Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 904 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Trillions of dollars needed to avoid ‘climate apartheid’ but this is less than cost of inaction
Wow, I am speechless after reading this article in The Guardian: “World ‘gravely’ unprepared for effects of climate crisis – report”:
“The report has been produced by the Global Commission on Adaptation(GCA), convened by 18 nations including the UK. It has contributions from the former UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, the Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, environment ministers from China, India and Canada, the heads of the World Bank and the UN climate and environment divisions, and others.”
“The lack of <world> preparedness will result in poverty, water shortages and levels of migration soaring, with an “irrefutable toll on human life”, the report warns.
Trillion-dollar investment is needed to avert “climate apartheid”, where the rich escape the effects and the poor do not…”
Now even THEY present the climate emergency as class struggle. Read the full article.
Hi Schekn
It strikes me that what we are looking at here with respect to tackling climate change is reminiscent of what the biologist Garret Hardin wrote about in his famous essay in the 1960s on the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin’s basic thesis was seriously flawed. In practice, actually existing Commons do not generally result in serious environmental degradation since they are often quite closely monitored and subject to stringent rules to prevent overuse and destructive exploitation.
More to the point, Hardin’s diagnosis of the problem was misplaced. It was not the fact that there was a commons to which the herders could gain free access that was the root cause of the problem of overgrazing. Rather it was the fact that the cattle herds were privately owned by herders in competition with each other that locked them into the destructive logic whereby each herder benefitted exclusively from the addition of one more head of cattle to his/her herd but where the environmental costs of each additional head of cattle were externalised and shared by all the commoners. This gave each individual herder a built-in incentive to add to his/her herd resulting in generalised overgrazing.
The same kind of logic applies in the case of tackling climate change. The trillions of dollars needed to tackle climate may well be less than the costs of inaction but as a long as each capitalist state is seeking to externalise the costs of tackling climate change – get others to bear to more of the burden of these costs so as not to impair its own economic prospects in its competition with others – inaction will result. States will only be dragged kicking and screaming into action as things get generally worse and the action they take will probably be too little too late.
That is the tendency of capitalism – to get away with what is minimally required. It is why citing Hardin’s model (but correcting its faulty reasoning) might be a useful approach to encouraging environmentalists to taking more seriously what socialists have to say
“The same kind of logic applies in the case of tackling climate change. The trillions of dollars needed to tackle climate may well be less than the costs of inaction but as a long as each capitalist state is seeking to externalise the costs of tackling climate change – get others to bear to more of the burden of these costs so as not to impair its own economic prospects in its competition with others – inaction will result. States will only be dragged kicking and screaming into action as things get generally worse and the action they take will probably be too little too late..”
Likening the capitalist states to Hardin’s private herd owners is a good way of putting it. I am going to start using it myself.
Let’s see what is going to happen when Japan drops tons of atomic waste in the Pacific Ocean
There’s a relevant parallel here with “Operation Yellowhammer” with regard to what is meant by “worst-case” scenario. The UK government’s document on what might happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit is officially described as “reasonable worst case planning assumptions”. This is not a “forecast” or “prediction” of what will happen , but what might risk happening in a “reasonable” worst case scenario.
Applied to the climate change debate, there are a range of scenarios with varying degrees of probability. The UN IPCC “worst case” scenario is a rise in global warming to 4.9 degrees by 2099. It is possible to envisage cases even worse than this, but the question is would these be “reasonable”.
In any case, none of the scenarios are predictions, but possible outcomes based on particular assumptions. It is here that the question of “reasonable” comes in: are the assumptions reasonable? Some, in fact, all of the climate change worst-case scenarios are based on the assumption that nothing will be done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions — which I would suggest is not a reasonable assumption. Something is being done and as profits are threatened and/or the cost of doing nothing mounts more will be done, not enough of course, but enough to mean that the worst-case scenarios won’t be what happens.
In fact, many climate change activists are publicising “worst-case” scenarios precisely with a view to action being taken to avoid them happening. Some seem to think that the worse the worst-case the more chance there is of action being taken. I don’t know about that as it’s not a question in the context of capitalism of what governments should do, but of what they can do. No amount of popular pressure can force them to overcome the limits of having to minimise costs so as to stay in the competitive race for profits.
And as we know many outcomes of capitalism do not turn out to be “reasonable” with unintended consequences resulting in a negative or a positive.
“No amount of popular pressure can force them to overcome the limits of having to minimise costs so as to stay in the competitive race for profits.”
Notwithstanding ‘divine’ intervention or just plain “good luck”, XR, Greta Thunberg, et al, please take special note.
The last time Japan’s seas were polluted with radiation it awoke Godzilla.
I think this is a very serious situation because the dumping of thousands of tons of atomic waste in the ocean it might bring catastrophic consequences to the lives of the animals in the ocean, mutation,( like in the island of Culebra and Vieques ) the possible death of many human beings, the destruction of the eco system, and many others natural disasters. Petroleum has been leaking in the Gulf of Mexico for more than 15 years and it has produced catastrophic conditions to the atmosphere, the animals and human beings, and it is not a radioactive material like the ones that are going to be dumped in Japan
“It is here that the question of “reasonable” comes in: are the assumptions reasonable? Some, in fact, all of the climate change worst-case scenarios are based on the assumption that nothing will be done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions — which I would suggest is not a reasonable assumption. Something is being done and as profits are threatened and/or the cost of doing nothing mounts more will be done, not enough of course, but enough to mean that the worst-case scenarios won’t be what happens.”
Isn’t it the case that XR, Greta Thunberg, et al are applying popular pressure on business and governments to do something quicker and more effective, which will make the task of a socialist society easier to accomplish halting and reversing climate change?
But I still feel ALB is being an optimist. The latest deforestation statistics for instance show that despite international agreement and recommendations destroying trees has escalated. And it cannot be fixed by replanting.
We have to expect one sector of capitalism to go against the interests of another.
The risk has always been not that capitalism will not do something but it will be too late and too little to do anything about the consequences, not even with socialism
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/05/climate-change-feedback-loops
Another GHG – Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) to add to the toxic cocktail in our air
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).
It also persists in the atmosphere for at least 1,000 years.Total emissions from the 28 member states in 2017 equivalent to 6.73 million tonnes of CO2. That’s the same as the emissions from 1.3 million extra cars on the road for a year. Just one kilogram of SF6 warms the Earth to the same extent as 24 people flying London to New York return.
To add to the bad news, renewable energy technology uses it
Alan, you missed this alarmist story, In fact, as something like this is more likely to kill off 6/7ths of the world’s population, perhaps XR would be more advised to campaign for governments to do more to avert this worst-case scenario?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1177858/Asteroid-news-NASA-rocks-Earth-space-2010-COI-2000-QW7-human-extinction
Once again I reminded of Pieter Lawrence’s book on such a scenario in the Last Conflict which brings about a socialist society.
Lib Dem and their eco-policies. I suppose they are reflective of the middle of the road progressive reformers.
Citizens’ assemblies will decide what action should be taken on the climate crisis,
The Treasury’s ability to stymie green measures will be neutralized,
The Green Investment Bank will be revived,
There would also be more support for onshore wind and solar schemes by increasing incentive and changing planning laws.
A department of climate change,
Councils would be given new powers to cut emissions,
An end the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2030 – 10 years sooner than the Conservatives
A moratorium on airport expansion
An end to fracking,
With the UK achieving net-zero carbon status by 2045 – five years sooner than the current government goal.
Just in case democracy becomes runaway like the climate change, “Citizens’ Assemblies would not replace politicians’ decision-making, but would inform the options,” said Hobhouse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.