Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Decline of the West 07: A typology of problems

August 15, 2021

This leads to a possible typology of problems – there is no need to assume a problem is of only one type. They can be of multiple types.

1) Normal Engineering problems

With apologies to engineers. These are the kinds of problems, where people have a standard method for producing solutions which testably work, and a standard solution set (such as roads, tunnels, bridges, buildings etc). The environment may be complicated, but its not over-complex. It is a matter of solving a series of relatively simple problems. There is little political disagreement which has to be factored in to the solving; although there may be politics about whether the project should go ahead, who is employed to do it and so on, but these arguments do not affect the project. It is just a matter of achieving the aims of the project, and there is large agreement about how that should be done, and that process generally works.

2) Stretched Engineering problems

These are problems in which the solvers may be using new materials, lacking perfect resources, or having to build something slightly outside of normal. The problems may be difficult, and failure is possible, but there is an agreed set of knowledge and procedures to build upon. Surprise, within limits is acceptable, and largely predictable.

After these kinds of problems we hit problems with large disruptive social, or ecological, components.

3) Problems that regularly affect individuals and cannot be solved so far

There are problems which haunt human existence like death. They may affect large numbers of people, but not all at the same time, and the problem is normal and ongoing. Obviously if the death rate rapidly, or noticeably increases that turns this kind of problem into another kind of problem.

4) Problems which primarily afflict the powerless, and the powerful have no incentive to care, or see the problem.

Things like class based hunger, poverty, racial or sexual discrimination, etc. Society is often organised so pollution is dumped on poorer people, and the rich don’t notice it, as they do not travel in those regions, or they can blame those living in those regions for the mess: “how could they live like that?”.

Problems often have a political or economic aspect which makes them worse, and harder to solve.

5) Problems which are generated by the previous solutions to problems, and which appear to have brought what we consider success

Development and capitalism appear to bring about ecological damage at greater rates than ecologies can repair. This is a cause of climate change. Not only success, but wealth and power have been built around these solutions, and this makes it hard to change. It is harder to change the more the elites become smaller, control ideas and prevent new strategies from arising. What will happen if we change is unknown and feared by those elites.

6) Problems for some, which may help others

Freedom from responsibility for pollution, industrial accidents, workplace deaths help increase the profits and success of those who so not see themselves as being at risk of being affected.

On the other hand, trying to solve problems of oppression frequently brings problems for those who previously benefitted, or thought they might benefit from that oppression.

7) Largely preventable problems which are just accepted as part of life

To some extent things like traffic accidents. Gun deaths in the US. Homelessness. Again the cost of fixing them may affect people who cannot be bothered, or who profit from the status quo.

8) Compounding problems

Where one problem makes another worse. For example, it costs money to fix something, and we may not have that money, or it may need to be spent elsewhere. This then allows problems to accumulate, get worse and cost more money. Climate change is such a problem. The longer we leave it, because its too expensive to fix, the worse the damage and decline becomes, and the less spare finance we have to fix it.

9) Wicked Problems.

Problems arising in complex systems, may not appear to be the same problem from different perspectives. There is no definitive knowledge. There may be no easy solution, and it may be hard to recognise when the problem is solved. Solutions may cause other problems. The problems, and solutions, may spill from one field to another. We cannot test the solution before we start using it. Wicked problems are to a degree unique, there is nothing quite like them that we have faced before. There are political struggles which are affected by the most likely solutions.

For example: Climate change is a wicked eco-social problem. We do not understand societies and ecologies very well. They are interconnected. Different people see the problems differently. Stopping fossil fuel burning could cause economic collapse. Continuing fossil fuel burning could cause economic collapse. Ecological collapse makes dealing with climate change more difficult. In general we do not know what side effects our solutions will have before we apply them. Fossil fuel companies don’t want to stop making money from what they know how to do, and have a lot of capital invested in fossil fuel infrastructure which could become valueless, if a solution is found. Politics is geared to support established business, and is generally highly influenced by established business or power centres – there is a high risk in going against that business.

10) Climactic Problems

Problems which have the possibility of destroying any capacity to solve other major problems. These are problems that change everything, and have no precedent in the people involved’s experience. Climate change could be such a problem if it is not solved, so could collapse of the US or British State for people in those countries, a huge meteor strike, the rapid end of oil supplies with no alternatives, etc., but a classic example would be nuclear war. These are problems which need to be prevented from occurring or circumvented, as much as is possible.

11) Ameliorable but non solvable problems

It is possible Covid is now such a problem. That is, it has become a problem which can be made worse or made a little more endurable. It cannot be solved. If states, politicians and big business had not run away from the issue, then it may have been containable, or even solvable, in that sense it was a compounding problem. Given enough time, humans may adapt to live with the disease.

In general

We always need to look for obstacles to problem solving as they are part of the problems we face.

Power and Wealth

Obviously, one of the arguments being presented here is that established patterns of wealth and power can obstruct problem solving, and even depend for their ‘success’ on the problems those patterns generate, not only because those patterns support hierarchies and privilege of various types, but because those patterns have previously (under different circumstances), generated solutions for previous problems.

New strategies for attaining or retaining power can also involve ignoring, dismissing or generating problems.

Arguments over whether the problem is solved.

Whether a problem is solved or swept under the carpet, can be a cause of political fights, as people try to demonstrate they did the best they could, or that they solved the issue and other people disrupted the solution.

Sometimes the fights over the solution, can be more disruptive than the problem.

It is useful to have some kind of agreed benchmark, to say whether the problem is solved. It may be discovered that the benchmark was not adequate, but that is another problem that calls for new agreed benchmarks… However, if agreement cannot be reached, then the problem may become unsolvable, or never be recognised as solved, as it is clearly caught in some kind of social struggle.

STEEPLE

This is simply a mnemonic, a memory prod, to suggest that it is good to get an idea of the contexts of your problem. These contexts will almost certainly involve the following kinds of issues

  • Sociological
  • Technological
  • Ecological
  • Economic
  • Political
  • Legal
  • Ethical

This is just a list. It is supposed to be an aid, not a delimiter of all you might have to look at.

Ambiguity

Complexity implies the world is necessarily ambiguous.

If you look at a situation from one way, you might perceive X, looked at another way you might perceive Y. The different perspectives might not be limited by two – difference can go on to Z to A etc… This is what ‘ambiguity’ means. Politics and ethics exist because of ambiguity.

The different perspectives may conflict and staying with that conflict might give a more real perspective on the situations.

Accepting ambiguity, allows you to be open to more of reality and be less likely to be taken by surprise.

For example: you can see that tackling climate change quickly may lead to economic disadvantage, it may lead to collapse. If you don’t deal with it quickly, it may also lead to collapse. In each case the collapse may affect different people. If you try to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, where do you get the energy to build the renewables from? If you keep burning fossil fuels what levels of disaster are you heading for? What else needs to change to end ecological destruction?

This recognition of ambiguity and conflicting priorities can be overwhelming, but its real. And it allows a recognition that if we are to live with or halt climate change, we might have to change a great deal more than we want to at this moment.

It also lets us know the path is not going to be smooth, or unresisted. In some ways it is as rational to resist traumatic change, as it is to negotiate it. We don’t know what will happen.

Ambiguity is a problem, but it is a real problem, and it does not help to suppress it and try to make the world process unrealistically simple.

Some problems are urgent but even so

It is usually beneficial to take some time to find out information, although you may not be able to find all the information.

