no sun shining or winds blowing. Arthur C. Clarke in his 1962 book Profiles of the Future imagined “efficient electrical storage” being achieved some time in the 1980s. Progress has, and is being made, but we are not there yet but could be achieved quicker if resources were thrown at it as a socialist society could.
“Arthur C. Clarke in his 1962 book Profiles of the Future imagined âefficient electrical storageâ
Better and more efficient batteries is the goal that many technologists are striving to achieve.
Like nuclear fusion it always appears to be frustratingly just one step beyond being achieved.
We do have a difference in approaches. I wonder if they can be reconciled into a message that resonates with the ecologist audience that we are failing to reach and persuade. We need to communicate the urgency before the tipping points are reached and the climate wars and migrant climate refugees becoming a reality that brings down large parts of civilization. But we have to also emphasise the importance that there exists a rational solution – socialism, a steady-state economy that satisfies all reasonable needs and wants of a global population.
The Green New Deal is just a position paper, there is no bill that Congress will vote on, it is a wish list. The Democratic Party has so far even rejected its general tone. 2020 prospective presidents make sympathetic sounds but I am sure it will never be adopted. But it might achieve something, as you suggest.
While climate change should be the priority of all governments, I just don’t recognize it commanding any crucial policy in most governments.
Youth Strike 4 Climate said protests took place in more than 60 towns and cities, with an estimated 15,000 taking part.
The group, which helped coordinate the protests, has four key demands:
The government should declare a “climate emergency”
It should also inform the public about the seriousness of the situation
The national curriculum should be reformed to include “the ecological crisis”
The age of voting should be lowered to 16 so younger people can be involved in decision-making around environmental issues.
As an aside, of all the photos I saw, many showed more females than males taking part. I wonder if we can relate this to our upcoming conference, the motion of attracting to the Party more female members. If the environmental movement is the focus of female political activity, perhaps we should go to them, rather than wait for them to discover ourselves.
Another thing struck me. If climate change is such an important event for humanity, why is it you and I are the only members of the Party that can be arsed to discuss and debate it, ALB.
If some members feel my contributions bore them or put them off, I will gladly take a back seat and let other members take up the baton and engage in the topic and exchange views in my stead.
Okay, it may not be an end of the world catastrophe as some of my posts imply , but certainly for many people it may well mean the end of their world as they know it.
The potential numbers likely to be detrimentally impacted by climate change run into the millions and most likely billions. It’s happening now. Or don’t members watch the news any longer and join up the dots.
Is the fossil fuel industry deliberately creating confusion?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47255249
Having put their case against alternatives to plastic being harmful to the environment, BP admitted their study didn’t include re-cycle and re-use systems that could reduce the amount of extra emissions required for substitute products.
Even I remember that doorstep delivery of milk involved returning the empties. And every soft drink or beer bottle returned meant getting thruppence back. That every family had a shopping bags. That when you bought something it was wrapped in paper. But an oil giant with highly qualified experts didn’t think it necessary to cite such actions.
Come on, that is BP deliberately poisoning the well of the debate…and they know it…they want to get headlines to add confusion.
Another thing struck me. If climate change is such an important event for humanity, why is it you and I are the only members of the Party that can be arsed to discuss and debate it, ALB.
Because they are not all on here. They are busy elsewhere. There are only two or three members looking at this at any given time and perhaps after the contributions made, further comment is superfluous while consideration is being given to your arguments.
Ever since the 15-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg decided to stop going to school on Fridays last year and instead protest outside the Swedish parliament, there has been a rapid expansion in similar activities in many parts of the world, especially in Europe.
Primary school children, as well as teenagers and university students, took part in a mass âstrikeâ on Friday in the UK over the “lack of government action” on the environment. More than 40 protest events have been planned in towns and cities as part of the UKâs first Youth Strike 4 Climate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47242477
The party should be considering specific advertising or other forms of publicity to raise consciousness as to why governments’ hands on climate change, as with so many other issues, are tied to a very large extent.
I fully understand that the forum is failing to involve other members, Matt. I don’t think we recovered the full numbers from the crash.
Apart from the false impression that ALB and I are conducting a personal feud on the forum, which we are emphatically aren’t, don’t you think that the Party is not engaging in a full and proper debate about the effect of climate change will have. I note there are no motions at the up-coming conference on the topic.
