Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What is this blog about?

March 28, 2021

The blog is about trying to navigate the problems of ‘solving’ climate change and ecological destruction. Trying to make the problems clear, and trying to point to the politics, psychology and technology of problem solving, energy transition and rethinking the crises. If we can’t solve the problems in time, it hopes to give people a way of living which might be useful in the ‘new world’ we face.

Multiple crises

Climate change is only one consequence of the ecological destruction and pollution that overwhelms our ecologies. We also live in many ecologies in crisis: social relations are disrupted and disrupting, we have precarious economies, our politics inclines towards fascism as we try and impose order, information is repeatedly and sometimes deliberately confused, which produces uncertainty, bewilderment and, sometimes in reaction, over-certainty. There are many problems, and we can ignore some of them if we focus on climate change alone.

Hence I try and situate climate change amongst these other problems. Once we see a mess of crises, then the social, economic, political and technical connections between them all seem clearer, as is the need for something like a thorough social and conceptual change.

Existential Crisis

I’m deeply concerned about the ‘existential crisis’ that arises from people’s recognition of climate change and ecological destruction. Basically, everything we have learnt to do to lead a satisfactory life, is now potentially destructive, or undermining of that life. The problems are so big, and complex, that it is hard to imagine being able to make much difference by anything we do personally. Ways of giving meaning to life are threatened. This sense  is overwhelming and confusing at best, and fairly depressing.

We are largely ‘unhomed’ by climate change, it creates unacknowledged anxiety and distress, and may even threaten our existence. We are in a situation in which the future is essentially unknown but disturbing. Even if you deny climate change as a problem, then you realise that your way of life is potentially under threat from other people. These factors can be hard to live with, and I suspect this is why why our responses are so dis-coordinated, confused and slow.

However, it is our thinking, feeling and acting that is as much a problem as what is happening in the world, and this primarily calls out for us to change our thinking, understanding and values – together with the ways we relate to, and connect with, other people. Which can be difficult.

Complexity

One change of thought that is probably required is the recognition that we live within largely unpredictable complex systems. Everything interacts with everything else, and modifies itself and each other. We cannot perceive the whole system, and the only real/accurate model of the system is the system itself. This renders our traditional modes of problem solving, in which we work out a solution and carry it steadfastly out until the bitter end, extremely dangerous.

We may need to use more of the pattern recognition parts of our mind, and less of the linear reasoning parts. If so, we need to recognise that we can detect patterns that are not there, and need to put our understandings to the test all the time.  This means we now need an experimental politics, in which we seek out not only what is going right as a result of our behaviour, understanding and policies, but what is going wrong, so that we can modify our behaviour constructively, or even discard our proposed solutions.

Because policies are partial understandings, complexity almost always implies that we will, in part at least, be mistaken. Persisting with mistakes, and ignoring the disorder arising from our attempts to impose order, is probably going to be destructive in most cases, even if there is a social demand to stick to what we recognise as ‘truth’. Accepting the importance of recognising error and disorder and not attempting to deal with it purely by suppression, is now fundamental to being able to live a good life. Everything we do has the potential for unintended consequences. Every situation, amidst these crises, is potentially new, no matter how similar it may look to previous situations.

Ordering practices can produce disorder and unconsciousness

To repeat, what we call disorder is often created by our ordering processes, and by our suppression of recognising vital events because we try to make ourselves socially acceptable to people we like, people who are significant to us, or because our culture and theories direct our attention away from those vital and disorderly events. 

To use a dramatic but well known, example: loyal Catholics did not see, or notice, abusive priests. Perhaps they thought the authorities would deal with the issue appropriately, perhaps they did not want to bring the Church (which they thought essentially valuable) into disrepute, or they thought that children were lying and punished them, and so children learnt to shut up, and became more damaged. As a result well-intentioned Catholics could not improve the situation, until people persisted in being attacked and unpopular and brought the events to everyone’s attention. 

Similarly this suppression of what we perceive as disorder is the way we create our own personal or cultural unconsciousness – by suppressing drives and behaviour we consider unethical, or even insights, wisdoms and compassion which go against our cultural or political norms. These suppressions often come back to bite us, or consume our energy in keeping awareness and distress suppressed. 

Obviously once you have recognised some of the problems it should change the ways that you live and think. 

I suspect that paying attention to neglected events like dreams, body sensations or senses of failure, can be useful in expanding your awareness, and hence our ability to live well. This is possibly one of the few great insights of psychoanalysis, or in particular of Jungian forms of analysis.

Technology

Technology is often a mode of ordering, which has unintended consequences as its use interacts with other complex systems, and disrupts them. Sometimes the disruption may be deliberate as when technology is designed to watch over and control workers, and prevent them ‘wasting’ the employer’s time by enjoying themselves, or resting. This is why it is useful to pay attention to the unintended consequences of technology: social, environmental, economic, polluting, destructive and so on. Often because some people like what the technology allows them to do, they ignore the harmful consequences it might have for both themselves or others.

Information mess

What I have called the information mess, arises through a number of factors, and adds to confusion.

The mess arises through information and communication technology and the way it is organised. In the contemporary world Information can be found to justify any position, and it will not be removed if it is false. A significant number of people try to impose political order on the world, not by discussion or finding the truth, but by repeating their claims and attacking those who disagree. To make sense of this information mess, and to save time, we tend to accept information which is accepted by others in our ‘identity’ or ‘information’ groups. Rejecting the information they share can risk our losing our place in the group, or losing our sense of identity. This is reinforced, by ‘winner take all politics,’ and by the politics between States, in which promoting false information of the right type can be seen as destructive towards our opponents. We also tend to be skeptical of information which comes from other groups, particularly outsider groups, or groups which our group defines itself as being against.

Information mess is reinforced by work hierarchies in which bosses are judged on informational competence, appear reluctant to admit they were wrong, and are fed what they want to believe by underlings who know better than to cross them.

Neoliberalism is one of the most important forms of attention direction and deceit in the contemporary world. It leads to harmful forms of common sense, and justifies the eco-destruction that is being pursued as necessary for prosperity and liberty. It helps people ignore the reality that without working ecologies we have no working basis for prosperity or liberty. What I’ve called the ‘neoliberal conspiracy’ is a basic part of the information mess and contemporary politics. It supports contemporary disorder and crisis.

Information mess is fundamental to understanding contemporary society, and our ability to steer our way through the mess is often disrupted by the conviction that we can steer our way through it.