It is often beneficial to pause.

It is often beneficial to observe your dreams and spontaneous images.

It is often beneficial to listen to the world.

It is often beneficial to try things out while being prepared to abandon them if they don’t work.

Decline of the West 06: Rise of Authoritarianism

August 15, 2021

The trend towards authoritarianism, or increasing authoritarianism throughout the world, seems to be noticed by quite a lot of people. Of course it may be exaggerated, but nevertheless marked countries include:

Hungary, Brazil, Russia, China (especially Hong Kong), Venezuela, Cambodia, The Philippines, Myanmar, Turkey, Syria, India etc. I’m sure any reader can find more.

Democracy under Siege

What’s Driving the Rise of Authoritarianism and Populism in Europe and Beyond?

Authoritarian Regimes Seek To Take Advantage of the Coronavirus Pandemic – Center for American Progress

The real reason authoritarian populism is on the rise: it’s simple

The rise and rise of Australian authoritarianism

Whether we think the US is headed that way, or not, is obviously a matter for dispute. I hope I am wrong but many features of authoritarian, neo-fascist rhetoric seem to be becoming more popular in the US, including undermining electoral processes and complete contempt for disagreement.

This is a list of why people might think the Right in the US has fascistic tendencies:

  • Denial of reality in favor of ideology. Climate change, Covid, economics, history…. The hallmark of authoritarian parties is to attack knowledge, and enthusiastically accept the party’s declarations of what is true. Nothing is to get in the way of the party and its power.
  • Destruction of polite discourse
  • Attack and slur those who disagree with Republican Machine. This is joined with continuously shouting, rude, name calling media, which attempts to work up anger and contempt to get people unable to think rationally, and which attempts to scare people off other people, so they don’t get other perspectives and they keep the shouty media prosperous.
  • Support for Moral dogmatism – unless the party breaks the morals, in which case it is ok (massive double standards). The party is always morally correct, and those opposed to the party are evil.
  • Insist that religion is part of the State, and largely support autocratic and dogmatic religion that essentially worships neoliberalism or submission to Mammon, if you are more biblically oriented. In return, this religion gives Republicans the claim they are always doing God’s work and that opponents are devils, and thus treatable with contempt and hostility.
  • People are to be taught that not having the official sexual orientation approved by Republicans will not only lead to social disapproval but hellfire. The Republicans are watching to make sure you meet their conditions of sex virtue.
  • The Republican machines’ idea seems to be not to have discussion, or investigate truth but to manufacture enemies and obliterate them. This has been their policy for years. This is now unnoticeable by most Republicans; its become normal Sadly after years of being abused, the mainstream left has now joined in, although they still appear to largely try and present evidence rather than commonsense slurs.
  • Manufacture of immoral enemies.
  • Republican cultivation of largely powerless enemies, who they can damn. Black people, feminists, professors etc… They ignore the largely powerful social groups such as the wealth elites, which they support. If Republicans attack wealth elites then they attack those who are outsiders, self-made, and who might indicate capitalism needs some fixing up (like Soros).
  • Pretend that any opposition to them is ungodly, communist, socialist whatever, something that is widely disliked even though people are not familiar with it. When it should be clear all opposition is not like this; it can be pro-liberty, pro-responsibility, pro-capitalist, Christian and so on – like mainstream Democrats.
  • Attempt to cancel any known person who protests against their ideology, like trying to drive people who ‘take the knee’ out of a job. Threaten scientists and academics when they don’t praise Republican ideology.
  • Purge the party of those who oppose the leader. Threaten people in the party who claim the elections where not fraudulent.
  • The Republican ideal seems to be to generate irreconcilable polarity, with them on top as the good. There are no shades of grey, and nothing to be learnt from the others.
  • Find minority scapegoats
  • No matter what happens the Republican Machine is never wrong and failure always comes about because of others. Preferably relatively powerless others. Republicans rarely take responsibility for mistakes.
  • Deny that racism, or sexism, is a problem at all, unless it is black racism towards whites, or women being hostile to men. Those positions are apparently common, terrible and unfair. In other words blame the relatively powerless for their problems or for drawing attention to their problems, and proclaim the dominant are superior.
  • Appear to approve of minorities getting shot. Cheer police who murder people. Show no sympathy towards the manufactured enemies, because obliterating enemies is the way to go.
  • Support police violence against peaceful demonstrators and violent demonstrators unless the demonstrators are pro-Reublican in which case… the police become left-wing activists or something, who need to be tossed aside and abused. Something similar happens to James Comey.
  • Argue that if you purge the country of ‘illegals’ then everything will be ok.
  • Support for real and dominant elites
  • Support the wealth elites through regulation, through tax cuts, through making sure tax payer’s wealth gets transferred upwards. Make life precarious for people in general, and use the anger at that precarity to impose more neoliberal reforms that shaft people even more.
  • Sacrifice people to the economy and the prosperity of the wealth elites.
  • Regulate the economy so it is easier for the wealth elites to harm and hurt ordinary people, and make even more money to protect themselves from ordinary people. For example, free up pollution.
  • Support profit seeking as a primary virtue, so the wealth elites appear to become elites through wonderful virtues and abilities (unless of course they publicly wonder about neoliberalism, in which case they can be denounced until they learn to shut up).
  • Pretend vastly unequal shares of wealth do not produce vast inequalities of power or worth, or shape policies.
  • Support any Authority with the right ideology (Orban, Bolsonaro, Putin).
  • Support for a fraudulent and lying leader and suppression of democratic process.
  • Support a leader who has a long record of lying and convictable fraud. And insist that he is well intentioned and telling the truth, and that people who don’t agree are mentally sick enemies.
  • Refuse to allow evidence to be presented for impeachment cases and refuse calls for the Leader to testify – twice.
  • Label any attempt to investigate the Leader’s behavior a witch hunt, despite having carried out far more strenuous investigations against supposed Republican enemies over years and years.
  • Ignore evidence of the leader’s repeated attempts to obstruct justice, as the leader can do no wrong.
  • Try and steal elections, largely by lying and threat. The main evidence apparently being what the leader with a history of lying and fraud tells you, even after he has failed in 60+ lawsuits to demonstrate a sliver of relevant evidence.
  • Support the leader even when, in private, he has tried to persuade governors to find votes for him, and has requested the DOJ to proclaim the election a fraud and leave the rest to him – again with no evidence.
  • Support a leader who appears to use a 4th July speech to denounce his perceived internal enemies.
  • Support a leader when you know he has tried to use Russian forces to discredit his opposition – the Trump tower meeting should be enough, and would be enough if it involved the other side – but again the Republican leader can do no wrong.
  • Support rioters who try to overturn and election result.
  • Try and pretend Capitol Hill rioters were opposition figures under a false flag, or that the riot was completely peaceful and friendly. Yes both can apparently be true.
  • Refuse to support an impartial multi-party inquiry into the riots, who organised the riots, who helped the rioters from the inside, why there was not an adequate police or National Guard presence given plenty of warning, or try and make the Capitol safer.
  • Support the curtailment of the right to vote in ways that look like it primarily affects the other party.
  • Support Texas Republicans who ask other states to ignore the vote and return pro-great leader people to the Electoral College, to vote for him.
  • Support a leader who has encouraged violence in his speeches’, beating up the opposition at his rallies and so on.
  • Support armed militias occupying public political spaces. t
  • Openly support groups who claim to be neo-nazi and bask in the support of those groups.