My views on the apocalyptical nature of the threat of global warming may not reflect all members thoughts on the matter, but that it will create wars, famines and refugees, is not in doubt.
When schoolkids are showing their concern, our members aren’t bothered to even join a forum to express their opinion because they are “busy elsewhere”. I’m sorry, but such an excuse simply isn’t acceptable to me. If we aren’t even listening to other members views, particularly when we do have a difference on attitudes and approaches that has to be resolved , then what hope have we of getting any sort of dialogue going with fellow-workers. One of the forum’s purposes is to equip members with facts and info to assist their conversations with their friends and families and co-workers.
It isn’t even this thread that is suffering but Brexit too lacks contributors. Venezuela and the prospect of a civil war if not an invasion there and about three people care to regularly say anything on it.
Some members have been determined not to involve themselves on the forum yet they are the most vociferous when it comes to placing motions for conference (yes, you know which branch i mean) and deny any debate except for a limited supporting statement and whatever argument is made at actual conference. So excluding full participation in the process of decision making. I note that EC even declines to use the forum for discussion, preferring SPINTCOM to discuss the WPNZ open-letter, (I thought it should be SPOPEN but there you go)
Party officers and committee members choose not to even join much less visit this forum. I’m not demanding the same frequency of traffic as those like myself who require a medium such as the forum because of our geographic isolation, but surely a once a week click on to see what is concerning other members should not be too much to expect from our “busy elsewhere” members.
And, Matt, you know I am not referring to yourself and some others who put in a valuable load of work back of scenes.
My complaint is the same as I offered in the past regards our blogs. Members don’t view it, don’t link to it, don’t offer feedback, and quite frankly, don’t care about it.
If I despair about my fellow worker apathy, I ten times more, despair about my fellow SPGB member’s indifference.
Morning moan over now and back to my usual trawl of news sites for something worthy to relay.
Cross-posted, Dave, but I agree with your evaluation of where we should focus attention for a more fruitful return.
Alan, when Matt says that other members are engaged elsewhere he doesn’t mean that the are sitting at home watching football (or nature) programmes. He means they are on other “forums”. At the moment the most lively is one of our Facebook pages where members, sympathisers, ex-members and others from all parts of the world are involved. I don’t think it would be suitable for you as the exchanges are shorter and quickfire as opposed to our more ponderous ones here and on the Party blog.
I know the Conference agenda has been hi-jacked and swamped by one branch riding its particular hobby horse, but there is in fact an Item for Discussion on climate change (arising in fact from our exchanges here — which reminds me, I need to put the other side of your anti-plastics piece !). This month’s Socialist Standard also anticipated the school students anti-climate change strikes yesterday.
Anyway, here’s the Item for Discussion:
What should we say (and not say) about climate change?
Supporting statement:
Climate change is real and is being brought about by past and present human activity, in particular by the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy and power transport. This is an incontrovertible fact.
But does it represent a threat to human existence or civilisation? Is the end of the world nigh?
Some argue that it is, maybe just as a tactic to spur governments into doing more, but there are people who really believe it. But is such a what might be called âalarmistâ approach justified? In other words, is it true? Is it a good tactic?
Without belittling the extent of the problem, the evidence is that it is not true. On the most plausible worst- case scenario (of nothing being done) the result would be disastrous, especially for low-lying coastal areas, but it would not mean the collapse of civilisation and certainly not the extinction of the human race. Nor, if you don’t really believe it, is it a sensible tactic, since if people come to think that the end of the world is nigh, then they are likely to conclude that nothing can be done about it and so not try to do anything â the exact opposite of what is intended. And, of course, there is also the chance of ending up with egg on your face as happened to the Club of Rome who predicted in 1972 that key metal and mineral resources would be begin to be exhausted in thirty years and that this would limit economic growth.
There are also other questions.
What do we think of those who argue that individuals should cut their personal consumption to help avert the problem? Should we?
And the more theoretical question of whether there are ecological limits to capitalism. The Party rejects the view that there are economic limits (i.e., that capitalism will collapse economically at some point) but does this apply to capitalism’s treatment of nature? Could there be natural limits to the accumulation of capital?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.