Thoughts and theories

I take the theory dependence of observation quite seriously, and think it is useful to remember that we respond, not only to reality, but to our thoughts about reality which may not be accurate or useful. This is why the information mess is important, what we think directs our attention towards some factors of life, and away from others. What we think is heavily influenced by the groups we belong to, deliberately or accidentally. Being aware of this feature of our social-psychology is often helpful – we can challenge what we think is the case. 

This is why it is useful to recognise that popular forms of so-called ‘positive thinking; in which we deliberately, and repeatedly, lie to ourselves in the hope that we will come to shape the world by our lying are probably harmful. 

For example, President Trump seemed to want to solve the problems of Covid largely by playing down the danger and keeping people optimistic and alarmed at possible restrictions, and then by encouraging quick vaccine development. It is probable that this approach did not slow the virus very much, especially during that first year. Of course you cannot tell for sure, and what is done is done (so using Trump as an excuse for current failures is pointless), but I think being prepared to be aware of the problems and their complexities helps us to solve them, or bypass them. Denying the problems often does not.

To be clear, the kind of positive thinking I’m protesting about is the kind that tries to impose order on the chaos of life without any attention to what is happening. It’s not necessarily harmful to think that with practice and persistence you can come to do stuff that you currently are not that great at. This latter kind of positive thinking is useful for dealing with crises. It enables us to be open to the perception of the crises, and yet not completely overwhelmed by them, and to think that if we keep persisting and learning then we can help.

Dadirri

This is one reason why I have been talking about Dadirri and other forms of cognitive relaxed attention.

Going into these kind of states of listening, can relax a person’s attachment to programmed thoughts. It can also allow our inner wisdoms, pattern detections and perceptions arise.

This can help reduce the sense of existential crisis.

We can diffuse the urgency with which we can run away from unpleasant feelings or sensations, we can accept them gently, and sometimes that allows events to progress, we can get insight and understanding from not suppressing these unpleasant sensations, the sensations can perhaps move on.

Likewise attention given to spontaneously arising symbols and images can expand our awareness.

All of this can free our creativity, generate new meanings, and allow problems to be solved, by-passed or diminished.

It may not solve everything, but it can help.

We then take our solutions to the world, and see if they can help other people live through the situations we face. If they reject those solutions or find they do not work, that still does not mean we have not contributed something.

To go back to an earlier point, all solutions are experimental, and need to be tested and refined or abandoned. That is how we learn constructively.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Is climate change overblown by the left?

March 23, 2021

Given that the world is, on the whole, not anywhere near necessary targets, according to the latest UN NDC Synthesis Reports issued February 2021; then if “the left” are being overblown, they are not having much influence.

This is as you would expect. Most people in the developed world, don’t want to change their lifestyles – and given that most people in that world seem to be going downhill due to neoliberal privileging of business, transfer of wealth upwards, and nannying of the wealthy, why would they want to risk going even further backwards because of attempts to fix global warming? This is the usual reason given for working class anger in the US, and for ‘populism’ (assuming that word means anything). Furthermore lots of powerful people do not want to lose the wealth they have tied up in fossil fuels, and they don’t want to risk the possibility that new forms of energy could increase democracy or impoverish fossil fuel companies.

These wealthy and powerful people can buy politicians, can buy media, and can buy the idea that climate change, global warming, massive forest fires, massive flooding, ecological destruction, over-fishing, destruction of agricultural lands, deforestation, loss of animal life etc are not really a problem, or they occur all the time, and that imagined technological invention can save us, without any political or economic change. This seems well documented to me.

They have captured mainstream parties all over the world, with the possible exception of UK conservatives, who actually seem to be trying to reduce emissions – not that this gets reported much outside the UK (remember wealthy people own the media, or advertise in it). UK conservatives, do tend to have a real conservative streak because they believe in conserving things (which is pretty unusual in the Right nowadays), and they don’t always believe in encouraging business to destroy their country….

In the developing world many countries, believe that fossil fuels and ecological destruction are necessary for development, and that it is their turn to engage in destruction for the benefit of their people, and that developed world objections to this are a form of neo-colonial racism. They say something like “get your own world in order before complaining about us.” So, on the whole, many relatively powerful people in the developing world downplay the problems as well.

Again the point is, that if the left is overblowing global warming they are not having much of an impact, and one of the leading forces for emissions reduction is not remotely left wing.

The next implied question is “are the left exaggerating the dangers?” Personally I think it is unlikely that the majority are. Some will be of course, this is what happens. Most scientists and people who study the subject, seem to think that bad things, to very bad things, could happen. Strings of high ’unprecedented’ temperatures in the Antarctic are clearly not good. World wide highly intense and ’unprecedented’ forest fires are not good. Declines in fish population are not good. The apparent death of large expanses of coral reefs is not good. Places having streams of days over 40 degrees centigrade are not good. Strings of destructive storms are not good. And this is with only 1 degree increase. What we will have with another couple of degrees will probably be really bad.

One issue here is that because ecologies and climate are complex systems we cannot predict how bad things will get. We do know, that once you knock the systems out of their balance and equilibrium, they tend to oscillate wildly, which probably means increasing wild weather, but precisely what this will mean, we can’t tell until it happens. However, the chances of good things happening for most people seem remote. I guess, if you are wealthy enough, you can move to and buy somewhere safe and remote and perhaps you can buy the people to provide you with food etc….

I don’t think it is altogether sensible to wait to see what happens before acting, because there almost certainly will be a delay. If we act now, then things will continue to get worse for a number of years. The later we act then the greater the probability that the situation will get worse for longer after we stop. So we have to stop before it gets unendurable.

I personally think the idea that action on global warming or ecological destruction is not particularly left wing at all. Real conservatives should be concerned. Even if you think that global warming has nothing to do with humans, then you might want to think about how we should prepare to adapt to changing circumstances, and how we should lessen the effects. Climate and ecological action is about dealing with, and lessening, anticipated problems, which is pretty normal across the political spectrum.

After all, ordinary people do want forests, do not want to breath coal and oil pollution, don’t want a coal mine next to their house, don’t want flooding, don’t want the price of food to go up and face food shortages, don’t want climate refugees, don’t want (if they live in hot countries) to work outside in 38 degree centigrade (100 degrees F) or more temperatures and so on. However, the wealthy elites have successfully managed to label action on these issues as ‘left wing’, probably in an attempt to make those people who identify as conservative, right wing, or libertarian shy away from action, and not think about what would be a good solution. This helps those sponsoring people maintain their power.

Climate change and eco-destruction is real and does seem to be humanly generated, (which is absolutely obvious in terms of eco-destruction). If we do discuss what to do then the arguments about what we should do, are likely to be political – and this is good.