If the USA goes fascist then many others will follow.

The problem here is that authoritarian regimes, tend to suppress evidence of problems and failure rather than publicly admit to it, or publicly deal with the problems. People under the Regime soon learn that problems are to be ignored, or blamed on the Regime’s enemies. As a result leaders of the Regime may have little idea what is going on. This may be fine under stable conditions, but the problem is that current authoritarian regimes will not face stable conditions.

Authoritarian regimes also tend to be corrupt in that they tend to take money for approvals of actions or interest in problems. It becomes expected that any business requires finance. However they may also have the second order of corruption in that they do not stay bought. This makes any business, or policy, precarious. This is not restrained to authoritarian regimes as plutocratic regimes may behave similarly, but plutocrats may react to second orders of corruption quite punitively.

Decline of the West 03: Falsehood and fantasy

August 14, 2021

I have written many blog posts on how the structure of the ‘information society’ leads to massive distribution of disinformation and misinformation.

While I agree that falsehood and fantasy have always been rampant, see Charles MacKay Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds for example, some of the things discussed in Mackay’s book are perfectly normal and understandable.

Tulip Mania and the South Sea bubble, are standard financial bubbles. The prices of goods and stock did rise, and with skill and luck a person could have made a fortune if they got out at the right time. That people appeared to be becoming rich, was not a fantasy. That the economic fundamentals were bad is not an obvious reason for not participating. When Amazon launched onto the stockmarket, its economic fundamentals were terrible, but anyone who bought shares then might be worth a fortune now. It seems odd to blame people for normal market behaviour.

Likewise, if you have ever fiddled with chemistry you will know that chemical combinations can have surprising and transformative results even when the textbooks can tell you what to expect because of 100s of years of experience. Weird things happen quite naturally. If you have impure substances then weird things will happen even more, or nothing might happen. Alchemy had a coherent and logical set of theories. For the alchemist there was no necessary boundary, or distinction, between psycho-spiritual experience and action in matter. Spirit was as much part of the world as matter. That some people believed in it is not surprising. That some people lost their health and livelihood is also not surprising. How many crowds were obsessed with it is debatable – probably few.

Magnetisers were possibly demonstrating hypnosis or the placebo effect, in an era without even vacuous words like ‘placebo’ to explain mysterious healing away. Again not a big deal, I’m doubtful it affected political rule that much.

Fantasies have always had the potential to seize politics, that is true. But in my long years of watching politics, I have never seen a situation in which a US party is pretending it had an election stolen from it, without any reasonable evidence. I take the lack of reasonable evidence to be demonstrated by the recounts, and by the courts refusing the evidence and legal arguments over 60 times, and the apparent refusal of many of Trump’s lawyers to even allege fraud.

Sadly this denial of loss has not been just a momentary aberration, it appears to be one that is strengthening, despite the growing lack of evidence. And it has consequences: if a side keeps telling people the election was stolen, then it jacks up hostility towards those who accept the election and justifies desperate, and possibly illegal, measures to combat the ‘fraud’ – nothing is out of play. Purging the party of dissent is not a good sign for liberty

We should also note that Republicans did not, as far as I know, allow the presentation of evidence at either of Trump’s impeachments. This could indicate they have little intention of being evidence based.

For instance can see an apparently coordinated attempt by Republican media to make it impossible to discuss race relations in the USA in a way which might offend anyone who thinks the real problem is black racism. Again they demonstrate that Black lives do not matter, and that real problems can be avoided rather than faced.

And big tech/media censorship used to be approved and even gloated over by the Right when it did not affect them, but now it affects them they are trying to make it a left wing thing, even if facebook and twitter helped Trump to win the 2016 election by delivering continual streams of positive misinformation to people interested in Trump.

This is by no means an attempt to defend the Left. The mainstream left is almost as frightened of and addicted to plutocracy and problem avoidance as the mainstream right.

The great thing about fantasy is that fantasy avoids problems. It allows us to think that by not discussing problems they go away. We can feel we have solved the climate crisis by proposing fantasy technology, and doing nothing to bring that technology about, as the fantasy serves its purpose by providing an imaginary solution.

And we can just abuse anyone who disagrees because they are contemptable, and not one of us.

Decline of the West 02: Massive Inequality of Wealth

August 14, 2021

While general living standard matters, relative wealth inequality also matters.

The less wealth a person has relative to other people the more constrained their actions. The more wealth they have relative to other people, the freer they are to act, team up with others, and to shape politics to reinforce their wealth.

The more unequal the wealth distribution, the less chance of ideas which do not support the security of the wealthy getting much spread – especially given the media are corporately owned, or billionaire owned, and supported.

Many wealthy people seem safer in a pandemic than others, because they don’t have to go to work, they can do their work online, or rest, they can keep relatively isolated, they can flee to isolated islands and so on. Poor and middle class people people are forced into the danger to survive, or to keep their homes.

I suspect the wealthy also think they can move away from climate change, and set up their own enclaves in small safe countries such as New Zealand [1], [2], [3] or Tasmania, so there is nothing for them to worry about. If so, this is running away from the problems, and hoping to leave them for other people to suffer, but that is simply a suspicion. It may not be correct.

Solutions to economic problems often seem to benefit the wealth elites more than the benefit those who desperately need help. For instance my government is pursuing small people for extra unnecessary hundreds of dollars they may have got from Covid relief, while letting profitable big business, wealthy private schools or the right churches, retain hundreds of thousands to millions without question.

We learnt repeatedly how much extra wealth the billionaire class gained during the pandemic. [2] This may not be a problem, but how many of those billionaires used an extra billion or so to help protect their workers? Not that many as far as I can tell. They are the elite who set the tone after all. Not surprisingly, less wealthy people, without the monetary resilience, fell into poverty.

The problem here is that most of the English speaking West is a Plutocracy [3]. Ignoring wealth as source of power, which seems the standard approach, seems odd, and any honest economic praxeology would have to note the normality of crony capitalism and the likelihood of the wealthy teaming up to preserve their wealth and power, and to run things in a way that favours them. Fossil Fuel companies can buy Think Tanks, politicians, media presenters and even museums.

Some countries will have more plutocrats and others less. The extreme wealth elites are going to be small. And the smaller and more concentrated they are, then it seems probable that they will be more dominant. After all, wealth buys every other source of power – and the more relative wealth some groups have, the less wealth is around to counteract their propaganda and influence. The much fewer billionaires in India than in the US, does not mean they have less influence.

During the cold war, the West took the option of trying to increase the participation of ordinary people and provide a real saftey net for them, to protect against revolution. This incidentally gave people some extra freedom, as being sacked was less of a problem for survival – people could move out of intolerable working conditions, which helped improve working conditions. Governments did this partially by tax rates which look extraordinary nowadays, driving low unemployment rates, and partially by supporting union participation in government and workplaces. This was also a period of massive social mobility. You can think of the opening of public education to working classes, cheaper non-charity health services, public housing, yearly rising wages and so on.

It certainly made a huge difference to my family.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no longer any need to avoid revolution. Middle incomes declined relative to upper level incomes (and particularly to upper, upper level incomes, and people power seemed to diminish. No one paid any attention to the massive demonstrations against the second Iraq war, or in favour of climate action. Back to the gilded age, and the conditions and alienation which gave birth to Trump.

