Chad Frischmann’s talk offers an antidote to the pessimism and apocalypse fatigue associated with the problem of global warming, Project Drawdown.
“Drawdown is that point in time when the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere begins to decline on a year-to-year basis.” The project “is the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”. They’ve gathered together “a qualified and diverse group of researchers from around the world” to find answers. They modelled the one hundred of the most substantive solutions to address the problems. The thing is, most of the solutions already exist.
I think the terms of the argument about the climate need to be changed.
The Washington Post
I would argue that the consequences of ignoring global warming isn’t some kind of “environmental vandalism on a tragic scale” as Eugene Robinson assets. Trump isn’t playing with matches. He’s playing with a country sized flame thrower. Global warming is not vandalism. Vandalism implies something that can be undone, painted over, made good again. Ignoring, obfuscating, delaying and denying global warming is more akin to apocalyptic genocide.
I find the ideas at the core of Joe Herbert’s article in The Conversation interesting.
The Conversation
The notion of “degrowth” is compelling, especially when you consider the predictions of Polly Toynbee’s hard-right revolution in my previous post.
What I find difficult to conceptualise, is the how?
Yes “the logic of infinite growth is driving ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown”. Yes the “heavily polluting countries of the global north – such as the UK – must undergo a phase of managed and socially equitable economic contraction”. Yes endless economic growth has “left our society overworked, over-stressed and plagued by extreme levels of inequality”. I agree “poverty and inequality could be tackled by implementing a universal basic income”.
The intellectual arguments are there, but as I said, what I don’t understand, is the how?
Those at the top of the pyramid will not give up their privilege, and will react with hostility at any attempt to redistribute wealth through taxation. Any attempt to seize their assets will be met with violence. The strengthening of right-wing economic policies has come with boots on the ground. Those soldiers will be mobilised, and will have to be fought.
The problem is wars are great for growth, so how do you degrow society without going to war?
Fiona Harvey’s headline in The Guardian doesn’t actually get to the truth of the story. The headline should probably include the words “apocalyptic consequences”.
As Fiona Harvey points out antibiotics are used to prevent disease in farmed animals. What she doesn’t mention is that antibiotics are also used, especially in the United States, because antibiotics make animals gain weight.
Overuse of antibiotics in farming has put us in an “apocalyptic” situation where “farms are becoming a greater reservoir for antibiotic resistant bacteria”. While I think a ban on the overuse of antibiotics in UK farming is needed it will make little or no difference if the US is not brought into line. “Antibiotic use in US farming is six times higher per livestock unit than in the UK… and cattle in particular receive 13 times as much antibiotic medicine as in the UK.”
You could also give serious thought to switching to a plant based diet. It is healthier, does less harm to the environment, and reduces our need to use antibiotics in farming.
This Bitcoin fact is a true reflection of the society we live in. Even something that does not physically exists produces CO2 at the rate of a continent. To produce you must consume. The more we consume the worse it’s going to get.
A sobering and depressing read that will be met with a choir of people sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting a chorus of “La, La, La, La, La, La, La, I can’t hear you”.
Shaming those who can do something about global warming will not work, because they have no shame, because they can’t see the wrong in what they’re doing.
The Financial Times
I agree with Martin Wolf that “we need to shift the world on to a different investment and growth path right now”. I agree rich countries who caused the problem need to pay. The redistribution of wealth to “countries that matter for the solution” needs to happen. But I doubt very much if it will.
The wealthiest individuals, in the wealthiest economies, are like the character Sydney Stanton, the hobbled billionaire in 1950’s sci-fi film When Worlds Collide (1951). He thinks his wealth guarantees him a seat on the ark, it doesn’t, it only give him the opportunity to build one.
Think about this for a moment. The 1000 richest people in the United Kingdom increased their wealth by 184 per cent in the ten years that have accompanied austerity. They accrued £468 billion on top of the £256 billion they already had, while the rest of the population experienced the worst decline in living standards in a generation.
They no doubt accumulated this wealth by working hard, making shrewd investments, and leading successful businesses. They also managed to convince successive neoliberal governments to decreased their tax liability.
£468 billion could do a lot of good. Why isn’t it? Because trying to shame the Stanton’s of the world into changing their ways is like eating glass. The only person with a lacerated tongue is you. “You did it to yourself.” Shaming them will not work.
They still think they can buy a seat on the ark, and a way out of the apocalypse.
The discourse around global warming is mired in an increasingly faith-based rhetoric. You either understand global warming as a fact, or you have faith it’s only weather.
The Conversation
The problem is, faith stifles debate. There needs to be a way to discuss global warming, one that cuts through the faith everything will work out. Perhaps apocalyptic images of the world burning is the only way to make some understand what’s at stake.
You must be logged in to post a comment.