Personally I would rather have people on the right thinking about solutions, than attempting to sabotage solutions, or attempting to prop up a failed regime, and UK Conservatives show that this is possible…

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Carbon Budget

March 11, 2021

[This post was written before the previous post on Development, Pollution and Emissions, and makes more sense if it goes before it]

I had thought that the idea of a carbon budget was easier to understand than emissions intensity. A carbon budget tells us that we can only emit so many tonnes of carbon, before the chance of going over 1.5 degrees centigrade becomes extremely high.

The idea of a carbon budget seems to tell us something straightforward: we can no longer afford to keep emitting Greenhouse gas emissions, and we have to stop soon if we wish to avoid serious climate change.

But this idea gets mired in difficulty and unclarity, largely because of disputes over modelling, and the tendency of people to take probabilities as hard categories. That is, that a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5 degrees, often seems to be taken as if meaning that if we manage to meet that budget then we won’t exceed 1.5 degrees. This assumption could be fatal. It may also not be clear that the more we exceed the carbon budget the worse events will get. Our wealthy people are used to renegotiating loans, getting deferrals, getting assistance and so on. Our politicians are used to blaming the other side for the deficit, ignoring their own, or issuing bonds or even currency, and things keep going. A human budget is rarely ever fixed. However, the carbon budget is not a budget which can be escaped, or put to one side.

Here we have someone at The Guardian:

Time is running out to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid catastrophic climate change. The 2018 special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “suggests a remaining budget of about 420 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.” …. Despite this stark warning, the world keeps emitting over 40 Gt of CO2 per year.

Since we have already drawn down over 120 Gt of CO2 from this carbon budget, we have now less than 300 Gt left. Combining the proved fossil fuel reserves reported in British Petroleum’s Statistical Review of World Energy with CO2 emission factors from the IPCC yields 3,600 Gt of CO2 emissions. This means that we can only afford to burn one twelfth of the fossil fuels we have already found. [Currently there is no sign of this happening]

The policy instruments that are currently being used across the globe to reduce CO2 emissions aren’t working. It is therefore time to ban fossil fuels.

Geyer It’s unavoidable: we must ban fossil fuels to save our planet. Here’s how we do it. The Guardian 9 March 2021

This account does not include natural emissions, such as methane from thawing tundras or sea releases of methane as the ocean temperature warms and currents change, or the likely growing inability of natural carbon sinks to keep up the absorption – especially with growing deforestation and poisoning of the sea. So the situation is far worse than is being portrayed.

Then there is the probability problem mentioned earlier. The “two-thirds chance of limiting warming”. That is an estimate. We have no means of knowing if it is absolutely correct, as opposed to roughly correct, or not. We could have a 99% chance of avoiding the problem, and still be in the 1% range, in which factors make the temperature increase too great for stability. We might, on the other hand, be in the range of being ok, and people might bet on that unrealistically with enough incentive. In any case, a one third chance of going over 1.5 degrees, even if we beat the target, is not small.

The only accurate model of a complex system is the system itself, and we don’t know exactly what will happen until it happens. So we are left with a guess, and the high probability of bad results given that events seems to be getting worse rapidly – although people will acclimatise rapidly to the idea of circumnavigating the north pole, changes in temperature, raging bushfires: “They always happen”.

Furthermore, the figures do not seem easily stable. The ACT/Climate Change Council brochure “What is a Carbon Budget” factors in some of the figures, bypassed in the Guardian report:

The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates7 [in 2013] that for at least a 66% chance of staying below 2°C, total GHG emissions must be less than 1000 billion tonnes of carbon.

We have already ‘spent’ about 585 billion tonnes (also referred to as gigatonnes) of carbon (Gt C), which reduces the remaining carbon budget to about 415 Gt C. Then we need to account for the other GHGs, principally nitrous oxide and methane. If we don’t reduce them at the same rate as we reduce carbon dioxide we’ll have less of the budget—about 210 Gt C less—to still ‘spend’. That leaves about 205 Gt C. The current rate of emissions of carbon dioxide is about 10 Gt C per year, so at present rates this remaining budget would be used by about 2040…..

As the Earth warms, the oceans and land are no longer able to absorb the same fraction of our carbon emissions that they can at lower levels of warming, an effect due to ‘carbon cycle feedbacks.’ Combining scientific estimates of this effect by two independent groups [9 , 10] indicates that the budget previously calculated must be revised downward by about 75 Gt C. This leaves a remaining carbon budget for keeping global temperature within 2°C at 130 Gt C.

What is a Carbon Budget 2018 p.5.

So what do we emit? There is a big difference between 40Gt and 10 Gt. There is a similarity to the figures, but even so, the second model seems far more urgent, because it includes factors left out of the first.

However the models available to us apparently differ considerably, which is inevitable when modelling complex systems (to repeat: the only accurate model of a complex system is the system itself), and that is a problem for knowing how desperate we should be. We have to accept that we don’t know for sure – we only know in general that the situation seems bad. It is of course comforting to use the margin for error to assume we are better off than we are, and that seems to be the common response.

In dealing with complex systems we have to recognise that certainty is gone, and was only ever illusory in the first place.

This is an official summary article, which gets referred to frequently, and which I found incredibly confusing – I would suggest it was not written to be approachable. It was of no immediate use to me – although Forbes tells me it says:

The world has 8% of carbon budget left, which will be exhausted in the coming decade at current emission rates. Any rise beyond this budget would mean that average global temperatures would go over 1.5 deg C at the turn of the century which could lead to catastrophic changes. 

Shetty World Is Set To Exhaust Carbon Budget In 10 Years. Forbes 11 December 2020 [Emphasis added]

To be repetitious again: we may not have to exceed this budget to exceed a 1.5 degree increase in temperature. It is fairly likely before that level and gets more and more likely as we reach or exceed that level.

The same source says 34 Gt of CO2 were added to the atmosphere in 2020. They add that to increase the likelihood that:

average global temperature does not rise beyond 1.5 deg C by the turn of this century, global carbon emissions will have to be cut by 25% to 50% between 2020 and 2030, predict various climate models.

Shetty World Is Set To Exhaust Carbon Budget In 10 Years. Forbes 11 December 2020

You will probably have noted that one of the sources quoted states, that factoring in all the other problems, we cannot emit more than a total of 130GtCO2 to keep temperature below 2 degrees increase. That implies we have to cut 34 Gt per year significantly now. This is a huge variance in how fast we should move. Again it is comforting to think we can get by at the high end of the emissions, and that is probably the approach that will be taken.