Plutocracy adds to the hardships of the poor and the lower middle class, because policies and ‘the rules’ are aimed at benefitting the rich, and assume that people have money, and that if they don’t they are inferior and exploitable, or should depend on the generosity of the rich, rather than be self-supporting. Hence things like Robodebt, which penalises those unemployed people who actually tried to support themselves, and the generosity of taxpayers to companies in crisis and harshness to those without money.

What do followers of Trump get?

August 13, 2021

This is pure hypothesis.

After 40 years of neoliberal attacks on working conditions and lower income Americans, Trump recognised that many people in the US are in despair. They see no future. Things are not as good as they were for them. No one was paying any helpful attention to them. Social Mobility is pretty dead. They were in a mess of apathy, because they were repeatedly told they were useless, or responsible for their own pain, by politicians, media, employers, preachers and self-help people. They had no security and little way of bettering themselves. Many people were and are struggling. The American Dream, was lost.

Many of them saw affirmative action programs for other people, but nothing to help them. People rarely see what they have. They were annoyed about this and it reinforced their sense of rejection. The Left in particular seemed, to them, to worry about other people.

Trump managed to change the apathy to anger. He made their suffering and lack of hope, all the fault of Democrats, liberals and communists, despite the neoliberal domination of politics and economics for the last 40 years. Indeed, he made it so, there was no difference between Liberals and communists and fascists. He would protect the people, by tariffs and trade wars with China, by cultivating national pride.

He was supported in this by one of the biggest pro-neoliberal media organisations in the English speaking world, News Corp. which owns Fox. They helped build the anger. People felt recognised, and so pardoned Trump’s incoherence (he was just an ordinary guy) and his violence, because they were angry and felt like violence, even if they were not openly violent and didn’t want to be. They respected Trump for saying what he thought, no matter how petty. And they empathised with him when other people denounced him for speaking his mind or making stuff up, because that happened to them all the time. And when he accused others of cheating it meshed with their life experiences, because they had been cheated of their dreams, despite their best efforts.

That Trump did not succeed, is either denied, or proves to them that the establishment still cheated them. Naturally the establishment, which won’t accept them or listen to them, got rid of Trump through massive undetectable electoral cheating. This is just normal experience.

What they don’t want to know, is that their only hope is a fraud, with no plans to help them, and with no care for them at all. So that knowledge becomes subliminal: he isn’t perfect but he can still be a tool for God’s purpose to bring America back to faith and greatness. We must have faith. Otherwise there is apparently nothing for them. It is easy to deny what would make it seem we have been deceived.

Even if Joe Biden was great for the working and middle class, then how would they get to know about it? Fox and ONAN won’t let them know – people don’t experience events directly, they experience them through past knowledge, through the comments of those on their side and so on.

So the tools President Trump uses to keep at the centre of attention are pretty basic, he pretends to listen and to sympathise with them, while working up anger against supposed enemies who are his enemies. He keeps harping on how successful he is, and that he can do more or less anything. And he keeps repeating this framework over and over.

Then there is what his followers do for themselves.

People who go to his big rallies get a sense of togetherness, they build bonds with other people who have similar experiences and talk about them. It gives people a sense of being part of a movement. It appears to repair the networks of self-organised support, and helps to make people feel safer, with some hope for the future. Surely if so many people turn up, this hope can be the basis for the future?

People who join Trump conversation sites get their ‘knowledge’ reinforced and an even greater sense of participation and meaning. They also have it reinforced that non-Trumpists are their enemies, because they might obstruct Trump, and these enemies form a great place to dump and purge some of their anger. This is much better than feeling depressed and apathetic. This is living.

Australian response to the IPCC report: Technology and magic

August 11, 2021

The IPCC report is pretty simple. We have to cut emissions drastically in the next ten years to maintain some kind of climate stability. We cannot have more new coal mines or gas fields, or we have to make those new fields produce zero emissions. Even then it may not be enough.

The Australian government’s response has been odd.

From the minister for emissions reduction:

  • He praises the adoption of solar by homes and business – which has mainly been encouraged by the States and people acting on their own.
  • He claims Australia is going to be “a leader in the next generation of low-emissions technologies that will make net zero emissions practically achievable.” This seems to be backed by hope, not evidence.
  • and says “We are reducing emissions in a way that transforms industries through the power of technology, not through taxes that destroy them and the jobs and livelihoods they support and create.” By this he means they are supporting Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which does not work, hydrogen made from gas with CCS and increasing soil carbon which while good, will not fix the problem .

The PM started his day by blaming developing countries for the problem:

We must take action, as we indeed are, and continue to take action, as we will continue to, in developed countries, in advanced economies. But, we cannot ignore the fact that the developing world accounts for two thirds of global emissions, and those emissions are rising. That is a stark fact. It is also a clear fact that China’s emissions account for more than the OECD combined…. Unless we can get the change in the developing countries of the world, then what we’re seeing in these IPCC reports will occur.

I think that is pretty clear. The developing countries are to blame. Not us, thank goodness, even if we are among the world’s biggest gas and coal exporters.

not to say that we should be posing taxes on this, these countries.

Putting tariffs on high per capita emissions countries would affect exports from Australia, this may even affect Australian income – it may not depending on how much tax, royalties and local wages these exports pay for.

His solution to the problem is hope:

World history teaches one thing, technology changes everything. That is the game changer. Governments, political leaders can pretend to these things but, I’ll tell you what makes the difference, technology changes on the ground. And, that is why our approach is technology, not taxes, to solving this problem. It’s not enough for the technology to work with a tax in an advanced economy.

I suspect that world history, if it teaches anything, teaches that societies which fail to recognise their problems collapse. But again the immediate point, we don’t want our exports to be taxed because we are freeloading on emissions, and costs.

what’s important is that we ensure that the technology breakthroughs that are necessary to transform the world over the next 10, 20 and 30 years are realised.

I’ve said this many times but let me say it again. Just because we would like a technology that solves all our problems to exist does not mean:

  • it will come to exist
  • it will come to exist before it is too late to solve the problem
  • It will work at the scale we need
  • people will want to use it
  • It will not be too expensive to use
  • It will not have many unintended and deleterious consequences

Technology is not magic or wish fulfillment.

I could do with a couple of million dollars to move to a safer location from climate change. It does not mean it will happen – even if I tried.

The great thing about imaginary technology is that it can do anything, there are no physical boundaries or limits which cannot be overcome, and there is therefore no need to make any potentially painful changes.

the day before we spoke about COVID, and we talked about how science and technology is helping us, in fact, enabling us to ultimately beat COVID-19.

True, although vaccines are a known and largely working technology. They are not a technology we do not have yet, and as far as I can tell the vaccines we have will not enable us to “beat COVID-19”, they enable us to lessen the effect for a while. To be fair to the PM, later in the press conference he states “you can’t eliminate COVID.”

Even so, people can resist the technology, including the members of the government. Not only do some not recognise Covid is a problem, they don’t recognise climate change is a problem. If enough people don’t risk taking the vaccine, the vaccines will not work. If the vaccine roll out is too slow, or leaves vulnerable parts of the population uncovered, then it will not work well. New forms of covid will develop and people will die. I suspect we cannot wait for technologies which do not exist, before using the ones we have.

However, we will win, because:

Australia has a strong track record of performance, and we intend for that to continue to increase in the years ahead.