Further more, the article actually makes the elementary mistake of writing “to ensure that the average global temperature does not rise beyond 1.5 deg C…” This is rubbish, for the reasons we have previously discussed. People are routinely turning probabilistic statements into hard category statements probably to reassure themselves. Again we have differences in the models, some require bigger cuts, some may require lesser cuts. We need to ask ourselves and our governments and businesses, whether it is sensible to risk the lesser cuts being appropriate, because we are dealing with probabilities not certainties.

Carbon budgets seem to be used to reassuringly play down the problem.

However, despite these problems, carbon budgets can suggest useful and direct action, unlike carbon intensity figures which can hide how things are getting worse. So they probably are better tools than the intensity measures.

For example, the UKs new carbon budget (issued December 2020), clearly states:

Our recommended pathway requires a 78% reduction in UK territorial emissions between 1990 and 2035. In effect, bringing forward the UK’s previous 80% target by nearly 15 years.

UK Sixth Carbon Budget

They Recommend:

  1. Phasing out high Carbon options, such as cars, trucks and boiler heaters. “By 2040 all new trucks are low-carbon. UK industry shifts to using renewable electricity or hydrogen instead of fossil fuels, or captures its carbon emissions, storing them safely under the sea.” [The capturing is fantasy, and clearly dangerous, how would you know if these emissions were leaking? But the principle seems straight-forward.]
  2. UK electricity production should be zero carbon by 2035, largely through offshore wind. They should explore hydrogen.
  3. Curb waste. Lower air traffic. Farm, and eat, less meat.
  4. Transform agriculture. Plant Trees. Biofuels. [Biofuels seem largely a fantasy as well, in terms of emissions reductions, but who knows?]

Graphs indicate an aim for zero emissions by 2050. The Conservative government possibly thinks this is practicable. especially given that most sources report dramatic falls in the UKs Carbon emissions since 1990 [1], [2], although gas largely used for heating, is now likely to get in the way, and political opposition get boosted. The UK actual emissions reductions are also better than Germanys. If the recommendations are accepted, the UK will be aiming at emissions reduction, relatively quickly, whether quickly enough is another matter.

If they do accept the recommendations then they are going first. They are not waiting for others to catch up to make it fair. They are not worrying about others taking advantage of them, they are simply setting an example. This is how things get done.

Others will follow if it works.

To someone in Australia or the US, this probably all seems unbelievable. A right wing government is taking hard action without trying to pretend everything is ok, and nothing needs to be done. They are accepting responsibility and working towards a target. They are possibly even recognising that there will be problems, and not running away from those problems. Of course, in this part of the world, it is hardly ever reported.

On top of these kinds of actions, it also seems likely that we may need technological carbon removal, although bio carbon removal, stopping deforestation and starting ecologically sensitive reforestation, would be easier. Technological removal will be massively expensive, the carbon will be hard to store or reuse, and we don’t have it, at anything like mass use – but it might be worthwhile expending public research money on it, and keeping the patents in the public domain, to make it useable. As long as it is not used to allow more fossil fuel burning then it will help.

Carbon Budget or not, the basic practice all comes to the same simple points.

  • No new coal mines. Now. No expansion of existing mines.
  • No new gas. Now.
  • No new oil. Now
  • No new fossil fuel power stations. EVER.
  • Electrify everything so it can be powered by renewables. Do the research to make this possible.
  • Replace fossil fuel burning, import and export in your own country, with Renewable Energy by 2030, whether it hurts or not, and then worry about elsewhere. It will hurt if the transition is not well planned and the open market well and transparently regulated.
  • If possible, agree on a uniform world carbon price, to help phase out fossil fuels.
  • Help workers in the fossil fuel industry gain new well paying jobs.
  • Help poorer countries get a renewable electricity infrastructure that does not belong to people overseas, so they don’t have to use coal, or get sold coal by countries wanting to exploit them.
  • Lower all forms of pollution drastically.
  • Lower the damage from extraction. Allow living resources to replace themselves.

Of course getting some countries to agree will be difficult, that is why you work in your own country first. But the more who do agree the easier it will be.

Even if this process causes a mess, which it probably will, it is better than the alternative, and we can solve the problems as we encounter them rather than declare it is all too hard in advance.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Development, Pollution and Emissions

March 10, 2021

Please note this post should make more sense, if it is read after the previous post, and the next post. The next post was supposed to be before this, but it got lost in the system.

One of the problems the world faces is that if the developing world attains the same levels of prosperity as the developed, in the same way, with the same amount of extraction damage, pollution and emissions damage per head of population as the developed world then it is extremely likely we all will suffer.

This is deeply unfair for the developing world, or the global South.

Let me be clear. The developed world, in particular, Australia (because that is where I live), should be doing far more than they are to avoid climate change and ecological destruction. There is no excuse for Australian Governmental support of fossil fuels, fossil fuel exports, land clearing, pretending bushfires are ok, and so on. Australia has one of the worst set of figures for carbon emissions per head of population, and this is without counting the emissions in coal or gas exports, or the emissions from the devastating bushfires. We are reasonably wealthy, and have plenty of room to move. We are relatively resilient.

Given this resilience and the peril, Australia should declare: No more coal mines. No more gas wells. All fossil fuel burning and exports to be phased out by 2030.

This is possibly messy and costly, but so is the alternative. All Australians, who can, need to push for action at all levels, local, State, country, and international, to help ourselves and others. This is not a secondary call to anything else.

However, while some other parts of the developed world are doing ok, most of it is not. Most of it, seems to be refusing to change, whatever the peril. We cannot wait for them to act.

Partly this politics of destruction is coming from belief in economic models which insist on eternal growth, and partly because entrenched and previously successful economic organisations and corporations have political power. These people tend to see the peril not in eco-catastrophe, but in cutting back growth and their profits, so they resist change.

Politics is part of the economy, and always will be.

This also means there is nothing unchangeable about the organisation of the economy. However, it is true, that not all organisations of the economy will work – the current one does not.

However, this post, unlike most of my others, is not about the uselessness of the developed world but about the problems of further development in the developing world, and the lack of fairness which is present, because of the urgency of change, and because the limits of the planet are now different, to what they were.

Let us be clear. Developing nations quite possibly should give themselves some leeway with emissions if they choose. That may be necessary, but the levels of leeway need to be thought out carefully.

However, the argument, which is often made by Westerners, that the developing world should be able to do as much polluting and destruction as developing authorities like, because ‘the West’ already did so, is suicidal for everyone. There is no point developing, to find it all crashes down, or your water supplies decline, land mass shrinks and people flee. Something else needs to be done, and the developed world should probably help, without telling people what should be done.

I also have to say that a moral argument of the form:

  • “Someone else did X (which is morally dubious, or physically harmful), therefore no one can protest about us doing X as well – even when it is not necessary – as we have never done it before,”

is not the most compelling moral argument I have ever heard. E.g:

  • “You guys got wealthy plundering and starving India and Africa. Now its our turn.”

Really?

[In case it needs to be said, I’m not implying anyone is making that particular argument. It is supposed to illustrate the problems with this kind of argument]

No one needs to build coal energy, or gas energy and the huge infrastructure that it requires. There are other routes.

Again, I’m not denying ‘the West’, or ‘the North’ has greater responsibility for the problem (and indeed a whole load of problems), and should get on with taking responsibility and fixing those problems as best they can, but I’m also asking everyone: “Why don’t we all pursue a different path?” “Why stay on the path of destruction?”

If we know a path will lead to death, inequality, corporate domination, destruction of land and precariousness, as well as material prosperity, why is there such a hurry to take that path, rather than to find something better?

Again it probably comes down to economic power, and conceptual difficulty.

This is one reason for setting clear targets. Faced with known, non-shifting, targets, people tend to get ingenious.

Let’s hope the ingenuity which goes beyond rule bending works quicker.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Not great news

March 1, 2021

I am simply quoting the UN NDC Synthesis Report:

The Parties’ [to the Paris Agreements total GHG emissions are, on average, estimated to be:

  • By 2025, 2.0 per cent higher than the 1990 level (13.77 Gt CO2 eq), 2.2 per cent higher than the 2010 level (13.74 Gt CO2 eq) and 0.5 per cent higher than the 2017 level (13.97 Gt CO2 eq);
  • By 2030, 0.7 per cent lower than in 1990, 0.5 per cent lower than in 2010 and 2.1 per cent lower than in 2017.

…the estimates suggest the possibility of the Parties’ emissions peaking before 2030. 

[However,]

According to the SR1.5, to be consistent with global emission pathways with no or limited overshoot of the 1.5 °C goal, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions need to decline by about 45 per cent from the 2010 level by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. For limiting global warming to below 2 °C, CO2 emissions need to decrease by about 25 per cent from the 2010 level by 2030 and reach net zero around 2070. Deep reductions are required for non-CO2 emissions as well. Thus, the estimated reductions referred to above fall far short of what is required, demonstrating the need for Parties to further strengthen their mitigation commitments under the Paris Agreement.

[The possible good news]

Many Parties provided information on long-term mitigation visions, strategies and targets for up to and beyond 2050, referring to climate neutrality, carbon neutrality, GHG neutrality or net zero emissions. Mindful of the inherent uncertainty of such long-term estimates, the information indicates that:
•The Parties’ collective GHG emission level could be 87–93 per cent lower in 2050 than in 2017;
•Their annual per capita emissions are estimated at 0.5–1.0 t CO2 eq for 2050, which is 87–93 per cent lower than for 2017, suggesting that by 2050 these per capita emissions will be within the range implied in the 2 ºC and 1.5 ºC with low overshoot scenarios in the SR1.5.

[it would be nice if they stuck with a standardised base line such as 2010 or 1990 rather than shifted about.]

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“There have been billions of years of climate change”

February 24, 2021

People quite often object to the idea of climate change, by saying that climate has always been changing. They triumphantly point out that there have been billions of years of climate change. Temperatures have been much higher than they are now and things still lived. Life will not end. Then they ask, why is it that alarmists neglect this fact?

The problem is that we ‘alarmists’ do not ignore this fact. Indeed if you believe we do, then you are probably not getting your information about alarmism from scientists. I know of no one interested in climate change who is not aware that there have been large numbers of different climates in Earth’s history and that many different kinds of creatures who have flourished or died out in these different climate regimes. No one expects life to die out completely in the current process of climate change, either.

What some people do say is that the Holocene period, which is the one in which humanity has been living, has been remarkably stable. During that stability, humans developed civilisations, which tend to fix us in place.

We currently seem to be facing a rapid period of climate change, ecological destruction and biodiversity loss; one measured in hundreds of years, not tens of thousands of years. This will almost certainly put massive stress on civilisations, the weather conditions will change, sea levels will change, water availability will change, food availability will change. As the change is rapid the chance is high that storms will increase. People will try to move from areas which no longer seem habitable to areas which do seem habitable. All of these factors will add further stress to civilisations.

So the big problem is not climate change in itself. One problem is whether it is likely that any of the current major civilisations will be able to cope with these stresses without significant social breakdown and population death. The other problem is whether any of them will do anything to significant lower the pressures, or the rate of change.

Countries are not all in a resilient place to begin with. Some civilisations may already be breaking down irrespective of climate change.

For example, many people in the US expect income and wealth inequality to grow and standards of living to continue to decline. By some accounts many of those people already suffer from unstable low incomes, food shortages, unaffordable medicine and rampant disease, and we have only just started moving into the additional problems of climate and eco-crisis. Given the US’s inability to keep its infrastructure repaired, protect its population from Covid-19 (now over half a million dead, and unknown numbers with ‘long covid’), look after people equally or rebuild after violent storms as in Puerto Rico [1], [2], or New Orleans (still), or prevent the energy consequences of a cold snap in Texas, then it seems improbable business and government will be able to cope with severe and added difficulties. They may, but it seems sensible to reduce the magnitude of the problem in advance, if that is at all possible.

Unfortunately, dealing with this change seems to threaten the power and wealth of some powerful groups of people, and they are doing their best to persuade people that it is not a problem. And they are doing this quite well. But for them its not a problem, they figure the ordinary folks will be the ones that suffer, and they can ride it out. They have wealth, they can buy violent protection, they can buy technology that will keep them safe. They may be even be correct, but do you want to sacrifice yourself, your friends and family to preserve these people’s power?

We can stick with helping the crisis to happen if we want, or we can ‘do the research’ overcome the misinformation being distributed, and try to think of solutions. If you really do think that people who are worried about climate change never consider that climate change has occurred in the past, then you might also want to think about why the people giving you your information about climate change alarmists are lying, and why.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Weather, Climate, Climate Change

February 16, 2021

The difference between weather and climate is important, but trends in weather can be symptomatic of climate change. While one day of cold does not mean climate is cooling and one hot day does not mean climate is warming, if the trend is that average temperatures keep increasing, and do not decrease or return to whatever your normal is defined as, or go beneath that normal, then you are possibly observing climate change in the form of global warming.