Actually we have a terrible record with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) which is one of the Government’s chosen technologies. Like the rest of the world, we don’t have a working energy generator with CCS installed, and significantly lowering emissions. We have thrown money at the idea, masses of money, to save coal exports, but the coal industry was not interested.

Our commitments are backed up by plans, and we don’t make them lightly.

Probably more truthful to say we don’t make plans, we don’t make targets. After all, the Deputy Prime Minister has said:

Until you lay down a plan, and show us the costs, you haven’t arrived at a point of consideration. Now, show us the plan, show us the cost and we’re happy to consider it and the National Party  room will do that.

quoted by Martin. Barnaby Joyce says Nationals won’t commit to net zero carbon emissions without seeing ‘menu’. The Guardian 18 July 2021 see also an interview with Fran Kelly ABC 11 August

So presumably those plans don’t exist. We do have aspirations that we can exceed targets by boosting gas and without losing any exports of fossil fuels. Yes, we can export more gas, and burn more gas and get lower global emissions. That is fantasy. No one has the CCS to store the greenhouse gases, that the gas mining and burning is emitting. So we are increasing world emissions.

We will set out a clear plan, as we have been working to do.

Ok, the Prime Minister admits we don’t have a plan, but we might have one some time.

He then attacks protesters who peacefully wrote ‘Duty of Care’ on various walls and buildings in Canberra…

I’ll tell you what the Australian way isn’t, the Australian way is not what we have seen with the vandalism in our capital today. I don’t associate, in any way, shape or form, that foolishness with the good-hearted nature of Australians who care deeply about this issue, as I do and my Government does. I don’t associate them with this. They have no part with that foolishness today, any more than we’ve seen in other selfish protests around this country.

Sorry I’m not going to get indignant about people protesting against government policy, and I doubt anyone outside of Skynews will.

We need the technological changes that will transform the global energy economy of the world. It’s not good enough for it to just happen to Australia and the United States and in Europe. It must happen in these other countries, and they must have prosperity.

So it is the developing world’s fault again – nothing to do with the gas and coal we are selling.

Let me repeat. Just because a technological change would be nice, that does not mean it will happen.

The Minister for emissions reduction gets a speech now. He says, the IPCC report

underscores the importance of practical solutions to bring down global emissions, find those pathways that allow countries across the globe to strengthen their economy, at the same time as they’re bringing down emissions.

It might be thought that the main practical solution is to cut back on making the emissions in the first place, not increasing them through increased mining.

And the pathway to do that is technology, not taxes, not defacing buildings.

I’m glad they get so worked up about slogans on buildings. It must mean something. I guess protesters should shut up, because protest does not help.

By the way government supported technological research has to raise money from somewhere, and that somewhere is the taxpayer. At the moment, it appears that taxpayers’ money is being used to support fossil fuels, or attempts to keep fossil fuels viable.

The technology investments that we know solve hard problems, have been solving hard problems for humans for a long, long time.

How often do we have to repeat technology is not magic. CCS has been around since 1976 at least. It has not worked well enough, no matter how much we would like it to.

We have the highest rate of installed solar PV in the world. One in four houses in Australia with solar on their roofs.

True, but the government decided that emissions free technologies were now established, and taxpayers needed to support new technologies like gas pipelines and fracking. I’m not quite sure how long we have been using gas for heating, but I presume it must be more recent than solar, or perhaps they are just directing taxpayers’ money to friends, or they have a weird sense of innovation…. It all looks suspiciously like “Imaginary or established technology and taxes”.

we will lead the world on healthy soils, energy storage, Snowy 2, a huge storage project to make sure that not only can we absorb the record renewables investment in our grid

Putting carbon back in Australia’s destroyed soils is good, but how much carbon do we have to put in the soil to make a difference to emissions? Is it possible to do that? Where is the carbon coming from? Does it look like we will do that? How will Snowy 2 (pumped hydro) work if we have drought and low snow falls? What powers the pumps?

also bringing down emissions with flexible dispatchable storage.

I think everyone now knows that by ‘dispatchable’ storage the government does not mean batteries, but gas power. For example the government stopped the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility from supporting a wind power and battery development in North Queensland and favoured a gas development, because they did not consider the stored energy from wind and battery to be dispatchable and, perhaps more importantly, the development was inconsistent with their goals and policies.

A journalist bravely asks where is the modelling? We might want to know how you model non-existing technology?

The PM replies

We need more performance. We need more technology. And, no one will be matching our ambition for a technology driven solution, because I believe that’s what will work.

Yep we need more vroom. Vroom is good. Vroom is better than modeling. Vroom predicts the future.

The PM then talks about transparency of emissions. Yes that is good, but not everyone agrees that Australia is transparent, or that the government is not engaged in some pretense about figures. For example coal use has not declined very much – it is still over 60% of the energy supply, and if you take out decreased rates of land clearing then emissions have increased.

The PM also claims:

We are the only country to our knowledge, that engages in the transparency of reporting our emissions reductions, every sector, every gas, every quarter. No other country, to our knowledge, does that. 

We perhaps are living in fantasy land here. Next day Pat Conroy will ask in the House:

Is the prime minister seriously telling the House he has no idea that the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden and the Netherlands have published quarterly greenhouse gas emissions statistics for years?

Australia Covid live news updates The Guardian 12 August: 14.34

I gather from the answer from Angus Taylor, that they either didn’t know this, or they hoped no one would notice it was wrong.

Back to the Press conference. Another journalist points out that mining magnate Andrew Forest says the report shows humans are slowly cooking themselves, but that Matt Canavan, a member of the government, says the coal assumptions in the report are overstated and therefore the numbers can’t be trusted.

As an addition it appears Mr Canavan condemned the “absolute panic merchant material that we get from the IPCC these days.” Presumably because he knows better than the people who study climate change for a living.

The PM replies

The Government’s policy is clear and the Government’s position is very clear. We need to take action to address climate change and are.

Presumably he is taking the position that if you say something often enough it must be true. He also states:

in fact, it’s everybody in this building’s job to take all Australians forward with us on this

I guess no dissent or querying is to be allowed. He does point to an important possible truth. That there are people:

who have great anxieties about these changes and what it means for them. Will they have a job? Will their kids have a job? Will their electricity prices go up?

There are also people who wonder if their houses will burn down again. If they will have enough water for their farms and families. If they can survive days of the heat that we have reached. If they can survive another ‘one in one hundred year flood’. If their houses will have high tides running through them. What will happen if another unseasonable storm blows trees and powerlines down and so on. However, these people apparently do not need to be mentioned.

Yes, there is a problem, but you can’t just look at one side of the problem and ignore the other. And you could recognise that jobs, and living without jobs, is affected by more than policies intended to deal with climate change – neoliberal economics for example.

The PM goes on to assure people that Australia will beat its low targets for 2030, and we don’t need higher targets.

We will meet and beat our targets and we will update what we expect to achieve by 2030, as we always do. And we will make that very clear about what Australia is achieving and what we intend to achieve

So targets will be achieved without targets. Certainly if you don’t have targets, you cannot fail to achieve them. Lets scrap exams, and scrap KPIs. I think that would make many people happier. It could be a good general policy, but I suspect that it will remain with climate change alone.

Australia’s old targets are for a decrease in emissions of 26% from the levels of 2005 by 2030. On the other hand G7 countries are supposed to be making cuts of between 40% and 63% by 2030. We don’t even have aspirational targets for 2050, just a preference that we achieve something, but no problems if we don’t.