If it turns out you have warming averages over a period of 50 years or so, and most of the hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the last 20 years, then you can go and look to see if you have confirmatory evidence of climate warming.

  • You might look to see if glaciers are contracting, which they seem to be.
  • Polar ice caps also seem to be shrinking or thinning, so much so that people are even talking about sailing near the north pole.
  • Hot days seem to be more frequent and are coming in strings rather than as disconnected events.
  • Days over 45 degrees C might have once been rare but are now not that rare and come together. You may even see days of 50 degrees which previously did not occur.
  • Droughts seem to be increasing in hotter areas of the world.
  • We have forest fires all over the world which are often described by fire fighters as unprecedented, and previously rare fire behaviours seem to be becoming more common (at least they are where I live).
  • Some forests which we don’t think have burned for thousands of years have burnt, even if they were isolated from other fires.
  • Coral reefs are suffering large scale bleaching, almost certainly from heat.
  • Tropical fish are reportedly moving away from the equator…

If you look you may find further evidence suggestive of climate change.

Then you might ask what evidence is there for the idea that climate change is not happening? Is there any evidence of increasing cold, more glaciation and so on? Is there evidence climate is not changing, other than assertions climate scientists are lying, because it cannot be true. Not very much I can see, but you would expect some uneven weather behaviour given weather is a complex system.

To me, it looks as though global warming is occurring. The next question is, “Is this a problem?”

Some people may assert that heat is good. Well yes it is, up to a point. Humans find it difficult to work outdoors when its over 45 degrees C, they are also more likely to die of heat stroke. Extreme heat usually means that water evaporates and goes somewhere else. Some rainfalls will decline, some will increase. That does not mean the change will be good. Humans only flourish within a relatively small temperature range. Deserts, hot or cold, are not easy to survive in, although people can if they have the right tech for a while.

More carbon dioxide might increase some plant growth, but it also harms some plant growth, it’s not simple, it may even depend on other factors such as soil nitrogen content. But even if it was simple, it is unlikely that plant growth will solve the problem of climate change, or increase food production by enough to compensate for the loss elsewhere, especially if the heat is killing the plants. Eventually evolution will sort this out. Plants will change, but that will take a long time.

More heat will almost certainly increase methane release from under frozen tundras, and this will add to the quick warming effects. It will compound the problem

Is Climate Change serious? I happen to think so, because rapid changes in complex systems generally produce wild instabilities as the systems attempt to find equilibrium amidst the disruption. Weather can be very destructive. Human societies seem to have collapsed previously with even mild changes of climate, so we need to exhibit care, not pretense that nothing important is happening, however nice it might be if nothing was happening.

We can predict global warming would happen as greenhouse gases increase. Indeed people have predicted this for a long while.

As far as I can see there is no real alternate explanations which check out (at the moment).

If the warming is created by the increase in greenhouse gas, there is no reason to expect that the trend of warming is going to go away without action to reduce those gases.

Therefore it seems sensible to me, to reduce those gases if at all possible, and reduce them quickly, before we get truly disastrous levels of climate change and have no hope of calming the system.

While other events could possibly happen and we could thrive under global warming, it seems foolish to depend on those other unlikely, and unforeseen, events happening.

It also seems likely that reducing fossil fuel use may well have other pleasant consequences. Fewer people might die of poisoning and particulate pollution. Less ecological damage would need to be repaired. Life would be cleaner. So why not embrace the challenge of dealing with the problem rather than running away from it?

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Directed Skepticism Summarised

December 2, 2020

I want to return to a form of skepticism, which seems common in the contemporary world, which does not seem skeptical at all to me, and just summarise the other rather long articles on this blog [1], [2], [3], [4].

I’ve called it ‘directed skepticism’.

in its simplest form it appears as “I am a real skeptic. I am skeptical about everything, but I cannot speak to anyone who is skeptical of my positions, as those positions are true, and any skeptics of those positions are stupid and immoral.”

Another possible way of phrasing this view is:

“I do not like this information. It is unpleasant. It comes from someone I justifiably do not like or am suspicious of. I am very skeptical of it. I’m a real skeptic.”

The above statement then often seems to be followed by another implied statement of the form:

“This information I do like. It supports my side of politics. It is reassuring. It comes from someone I like. Therefore it is probably true. I’m still a skeptic, because if I can be convinced its false, then I never really believed it in the first place, even if I’m likely to believe it again if I hear it from another source I like. I’m always skeptical of its refutation, or of the good intentions of those who disagree. I am a real skeptic.”

In general, people might say they are skeptical because they use their senses but, in effect, often what they are saying cannot come ‘directly from their senses’ as the subject being discussed is too big for overall perception, and too slow for the changes to be perceptible, as with climate change, pandemics, the cause of wars etc..

In these cases, our perception is likely to be mediated by what we have heard from others, no matter how much we insist on our independent thinking. That is, what we think is opinion, not knowledge to use an old (and probably largely invalid) distinction. We only have hypothesis.

This might all sound like caricature, but lets look at a few situations….

Climate change.

It seems common for people to say that they are skeptical of climate change. They may even allege that it is obvious that climate change is not a problem, or that climate scientists are lying.

We could allege that the idea that one’s own ‘side’ is undermining one’s life and the life of our children is difficult. It is far more comfortable to believe climate change is not real, than that our imagined allies are killing us (deliberately or not). However, a skeptic might be skeptical about the idea that our side cannot be harmful to us….

I personally do not know how the fakery and harmlessness of climate change could be obvious. Climate change is a big phenomena. No one can observe directly everything relevant that is happening, so it seems odd for a skeptic not to accept even the possibility that climate scientists may be persuaded by the evidence, or the cumulation of evidence, even if they are still mistaken. Whether it is wise to assume they must be mistaken is another question.

However, those people skeptical of the information and motives presented by climate scientists often appear to have little skepticism about the information and motives of the people on youtube or in the ‘mainstream media’ or in their favoured political party who tell them there is ‘no problem’ or that it is ‘not that bad’, or that ‘we can solve it through [imaginary??] technology’.

The ‘skeptical’ person may argue that the consequences of climate change are bad for the economy, and we should therefore be skeptical of those actions and keep the economy going as we need it, and let the free market sort it all out. With this argument, there is no obvious skepticism directed at the idea that the free market will be able to solve all problems. This is not obvious. It would appear to be a dogma. IThe skeptic is showing no skepticism of the idea we need an economy which is destructive to us, or of the motives of those promoting this idea.

It may be that the people telling the ‘skeptics’ there is nothing to worry about are not climate scientists, and have no apparent long-term experience with the issue. These people may still be right, and climate scientists wrong, but it is not inherently likely that this is the case. It is possible, but are non-climate scientists the best people to trust? Can we be skeptical about deciding that people who are not climate scientists must know much more about climate than all those people who have spent years studying the subject? This is skepticism of non-climate scientists is generally not allowed by climate skeptics.

Acceptance of the ‘no case’ case also tends to demand acceptance of the idea that climate scientists are conspiring, or that science is now completely corrupt (when it conflicts with the skeptics dogma). Is it clearly the case that a world wide conspiracy of climate scientists and leftist politicians is more plausible than a conspiracy involving some fossil fuel companies (who directly benefit from ignoring climate change), and some rightwing media and politicians. If it is not clearly the case, then this could sound like choosing to believe what is comforting.

In my experience, directed skeptics may refer to scientific papers as evidence for their view, which they may not have read, as often the papers do not appear to say what they say they say, or perhaps they just wanted to hear something nice which confirms their skepticism.

The skepticism appears to be entirely directed at justifying a particular point of view. It is not applied evenly to the person’s own positions.

Covid

The same appears to be true of Covid. I, at least, met many people skeptical that Covid is real or dangerous. Diagnosing a new disease, and predicting its trajectory, is difficult. It is another process which seems beyond our direct sense perception – we cannot perceive every virus, and every infected person, all over the world as these develop. So there is every reason for being skeptical of the proposition that we know everything we should know, or need to know, about the disease. It could be something we can adapt to painlessly after a while.

However again, these directed skeptics seem largely unskeptical of people who say its a hoax, or a summer flu, or that the death figures for the US are made up, possibly by doctors to get money or to allow Joe Biden to form a dictatorship. Why should we not be equally skeptical of Trump’s claims that covid would just go away, and that it would disappear after the election, when there was no evidence of this at the time.?


Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump·

ALL THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IS COVID, COVID, COVID. ON NOVEMBER 4th, YOU WON’T BE HEARING SO MUCH ABOUT IT ANYMORE. WE ARE ROUNDING THE TURN!!!

Twitter

These people may quote doctors worried that long term lock-down will probably have some bad psychological and health effects for some people, as being evidence that Covid is not really a problem, or that dealing with Covid is worse than ignoring it. Another conclusion might be more like recognising that doctors may well be right that there are problems with lock-downs, and these problems should not be ignored.

Again the skepticism seems to be directed at a particular and reassuring result – we are safe all of our family is safe, and the people we support are not sacrificing us.

News

I often seem to be being told that I should not rely on ‘mainstream media’ for political news. This seems good advice as again I cannot observe everything that happens politically as it happens (and I would need to interpret what is happening anyway, direct perception is limited), and the mainstream media has similar limited perception and comprehension. It also probably displays political and other bias, most likely in favour of its corporate or billionaire owners and advertisers. However, it then seems these people assume that Fox or Breitbart or some youtube channel, that appear to have noticeable political slants, can be trusted most of the time and despite their size and influence are not mainstream, corporately controlled media. This is odd. Surely these news sources are at least equally worthy of skepticism?

Elections

We are currently being told at great volume that we should be skeptical of the US Presidential election results (not the House or Senate results, only the Presidential election results). This is also worthy of skepticism.

Election results are often not representative. Electorates can be gerrymandered. Attempts at fairness, or unfairness, can mean particular parts of the population get more representatives than other parts of the population, as when smaller population states get to elect more members per head than do large population states. Small margins in some electorates can change the result of a whole election, which might otherwise have gone another way. People can be turned away from polling booths, some sections of the population can be disenfranchised by what could look like reasonable political action, voting machines could be hacked. There may be attempts to stop mail in voting, or pre-poll voting. ‘The people’ may not be as binary as the major parties claim. Voters can be ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘socialist’ and not support all the policies of the party they vote for. There is even a social theorem which states that a fair and rational voting scheme is impossible.

The idea that political parties in government always represent the ‘general will’ (or something) and have a ‘mandate’ to do whatever they like, deserves skepticism as few people are likely voting for everything the party has proposed or might propose in the future.

However, in this current case, we are just being asked to be skeptical about the voting system being accurate, and policed, enough to award Donald Trump the victory.

We are furthermore being asked to be unskeptical of a person who argued that he could only loose if the other side cheated. We are to be unskeptical that this person has good evidence of cheating which they have so far refused to present in court, where it can be tested, and perjury can be penalised. We are asked to be unskeptical of claims that the majority result of the vote must be wrong by close to 8 million. We are being asked not to consider whether the known frauds were equally, or even majorly, Republican attempts at cheating. We also have recounts which have not changed the results, and the Attorney General, who appeared to have misrepresented the Mueller report in favour of the President, also states there is no evidence of fraud. But we still have to remain unskeptical of a person who does not have a reputation for peacefully going down, or telling the truth.

At the moment, given who is alleging the claims of truly massive cheating, it would seem ‘rational’ to be skeptical of those claims. Especially given that he appears to want to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands (to millions?) of voters by not counting their votes, in order to win.

Conclusion

These directed skeptics, do not appear to have a sense that skepticism which is only directed in one direction is not skepticism – it is a form of belief which refuses to test its own desired truths.

In this case, directed skepticism seems to be being used to further particular dogmas.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Podcast

November 8, 2020

On climate change and psychology

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The recognisable stages of capitalism

September 21, 2020

Capitalism is not the same everywhere, but in the English speaking world it has a number of stages, which might be described as: Theft and Conquest; Consolidation and Worker’s Rise; People’s Capitalism; Plutocracy and; Crisis and Fascism. All the stages can overlap, and they may not always appear in sequence.

People’s capitalism’ is probably one of the better forms of social life. Certainly it is better than militarism, theocracy, complete state control over everything. However, pro-corporate capitalist writers tend to move from this relative fact to insisting that capitalism is without significant flaws in every stage, and thus should be left alone.

If left alone, then capitalism will nearly always become rule of the rich, or plutocracy. The theory of this is easy to understand. In capitalism, wealthy people are seen as virtuous and have status. They are largely admired for their success. Wealthy people also have much larger amounts of disposable wealth than ‘ordinary people’. Wealthy people can easily team up and promote legislation which supports what they see as their interests, without much opposition. They can buy politicians. They can buy laws and lawyers. They can buy “think tanks”. They control information through owning and controlling the media, large and small. Smallness of media is no guarantee of accuracy, or liberty from the control of wealth.