The minister for Emissions reduction adds

We have an extraordinary track record of beating those projections and we’ll update them this year, as we always do.

I guess this is updating the projections rather than the targets.

The PM then adds that there will be no target for agriculture because he does not want rural Australia to carry all the burden – which I suspect is not being suggested by anyone. And if there are no targets and no benefits for soil carbon, how well will it work?

Again the solution is technological magic.

My approach is finding practical solutions to what are very practical problems. And that practical problem is ensuring that the technology that works here needs to work in other parts of the world and we’re positioning Australia to be in the forefront of that. And our hydrogen strategy, our carbon capture and storage, our soil carbon, all of these initiatives are about positioning Australia to be successful in that world. Chris.

The only incentive to be offered, seems to be taxpayer handouts to the right people, there is nothing like a carbon price which provides a financial incentive for innovation all over the place and that costs the taxpayers very little. Indeed the carbon pricing mechanism the government got rid of, used the price to subsidise ordinary people so they could make market based decisions to buy expensive polluting energy, or cheaper non-polluting energy if they wished.

focusing on political solutions won’t solve this problem. Focusing on technology solutions will.

Unfortunately technology is not separated from politics. The arguments, and ministerial powers, over the new energy market shows that. Regulations, tax breaks, subsidies and so on, can support deadly technologies, or hinder those deadly technologies. It is a matter of politics whether we protect fossil fuels, or encourage them to die out. Technology is social and is governed by rules, inclinations and fashions, and therefore by politics.

For example, it can be argued that we already have low emissions energy production, we already have low pollution transport, we already have storage. All these could be improved perhaps, but without the politics we could start to cut back polluting energy to the minimum (without pushing for even more of it) and increase the supply of renewables. Yes there are problems, but we would be working with tech that works, and if better tech came along we could use that as well. That is, if the politics did not get in the way.

It’s about technology and technology that works in countries that need it to transform their economies, provide jobs and livelihoods for people to ensure that they can prosper as we have in advanced countries like ours. I recognise that equity issue. I think it’s a very real issue. But the thing that solves it is not political commitments. It’s real technology.

Equity and climate justice demands we pollute, unless the magical tech comes along to solve not only climate problems, but economics problems and political problems like how income is distributed.

A journalist asks:

The point of the IPCC report is the cost of inaction. Will any government modelling that you’re currently undertaking to put costs in front of people also include a cost of inaction?

The PM says they recognise this, this is why they are taking action. But essentially the answer is no, in the sense that the question is not answered by other than insisting they have a plan and that the plan will be successful because of future technology

Comments

It is hard to say how much the Government is under the control of fossil fuel companies. How much it is derailed by ideas that established players in the markets should keep wining. How much it assumes Australia depends upon fossil fuel exports for jobs and income. How much it believes that fossil fuels are essential for the economic structures it supports, And, How much it is being held to ransom by a very few parliamentarians who don’t consider climate change an immediate problem, and who support fossil fuels at all costs to their own side. Essentially, the government depends for its majority on these radical MPs, and could lose power if it did not yield to them. This means that about 5-10 parliamentarians govern Australia on this issue, backed by the might of the Murdoch Empire.

The Government’s policy and evasion would possibly have been fine 50 years ago, but Australia has already experienced a 1.4 degrees temperature rise since 1910. We have longer term droughts. We have massive fish kills in rivers, and rivers are drying up. We have wild storms creeping south. We have inland temperatures which are life threatening in the suburbs of Sydney. The great Barrier Reef is dying. We have longer and fiercer bushfire seasons. And we have fossil fuel mining that threatens the water table, and water supplies. Delay is not sensible. the problem is urgent. If we (a relatively prosperous country) won’t make the effort to fix the problem, then who will?

Addenda 27 October 2019

The Government issued a 15 shot powerpoint to show the response it was taking to COP.

The graph at the end is the killer:

  • 40% from roadmap tech
  • 15% from global tech trends
  • 10-20% from offsets and
  • 15% from tech breakthroughs

That seems to mean that 70% of reductions will come from imagined technology. [offsets are generally accounting tricks]

How to become a tyrant

July 27, 2021

See also: Techniques of Fascism

There are a number of equally important procedures, so these are not in order of importance. A tyrant has to work at all of them simultaneously if possible.

1) Creating fear is important. Unfortunately, this is not a trait which enables you to recognize tyranny. There are things to be frightened of which have to be dealt with as a society – the black death, fascism, take over of the state by the wealthy, war with people who really do threaten you, etc..

2) Creating a narrative that the tyrant can solve the problems, nobody else can, and that anyone who disagrees is a traitor. No policies are really needed except vague things like “make the country great again”, “free the workers”. Common narratives involve Nationalism (we are the best in the world just by being born here, we have the best culture, the best people, etc. we must fight outsiders who corrupt us), Militarism (we need to fight those who would fight us and we need discipline), hatred of some relatively powerless minority (they are evil) – all of these narratives give the ‘good’ members of society something to join with the tyrant in fighting.

3) Stirring anger. You are being oppressed by university professors, feminazis, Bill Gates, black racists, radio hosts, shopkeepers, etc… The f$%%n rude opposition never gives you a break they can’t listen to reason, they are stupid, weak, red neck slabberdicks… Shock people, numb them, crush empathy with the others….

4) Cultivating blame. The subhuman evil ones are to blame for everything bad; the Chinese, the Jews, BLM, Antifa, people with green eyes, etc…. it is always good to have an easy source to blame for everything that goes wrong.

5) Excluding people – foreigners, outsiders, gay people, women whatever…. that way you become superior, and closed off from other ideas. Make the categories between the “we group” and the “out group” as sharp as possible. There is to be no overlap which allows people to talk out of place, or which allows sympathy.

6) Constantly telling people how wonderful the tyrant is. What a genius he is (and its usually a he). How he knows everything. How the tyrant has mysterious sources of knowledge. How decisively he acts. How the tyrant is one with the people, even if he is a billionaire, or a monk….. How the tyrant is holy. How he is the tool of God, or of Providence etc. with the implication that anyone who objects to the tyrant is objecting to God’s choice. Have pictures of the tyrant everywhere.

7) Lying constantly. This helps set all the other points in motion. Lying constantly, and moving from crisis to crisis can cause excitement and involvement. If people have to show their loyalty by believing whatever they are told by their side, then they loose the ability to think critically and just go along with the mob and the party media. This is kind of the ‘Orwell point’.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulne­ss while telling carefully constructe­d lies, to hold simultaneo­usly two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradict­ory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy

Truth is what helps the tyrant and his party, but this truth is eternal, and everyone who cannot directly see this truth is to be condemned.

Being focused on the latest crisis (always caused by the other side), also distracts people from a coherent criticism of the tyrant.

8) Controlling some Media. Take control over, or alliance with, significant sections of the media, so that by repetition, people think that the lies are the truth, and the leader really is wise, interested in them, and being constantly attacked by the evil ones. Have wealthy allies set up ‘think-tanks’ which spout the tyrant’s truth. Partly this is about controlling and reinforcing the narrative. Aim to discredit oppositional media. Threaten oppositional media. All history leads to the Tyrant, and the rebellion against the old order. More Orwell:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

9) Instigating big social projects. It is a good idea to have some magnificent social projects which honour the tyrant and give people the sense that something good is happening that they can be involved in: making living space; building buildings that show the glory of the Nation; having mass political rallies or displays; building the economy; fighting for the revolution; preparing to defend the Nation. People get annoyed if they have to sit at home, and the economy goes downhill as well – much better they get out as a group…

10) Law is a matter of the Tyrant’s will. The tyrant should honour the law and the constitution in speech, but remember these are only effective as conventions and interpretations secondary to the Tyrant’s will. The law is whatever the tyrant says. If the tyrant obstructs justice, threatens election results, or threatens those who would hold them to account then, in the US for example, this can be excused as ‘free speech’. If no one prosecutes a crime, or they excuse the tyrant, then what is allowed to happen is the new interpretation and the new law, and the only people who object will be traitors. Repeat that the tyrant’s will expresses the true beliefs of those who wrote the laws and the constitution.

11) Violence is an old fashioned necessity for tyranny. Always say the other side used violence first. But hit enemies decisively. It does not matter who, just make examples. Sort them out later. This will also help people to stay loyal, because they know it goes from expulsion to violence quickly so they will follow their instructions and probably think the violence they participate in is simply revenge on their oppressors and gives them freedom from previous and superseded restrictions. They are free!

12) Manufacturing Enemies. This is implicit all the way through these overlapping points, and if I had to say which is the most important point it is this one.

If you persuade people that a particular group of people are the enemies of every true, patriotic person, then you have frightened them, got them angry and ready to use violence. They will refuse to listen to those others, blame them, approve the violation of conventions because of necessity, approve lying and so on. You have sharpened divisions between the ‘we-group’ and the ‘out group’, and applied it to every aspect of life. People become trapped in the language of war. Anything is fair, anything is acceptable to preserve their own lives and the lives of others of the right type. The enemies are out to get you. The enemies attacked you first, by definition. They cannot be trusted. They cannot be dealt with. You have to go along with the tyrant even if you don’t like him, too much is at stake not too. Criticism of the tyrant is evidence of siding with the enemies and betraying the lives of precious others… You are gone.

Tyrants require enemies.

Again the problem is that some level of enmity is always present in reality. This is why the lie appeals to people, it’s based in reality. But usually people inside your own nation are not deliberate enemies, however organized you are told they are, but potential tyranny is organized to prevent people realizing this.

13) [hidden] While being officially opposed to the ruling class (usually a fake ruling class that has no real power), it is a great advantage for the tyrant to side with the established ruling class, as they are usually the wealth elites and can provide money, contacts in the establishment, help bend the laws and constitution, and control at least some of the media to give the tyrant support, and cultivate the lies he needs. This is not always essential, sometimes the rulers can be purged. In either case, eventually the tyrant will establish a new ruling class alongside the wealth elites who are dependent on him and loyal to the project.

Conclusion

These are the processes of tyranny. However, the tyrant eventually has to produce order and predictability, and a sense of progress, so that people can organise their daily lives and hope for the future, or the things that undermine tyranny will come into play too destructively.

War helps postpone the Tyrant’s problems, and is a logical consequence of the process of constructing the tyranny. However, war rarely allows stability – especially war without compromise which is what tyranny encourages. Modern warfare in particular enables destruction, but seems to make it hard to hold gains. The expenses of holding onto gains, usually outweigh the gains being made.

I’d like to say, that while easy to start, a tyrannical state is eventually doomed, unless it can learn to leave people alone most of the time and live in peace. Hitler failed at the latter, the Romans and the Chinese Emperors largely succeeded. Mussolini was doomed the moment he allied with Hitler and joined World War II. The Russians succeeded for a while, and Putin succeeds most of the time.

‘Development?’

July 21, 2021

I wonder if we can still use the word ‘development’?

This is because ‘development’ has been a word that has excused much abuse of the world, and much harm.

While ‘development’ clearly has had many good consequences, such as better medical attention, longer average life spans and so on, it has also been the term for the change in a ‘nations’ orientation from working with the ecology and people, to unrestrained use of coal, massive hydropower, industrial farming, mining, over-fishing, deforestation, militarisation and so on. It has not been an unmitigated good.

Development formed a track which nations were almost forced to take into significant levels of destruction to gain their place in the modern world, and avoid more colonialist imperialism from others. It is a form of ordering which produces a disorder which is often easy to ignore or dismiss, because of the good being attempted.

One of the moral dilemmas of the last 20-30 years has focused on the argument as to whether India and China, were excused in the massive and dangerous amounts of emissions they released, and ecological destruction they engendered because they were ‘developing’. Objection by the developed world could easily be seen as imperialist and interfering, and as aiming to try and prevent them gaining power and influence and helping their people out of poverty.

Similar events have happened in South America, where forests have been stripped to boost development, and this too has affected the world. The Amazon forest is so devastated, that it may now be releasing more CO2 than it stores.

Development has led to massive pollution in countries and dispossession of people who lived well with forests.

Indeed, development seems to seek sacrifice. Who is it that that gets removed, or suffers so the nation may develop and become powerful? Are people who resist the changes to their landscape reduced to being mere ‘backward’ ‘obstacles’, who can be treated with patronisation, contempt or brutality? Is development a site of ‘class war’? Or even of ‘race war’ when, as in Australia, the Aboriginal people are continually dispossessed for development (even sometimes for development elsewhere in the world – a frequent argument seems to be that our fossil fuels are being sold to charitably help development and end poverty).

Likewise some development of Renewable Energy can also operate in the same way as development through coal, although perhaps less destructively in the long term. This should be born in mind to avoid ill-consequences.

Development has grown to include destruction, when it should involve consultation and political involvement of those who are being developed, and change of path when (or before) the destruction begins to have an effect.

But if development was to be abandoned as a term for attempts at improvement, what should replace it, that does not have these conventions around it?

Climate change in the Marshall Islands

July 20, 2021

Recently a colleague suggested I read Peter Rudiak-Gould’s article published in 2014. “Climate Change and Accusation: Global Warming and Local Blame in a Small Island State”. Current Anthropology 55(4): 365-386.

This is a wonderful article. It might be out of date now but it suggests how we can learn from the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands in terms of their response to Climate Change. There is far more to the article than I am going to cover, so read it yourselves if you can…

Rudiak-Gould begins by pointing out there are two traditions of climate change blame in the West:

  1. Some are more at fault than others, usually the industrialised or industrialising world
  2. Everyone is to blame. Humanity is self-destructive. With the implication there is not much we can do alone.

The Marshall Islanders are clearly not to blame for Climate Change. They contributed 0.0002% of world CO2 emissions in 2008. Yet it is (was?) common for the Islanders to clearly take on the blame. People rarely mention the culpability of other nations for their severe climate problems, and insist they have to do something about their own problems before facing the world. One person, for example, says

“How can we ask the bigger nations for help, when we are [also] a contributor to climate change?”

p.368

While they agree they make a contribution to climate change, they don’t think they have much ability to affect climate change in total. Rudiak-Gould writes:

“It is never suggested that Marshall Islanders can stop climate change, only that they contribute to it…”

p.371

They don’t have delusions of grandeur, and the idea is not a defense, against action.

Rudiak-Gould explains this situation, by seeing it as related to a wide spread realisation of a decay in traditional life, which they see as the fault of the Islanders themselves: “We follow American culture;” “we have too many things from outsiders… We don’t grow our food anymore.”

RG writes, that for the Islanders Climate change is “the final proof of modernity’s folly, [and] a powerful inspiration to revitalize older ways.” By saying they are responsible, they reassert cultural continuity and distinctiveness, and a course of action.

They are using recognition of their responsibility for climate change to help themselves, not just trying to solve the problem.

Taking responsibility is not an “empty performance.” Islanders try to reduce dependency on foreign oil through solar; restart traditional shoreline management practices; stop throwing plastic onto the beaches and into the sea, and aim to take control over their society’s cultural future.

Taking responsibility says they have a right to speak to each other and to the world. It champions local citizen action, and challenges the dominance of the state, high tech and elite high science, all of which assume people know little and cannot act by themselves.

Taking responsibility also undermines assumptions that a nation cannot act, through ‘people power’. It shows even a small nation can act for itself, and by itself, without any constricting fear that action will ruin the economy or destroy a people’s way of life – it even assumes that a way of real and desirable social life can be revitalised and improved by climate action.

Finally, it challenges common ideas in the rest of the world that pacific islanders are the victims of others. They assert they can help the world and themselves, even if they cannot solve the problem completely, and their action sets an example others might follow.

Taking responsibility and acting the best we can casts doubt on the supposed necessity for a top down solution driven by State or business occurring first. It asserts climate change can be affected by people taking on their own responsibility in a practical way. We do not have to wait for the State or for business to get on board and act.

In a relatively large State, like the ones most of the people reading this will live, this local responsibility and action is possibly the only way that the State will get the message that the people care enough for it to take on the forces that oppose action.

The Marshall Islanders set forth an agenda we can all learn from.

There is no such thing as climate denial????

July 18, 2021

There seems to be a number of people making the rather silly argument that there is no such thing as climate denial any more [not that the article referenced actually does that]. Presumably people do this to imply that as long as a person says “climate change is occurring” then no matter what else they say, or agitate for, they are supposedly not denying reality – they can be trusted.

‘Accepting climate change’ without accepting the causes or consequences of climate change, seems to be a strategic assertion to do nothing, or do little to challenge the current circumstances causing climate change (Greenhouse gas emissions). This may be accidental, or it may be because people can lie strategically…. This is life. So how do we tell if people are doing something we might call climate denial?

First off

What does acceptance of climate change involve?

  • Acceptance that the agreement of the vast majority of climate scientists about the evidence for climate change is our best guide to climate reality. This scientific agreement, on the whole, asserts:
  • a) Climate change is happening
  • b) Climate change is harmful and serious and getting increasingly serious
  • c) While there are many possible causes, the main cause is the growth in greenhouse gases (GHG) from: the burning of fossil fuels; concrete use and manufacture; and agriculture
  • d) The most important of these causes is the burning of fossil fuels
  • e) We cannot predict the exact course of climate change, because it forms a set of interlinked complex systems. For example, some places such as the UK, may get colder if the gulf stream changes its pattern. However we can make the general prediction climate change, as it is progressing, will be intensely disruptive.

Scientists can be wrong of course, but they usually squabble over areas of doubt. If there is doubt, then there is not that much agreement. On the other had people who deny what is agreed at present, can be wrong as well as opposed to leading the new science.

What acceptance of climate change leads to is the realisation that climate change forms a major threat to the continuance of current forms of social organisation, through many different pathways

  • collapse of food supplies
  • problems with water supplies
  • increased death from heat
  • wild weather
  • increased droughts
  • increasingly destructive floods
  • rise of sea levels and loss of habitability of islands and low lying coastal areas
  • intense storms, cyclones and hurricanes.
  • etc…

These events will pressure economies, supply chains, security of living and so on. The cumulative effects will be very hard to deal with. Again the exact form of collapse in different places is very hard to predict, because of the complex system problem

However, we can predict pretty solidly, that the effects will not be good for humans.

This is the basic level. Then there is the level of action. Are people attempting to act on this knowledge? Are they attempting to reduce GHG emissions, encouraging GHG reductions to the best of their ability, or to render GHG less necessary? If not, then they are effectively denying what they are supposed to be recognising.

This border between recognition and action, means that climate change denial is a much more sprawling beast.

Climate change denial involves some of the following:

  • Assertions that the ‘consensus’ of climate scientists is unreal (as there is supposedly lots of dissent about climate change), or the result of widespread fraud.
  • Lots of reference to non-climate change scientists, or non-scientists, who disagree with the ‘consensus’
  • Assertions that science should not be about agreement, when the absence of large scale dissent in the field, implies there is no recognised cause for disagreement over the presence and source of climate change
  • Assertions that climate scientists are conspiring to impose a dictatorial left wing government on the world [attempts to make climate change political rather than an agreement as to evidence]
  • Assertions that climate change is not happening
  • Assertions that climate change has nothing to do with human actions: “There’s been billions of years of climate change,” without explaining why if climate change is natural, humans cannot be a factor in causing it, and we should not do anything any differently
  • Assertions climate change is happening, and there is an anthropogenic component, but there is no point lessening the effect of that component.
  • Assertions that climate change is happening slowly and is nothing to worry about, or that we will easily adapt
  • Assertions that climate change will be beneficial – it will increase plant growth, or stop deaths from cold etc. [While Climate change may appear beneficial in some places, it will not be in general, because of the systemic disruption, and the imbalances generated]
  • Assertions that extreme, highly unusual, or unprecedented weather events are absolutely normal and happen every so many years
  • Assertions that tiny increases in CO2 levels cannot significantly change the climate
  • Assertions that we can continue to burn fossil fuels with no ill effects
  • Assertions that we can increase the burning of fossil fuels with no ill effects
  • Assertions that burning fossil fuels ‘we’ have sold somewhere else in the world, is irrelevant to our situation
  • Attempts to enforce, or encourage, the emission of greenhouse gas emissions
  • Attempts to argue that reduction of ’emissions intensity’ is wonderful even if GHG emissions increase
  • Attempts to avoid targets for GHG emission reduction
  • Assertions that action against climate change will harm the economy and should be performed in such a way that it does not affect the economy at all
  • Assertions that everyone else should act before we act to prevent climate change
  • Some people may claim they are doing something to hinder climate change, but their actions reveal that they are not, or their actions increase GHG emissions. Yes people lie.
  • Attempts to silence or threaten climate scientists, or prevent public servants from mentioning climate change
  • Attempts to remove climate data from public websites

Resolution

Acceptance of climate change, means acceptance of climate action

At a minimum, that means:

  • Steady reduction of fossil fuel use.
  • Stopping new fossil fuel use and new fossil fuel mines, unless it can be shown that newness reduces the total amount of GHG emissions in practice
  • Steady reduction of all other sources of greenhouse gas emissions
  • Regeneration of ecologies
  • Encouraging change in lifestyles that need fossil fuels

There are many other solutions which may need to come into play, but these are basic factors in moving towards a solution, and which come from the scientific agreement about what is happening.

Supposed acceptance of climate change but rejection of climate action, trying to hide the lack of climate action, or trying to maintain or increase fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions means that a person does not accept the reality of climate change and its causes. They are essentially in denial, whatever they might want to call it.

In this sense, whatever they say, the Australian Coalition Federal government is engaging in climate denial. It does not act to reduce GHG, and it encourages more emissions by supporting more coal and gas power and exports. It pretends extreme weather events or bushfires [1], [2] are normal, and denies the Great Barrier Reef or the inland river systems [1], [2], [3] are in unprecedented trouble. The Canadian government is similar.