In capitalism, there is no source of power which cannot be bought from violence to religion. Consequently, wealth is the source of nearly all power, and of all differences in power. Wealth is used to support the wealthy and hinder anyone else from challenging them. This is quite natural. This does not mean there are no factions amongst the wealthy; some, for example, may have more sense of obligation to those ‘beneath them’ than others, but because the wealthy control the sources of information, these differences may be hard to detect accurately.

It seems fairly obvious, that regulation favouring established wealth will not always work out well for everyone. It will have unintended and harmful consequences. It can stop the best part of capitalism, namely the ability of new success to tear down the old wealth and power establishment, and set up new businesses, new technologies and new business models.

In plutocratic capitalism, owners, high level executives and directors tend to know each other, and support each other, and engineer the distribution of wealth, so having contacts rather than talent is rewarded. Established companies tend to receive heaps of taxpayers’ money during a crisis to bail them out and keep them running. They can also receive more favourable regulations, or lessening of regulation. That appears to be what is happening in the Covid crisis – especially with fossil fuel companies. In the financial crisis of 2007-8 there was plenty of money to bail out financial corporations, but very little to bail out ordinary people who had taken fraudulent, or entrapping, loans. Wealthy capitalists were protected from the consequences of their actions – and some parties claimed those companies receiving bailouts should not have to pay any of the gifted taxpayers’ money back.

In this plutocratic stage, it often happens that new industries which challenge established ones are regulated out of existence by established wealth, or find it much harder to operate than they should. Sometimes, as with large stores, established business can effectively use their market power to stop small business from being economic. Hence the crisis in small business today.

If there is a real crisis which will not fix itself profitably (such as ecological exhaustion, serious pandemic, decline of an important resource, massive inflation, stagflation etc), and the State is supposedly democratic, then many of the established wealthy groups tend to abandon any restraint in attempting to preserve their power and wealth.

They may attempt to split ordinary people by encouraging hatreds amongst the population, scapegoating minorities, misdirecting people’s anger against the wealthy into support for the wealthy, encouraging police violence and so on. They may find a nice demagogue – that is, a highly persuasive and unprincipled person – who will say anything to take lead of the State – with the violence against dissent getting more and more intense as this leader solidifies their power.

This is the beginning of fascism. Fascist processes are encouraged as an attempt to provide stability for a form capitalism in crisis. While the fascists build on the power of wealth at the beginning of their moves, they slowly take it over, usually through violence from the party and its militias. Some of the established wealthy manage to accommodate to the fascists. However, along with the scapegoats, some of the established wealthy people get eliminated, or realise they have stuffed it badly for themselves. But most of the wealthy were never in favour of democracy anyway, as it disrupts their power and their freedom, and they prefer the apparent discipline of fascism, the suppression of unpleasant opposition and the appearance of a solution to their problems, which should not cost them anything.

So there is a tendency for capitalism to end in violence when it hits a crisis, especially a crisis that capitalism generates itself – such as the increasing ecological crisis.

Violence is no stranger to capitalism. Some people argue that capitalism always grows out of violence and theft. For example, European and American capitalism, grew out of violent conquest, slavery, murder, dispossession of people from their lands (not only in America, Australia, India and Africa, but in the UK as well), the destruction of land, stripping wealth and resources from countries, the imposition of drug addiction in China by gunboats, and so on. It was an easy form of accumulation which provided some people with capital which they could use to start up business.

This violent theft gets legitimated, and turned into property by the plunderer’s influence in the State which made laws justifying the theft, or because this wealth collection is part of a State project to begin with. Sometimes State armies are used against people who protest against any of this. This period was not pleasant for those people who suffered and died to make capitalism successful.

Capitalism only seems peaceful because, over generations, people forget the violence, and people are not reminded by the capitalist owned media about the violence in their history, or the violence that is going on now. You have to do that research for yourselves. The point is that the capitalist wealthy are already used to violence, or ignoring their violence, and the violence of fascism can seem necessary if it seems to be protecting them from risk.

If the wealthy go the fascist way, then eventually the fascist leader, they have promoted or supported, becomes dictator and leads the country to war to gain new resources, to build the people’s loyalty and because the fascist rulers enjoy violence. That usually results in collapse, as the country extends beyond its military capacity, and generates more and more opposition from other powers.

So the major cycle goes: capitalism is born in plunder and dispossession, leading to massive wealth inequalities, which leads to plutocracy which aims to preserve the power and wealth inequalities. Plutocracy plus crisis leads to fascism, which usually leads to war and suffering for most people.

This cycle, can in theory be interrupted, by ‘people’s capitalism’, or to be more dramatic ‘socialist capitalism’ as found in the Nordic States or in the UK after the Second World war. People’s capitalism seems relatively precarious. It arises through political action from ordinary people, not through economic necessity, and is vulnerable if the wealthy decide that they have nothing to fear from the people.

Historically, it began to arise towards the end of the 19th Century, when workers began to organise and demanded better wages and conditions. Capitalists feared communist revolution – the “spectre haunting Europe”. As a result, a kind of truce occurred in the capitalist west in which wealth was somewhat shared, people got educated, the State became mildly helpful to everyone and protected people (to some extent) from misfortune. Ordinary people began to prosper a little, and social mobility increased.

The more that people share the wealth being produced, and the more governments act to help people to get opportunity and advancement, hinder the powers of corporations to exploit or poison people, set up competition to capitalist activities, and break up capitalist monopolies (or duopolies), then the longer capitalism will work and the people flourish.

This movement heightened after World War II and between the 1950s to 1970s capitalism was pretty good for most people, and it seemed to be steadily improving.

However with the collapse of the threat of revolution with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the wind down of worker organisation, plutocracy has been growing again. This plutocracy grew along with intense talk of free markets, attempts to destroy unions, and largely successful attempts to stop people from having much control over corporate activity as it interfered with the ‘free market’. Neoliberals successfully promoted the idea that the economy was the most important thing in life.

Given the many crises we face, the corporate world now seems to be heading for fascism again to preserve its wealth and power in the face of those crises. The choice is pretty clear. If, at this moment, a party supports action against the ecological crisis then it is probably not fascist. If it supports action which opposes ecological action or allows pollution to get worse, it probably is supporting the current set up at all cost, and will ultimately become fascist if it is not already.

It should not be a surprise that most pro-capitalist analyses of capitalism, such a neoclassical economics, or Austrian economics, tend to ‘forget’ the importance of accumulating differences in wealth and success, how this ends ‘free markets’, and the class politics involved in attempting to maintain, or lessen, that difference. Both of these factors are essential to understanding how the system works in the long term.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »