# IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

Long awaited for and out today.

Full report here AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Have posted in the Feedback Forum that sadly I think we need a climate sub-forum now...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Long awaited for and out today.
> 
> Full report here AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC
> 
> Have posted in the Feedback Forum, sadly I think we need a climate sub-forum now...



I haven't read the report but I'd say yes, we're fucked. The massive fires we're now seeing in key regions like the Amazon and Siberia look a lot like the start of a runaway feedback loop that will rumble on quite happily even if everyone stops burning fossil fuels and every cow stops farting tomorrow.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

The 'summary' version is currently just, 'test pdf, please replace'. Guess I'll have to read the whole thing then 

e2a: Jesus christ it's 4000 pages.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The 'summary' version is currently just, 'test pdf, please replace'. Guess I'll have to read the whole thing then
> 
> e2a: Jesus christ it's 4000 pages.



Yeah, just downloading it, wondered why it was taking so long!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

If CO2 emissions remain at current levels for the forseeable eventually declining to net zero by mid century, the report predicts an overall temperature increase of about 2.6 degrees from a 19th century baseline. That's an optimistic scenario in terms of likely changes in human behaviour. 

The most optimistic scenario, a rapid switch to net-negative CO2 emissions, still leaves us with a temperature rise of about 1.5 degrees.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

A key point they make is that every additional 0.1 degree (or whatever) of warming has an incrementally greater effect.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

I haven’t read it yet. Just saw reports and some of the press conference, but Greta Thunberg says:


----------



## tommers (Aug 9, 2021)

We've known about this for decades.  We're inherently unable to deal with it.


----------



## andysays (Aug 9, 2021)

tommers said:


> We've known about this for decades.  We're inherently unable to deal with it.


It certainly looks that way - there have been UN agreements and protocols going back decades and while they may have made some difference, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the problem is out of control because the short-term impacts of making the necessary changes would be seen as unacceptable.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

I'd say yes, long term, we're probably screwed. This horse has bolted long before the stable door has been closed.

There's simply way too much world politics involved in this now; messy, conflicting and self-serving politics that has only added to the problem, not taken away from it. As well as that,  there are those huge international conglomerates and businesses who simply do not and will not care enough, putting short term profit and power before all else (what's new there, huh?). And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations all over this planet.

As a species we've long thought we've owned this planet as opposed to sharing it. Well our selfishness is coming home to roost. We're now starting to reap what we've sown.

 For me, it's purely a case of containment now in the decades to come. Nothing more.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

tommers said:


> We've known about this for decades.  We're inherently unable to deal with it.


Well, “we” have been protesting and drawing attention to it for decades.  But capital and governments say it’s all down to us not freezing bread.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

tommers said:


> We've known about this for decades.  We're inherently unable to deal with it.



What do you mean inherently though? As humans generally, or as we exist and live now? Or something else? I don't think there's anything inevitable or inherent about it (aside from not being able to change the past), it's political choices made by governments and corporations.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

andysays said:


> ...it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the problem is out of control because the short-term impacts of making the necessary changes would be seen as unacceptable.



Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but _maybe _soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> I'd say yes, long term, we're probably screwed. This horse has bolted long before the stable door has been closed.
> 
> There's simply way too much world politics involved in this now; messy, conflicting and self-serving politics that has only added to the problem, not taken away from it. As well as that,  there are those huge international conglomerates and businesses who simply do not and will not care enough, putting short term profit and power before all else (what's new there, huh?). And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations all over this planet.
> 
> ...


In the long-run we're all dead
--keynes


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but _maybe _soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.


If they leave it as late as they left the lockdown at the end of last year half the UK will be under water before they act.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> In the long-run we're all dead
> --keynes



Try telling that to Keith Richards


----------



## andysays (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Until they're not. Which is looking like that might be sooner than later. I think like the pandemic was dealt with in the UK we might see delay, not enough done, then suddenly panic and lots of change, but all coming too late to avoid devastation, but _maybe _soon enough to avoid the absolute worst.


I should probably have made it clear that I meant unacceptable to governments and business interests, rather than ordinary people.

The parallel with Covid is an interesting one. In the case of a pandemic, we can just about imagine what its effects might be if it's allowed to spread unchecked, so there was immediate and widespread outrage when Johnson effectively suggested we should do just that.

But I think the full scale of the consequences of global warming is still difficult for many people to get their heads around, and won't be appreciated until lots more devastation has already occurred, by which time far more has become inevitable.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I haven't read the report but I'd say yes, we're fucked. The massive fires we're now seeing in key regions like the Amazon and Siberia look a lot like the start of a runaway feedback loop that will rumble on quite happily even if everyone stops burning fossil fuels and every cow stops farting tomorrow.


That is not a reason to not stop burning fossil fuels. 2 degrees warming still preferable to 3 degrees warming. 3 degrees warming still preferable to 4 degrees warming, and so on. Giving up on the idea that change is possible is the most morally-objectionable line to take.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

All these cunts blowing their billions on vanity projects need to be forced to invest all of their profits, which they stole from us, into carbon capture and renewable energy. We need protests several times larger what XR did in 2019, and not pacifist ones, if we are to stand any chance of influencing States to take the radical action required.


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> That is not a reason to not stop burning fossil fuels.



I didn't say it was. It's clear from the report that continued growth of emissions vs a shift towards net negative emissions would have vastly different outcomes. Hence why I've put so much of my time into direct action on climate stuff down the years.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> All these cunts blowing their billions on vanity projects need to be forced to invest all of their profits, which they stole from us, into carbon capture and renewable energy. We need protests several times larger what XR did in 2019, and not pacifist ones, if we are to stand any chance of influencing States to take the radical action required.



'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.



You met Bolsonaro?


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You met Bolsonaro?



No. Fortunately. But i've met Sharma a couple of times, online. he's ok as these kind of people go.


----------



## andysays (Aug 9, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.


Can you expand on why you're saying carbon capture is a red herring?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Carbon capture' is a red herring and pretending otherwise does more harm than good IMO.


As it currently stands yes, carbon capture is inefficient and unrealistic. But I wouldn't abandon the idea of research into more effective methods.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> Probably already being discussed but I think that the outrage over Alok Sharma flying around the world ahead of this conference was not really helpful. This is a hugely important conference. A lot of decisions at these kind of things are made far before the actual photocalls of world leaders at the event. I think I can accept his need for racking up some airmiles in trying to convince idiots like Bolsonaro in person. I'm not saying he's the ideal person for the job but having met the guy I know he does actually care.



Yeah that coverage annoyed me, just a variation on the personal choice / lifestyle change bollocks.


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah that coverage annoyed me, just a variation on the personal choice / lifestyle change bollocks.



Travelling to 30 countries in 6 months presumably wasn't done for recreational purposes. I've just watched a plane full of athletes touch down at Heathrow in Tokyo to a hero's welcome. Bizarre.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

Personally I'd like to see a targeted campaign to sink the superyachts of the rich. The ports where they have to go periodically for maintenance are well known.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 9, 2021)

I don't really see governments doing fuck all about this. The likes of the GOP and lunatics like Bolsanaro will simply deny the evidence and call this communism


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah that coverage annoyed me, just a variation on the personal choice / lifestyle change bollocks.


It is bollocks but lifestyles would need to change in significant and unpopular ways. Look at the reaction of the ct lot to being asked to wear masks for a few months. If they get told they can't drive wherever they like there'll be riots.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> It is bollocks but lifestyles would need to change in significant and unpopular ways. Look at the reaction of the ct lot to being asked to wear masks for a few months. If they get told they can't drive wherever they like there'll be riots.



I think one of the complicated things about climate is, like you say, some of it is likely to be enacted against the wishes/needs of a certain section of the population. That could be mitigated by support of people that are likely to financially suffer the most. But as we see with the pandemic that's not likely to be given enough of a priority. So we could be torn in different directions in a similar way to the pandemic.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 9, 2021)

Cross-posting from the climate change thread, this would appear to be the main reason, at least according to this guy, why nothing will be done:


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

That appears to ignore the huge emphasis in the private sector being put on ESG. No, they don't really give a shit about the environment. They care about their bottom lines. And there are huge profits to be made in sustainable investment.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> Travelling to 30 countries in 6 months presumably wasn't done for recreational purposes. I've just watched a plane full of athletes touch down at Heathrow in Tokyo to a hero's welcome. Bizarre.


Not for recreational purposes maybe, but loads of important people get off on being important and one indication of being important is that you fly around the world and meet loads of other important people. That makes you feel even more important. It achieves nothing that couldn't be achieved via smart video conferencing.
What it also does is send the message that flying is not just OK but worthwhile. Necessary. Important. 
I agree that we can't and shouldn't load all the blame for climate change onto individuals, but making certain behaviours appear anti-social is not a bad thing, as it could lead to behavioural change. Too much flying is just plane stupid. Flying should not ever be thought of as normal. Evolution could have given us wings if it chose to, but it didn't.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

there is zero chance of climate crisis being averted under capitalism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations all over this planet.


going to be arguing against a lot of this sort of thing in the coming years, both that and the idea that this is a collective sin for which we deserve the hardships to come.Who do you think it serves to point to the 'feckless multitudes' and say 'ah, look, its all them on there less than a dollar a day!'? Its not just untrue, its going to be eagerly picked up by the worst people, already has been tbf. That way lies getting euthanized for your generations eco-crimes and fed to the recyc tanks when you're 60.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

Aviation is a red herring. Air travel brings huge benefits to people and society but accounts for 2% of emissions

Compare that to the generation of electricity and powering of road vehicles by burning fossil fuels, which accounts for over 50% of emissions yet provides no benefits over doing those things using renewable energy.


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> there is zero chance of climate crisis being averted under capitalism.



Have faith. I think greed could actually be good here. Investors are well-aware of the sea change as to where their dividends are going to come from over the next 20-30 years.


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

And I'm talking about the most greedy motherfuckers you've ever met openly talking about ESG as the biggest issue on their desks.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> Have faith. I think greed could actually be good here. Investors are well-aware of the sea change as to where their dividends are going to come from over the next 20-30 years.


This is absurdly optimistic. The crisis is real and happening now, the overwhelming majority of "investors" are already old and rich and so think "Well I am rich and will be dead soon anyway, and at least my kids and grandkids will be rich too so they should be fine".


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> This is absurdly optimistic. The crisis is real and happening now, the overwhelming majority of "investors" are already old and rich and so think "Well I am rich and will be dead soon anyway, and at least my kids and grandkids will be rich too so they should be fine".



Lol... really? That's absurdly naive. It's not personalities, it's institutional investors. And guess what? Their analysts, the ones calling the shots are not old. They're rich yes, and they want to be richer.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> Lol... really? That's absurdly naive. It's not personalities, it's institutional investors. And guess what? Their analysts, the ones calling the shots are not old. They're rich yes, and they want to be richer.


Why do you think that them managing to profit from the crisis will be beneficial to others in some way? You've already pointed out that they're motivated by self interest. This is magic market nonsense.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

Please elaborate on how the greed of institutional investors will make a difference to emissions under capitalism, with the stock market and other financial institutions riding the wave for the benefit of the planet and all its inhabitants.


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why do you think that them managing to profit from the crisis will be beneficial to others in some way? You've already pointed out that they're motivated by self interest. This is magic market nonsense.



If you were an institutional investor, a fund manager. Would you be investing in a coal mine right now? Or a solar farm?


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> If you were an institutional investor, a fund manager. Would you be investing in a coal mine right now? Or a solar farm?


Both probably. Has investment in fossil fuel extraction dried up?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

Saudi oil giant Aramco sees profits soar by almost 300%
					

The results were boosted by a rise in oil prices as demand recovers after the pandemic.



					www.bbc.com
				




Also on the BBC front page.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 9, 2021)

Overpopulation is one of the causes of our environmental problems. That does not mean that any of the blame lies at the door of individuals. You can lay some of the blame at the door of institutionalised religions and governments which insist on the unending reproductive functions of the female half of the population. And also at the door of political elites and systems which insist upon inequality . What you can't do is pretend that the explosive growth of one particular species will not have a detrimental impact on most other species in the world, with all the attendant ecological consequences. Not if you want to be taken seriously. That is not a call for the culling of human beings. Just a realistic appraisal of the situation. The culling of humanity will, probably, occur in the next few decades, with rising sea levels, floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, disease and resource wars.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 9, 2021)

If capital can see a way of profiting from green direction changes then it will do so, not for any moral reason obviously.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

The key to sustainable demography is education for girls and women, which obviously goes hand in hand with poverty (or lack thereof). Birth rates in rich countries have been falling for decades.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Overpopulation is one of the causes of our environmental problems. That does not mean that any of the blame lies at the door of individuals. You can lay some of the blame at the door of institutionalised religions and governments which insist on the unending reproductive functions of the female half of the population. And also at the door of political elites and systems which insist upon inequality . What you can't do is pretend that the explosive growth of one particular species will not have a detrimental impact on most other species in the world, with all the attendant ecological consequences. Not if you want to be taken seriously. That is not a call for the culling of human beings. Just a realistic appraisal of the situation. The culling of humanity will, probably, occur in the next few decades, with rising sea levels, floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, disease and resource wars.



The annual growth rate of the global population has halved since 1970, and is projected to continue to zero. It's not the tree to be barking up.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> there is zero chance of climate crisis being averted under capitalism.



I'm not 100% sure of that. For a start the climate crisis is an unfolding disaster rather than a singular event, so I think it might be possible for capital to manage/reduce/stop the worst aspects of the changes, but it'd have to be how it was with the pandemic but on crack; massively interventionist, throwing money and power at the problem. And in doing so it would also likely steamroller over the people it cared the least about.

So possibly there is a State/capital solution, but it is unlikely to be the one we want. Do we have the capacity to build the power to force them to make it the change we want, or at least force their hand so the changes are better than they would be otherwise?


----------



## Petcha (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Both probably. Has investment in fossil fuel extraction dried up?



The key word is sustainable. Fossil fuels are very short term.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

Petcha said:


> The key word is sustainable. Fossil fuels are very short term.


I know, I'm not a capitalist. Is investment drying up because investors don't want short term profit?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

Greta Thunberg speaks for us all when she said: "The new IPCC report contains no real surprises. It confirms what we already know from thousands previous studies and reports - that we are in an emergency."

And, depressingly, the BBC's response was to talk of individual consumer's "carbon footprints". This notion is greenwashing invented by BP to pass the buck onto individuals.

The "carbon footprint" strategy is: put as much blame on the consumer as possible, knowing the consumer is not in a good place to control the situation. It basically ensures that nothing changes. Big businesses don't have to change what they do. Governments don't have to act.

It is long past the time for governments and business to act. Baby steps will do no good. Opening new oil fields while pretending that the answer is for individuals to freeze the last two slices of bread in the packet will do no good.

Governments and capitalism need to act decisively, significantly and immediately.  Which they won't.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

Frozen bread does inexplicably make better toast than fresh though. So there's that.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> there is zero chance of climate crisis being averted under capitalism.


...and every chance of the crisis being governed with authoritarianism, war and neofascism.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> So possibly there is a State/capital solution, but it is unlikely to be the one we want. Do we have the capacity to build the power to force them to make it the change we want, or at least force their hand so the changes are better than they would be otherwise?



Yes, I think we do. But Covid has seriously dented the momentum the Greta/XR climate movement built up through 2019


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The annual growth rate of the global population has halved since 1970, and is projected to continue to zero. It's not the tree to be barking up.


It's a tree that should be barked up at regularly, and should have been for decades. Global population is currently still growing, thanks to greater longevity. Even a slight decrease, or levelling off of the increase, will make matters just that bit less difficult to deal with.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It's a tree that should be barked up at regularly, and should have been for decades. Global population is currently still growing, thanks to greater longevity. Even a slight decrease, or levelling off of the increase, will make matters just that bit less difficult to deal with.


the countries with highest birth rates also by and large the countries with lowest carbon emissions, so there's that


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

DotCommunist said:


> going to be arguing against a lot of this sort of thing in the coming years, both that and the idea that this is a collective sin for which we deserve the hardships to come.Who do you think it serves to point to the 'feckless multitudes' and say 'ah, look, its all them on there less than a dollar a day!'? Its not just untrue, its going to be eagerly picked up by the worst people, already has been tbf. That way lies getting euthanized for your generations eco-crimes and fed to the recyc tanks when you're 60.



It's a hugely contentious issue, I grant you. And there are no easy answers to it. But the exponential growth of human population IS impacting on the planet (and by association climate change) and not in a good way. My own view (rightly or wrongly) is that we need to include such a debate far more prominently  than we do. It's not a comfortable discussion to raise, I know, and it;s open to all kinds of disturbing manipulations like you've rightly alluded too. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious conversation to be had around this issue, and how we as a species need to look carefully at how we approach our ever increasing population and how it is damaging our planet in all sorts of ways. I personally think that we should, through educational and behavorial means, address it sooner than later.





__





						Does Population Growth Impact Global Climate Change? | Population Media Center
					






					info.populationmedia.org
				












						Population Pressure and the Climate Crisis
					

A 2020 study found that if the climate crisis isn’t addressed, as many as 3 billion people will be living in areas considered too hot for human survival within 50 years, including places like Los Angeles and Paris.




					www.biologicaldiversity.org


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 9, 2021)

Flavour said:


> the countries with highest birth rates also by and large the countries with lowest carbon emissions, so there's that


True, but nearly all trying to emulate the West. Carbon emissions are only part of the environmental problem. Deforestation and species loss are also catastrophic. Humans to blame. I'm not pretending that overpopulation is easy to solve or that it's necessarily the main cause of climate change. It is contributory though. So let's not ignore it or give a free pass to those reactionary religions which promote it. Many on the left have shied away from criticising religion from fear of being called racist. That just gives an easy time to the Catholic Church, Evangelical Christian sects, fundamentalist Hindus etc


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

Fuck any over-population discussion, seriously.

Even if we agreed it was an issue it leads nowhere good, gets picked up on by the worst kind of people as a solution, isn't possible to use to make any changes in time, and excuses dealing with the actual solutions. It's worse than a red herring, it's the argument of western liberals that obscures the real problem.

If over-population _is_ some part of the problem, the answer is to fight for and create an equitable, just, feminist, ecologically sound society/world and then the population issue will sort itself out.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> It's a hugely contentious issue, I grant you. And there are no easy answers to it. But the exponential growth of human population IS impacting on the planet (and by association climate change) and not in a good way.



It's not exponential, as I said a few posts ago the rate is rapidly decreasing and has been doing so for fifty years.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

Population really isn't the driver of this, given the vastly unequal amounts of carbon emitted per capita, and to focus on population just helps usher in some kind of nightmare eco-fascist future. The problem is not the countries with growing populations, it's those that have high energy use practices.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 9, 2021)

I think we could all take some inspiration from the _Ende Gelände_ protest movement.


----------



## nogojones (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Frozen bread does inexplicably make better toast than fresh though. So there's that.


I find that placing my bread at the edge of a forest fire gives it that just right burn


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2021)

I think capital will adapt and will shift its investments around to more sustainable practices. But there will always be a strong element of greenwash, counting the wrong things as progress and, most of all, allowing business - and accumulation - as usual.  Neoliberalism is uniquely unsuited to secure any kind of global restraint (though, as noted upthread, we are really in an era of state monopoly capital, post 2008).  Ultimately, the question of whether a genuinely green capitalism can emerge, that really makes changes across the range of activities that affect climate change, can be answered by looking at the recent past.  We've known this was coming, but are still locked into growth models and accumulation. Fuck capitalism.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 9, 2021)

Don't need to look much further than this for reasons why nothing is done. From Feb this year:









						Declassified UK: Revealed: Dozens of UK former senior officials profit from fossil fuel corporations, rubber-stamped by Whitehall committee
					

New research reveals that dozens of senior UK defence, foreign office and intelligence officials find employment with oil, gas and mining corporations once they leave public office, rubber-stamped by a Whitehall committee which pays little attention to potential conflicts of interest. Such...




					www.dailymaverick.co.za


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's not exponential, as I said a few posts ago the rate is rapidly decreasing and has been doing so for fifty years.




Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century;  and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.  A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year,  35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.

I welcome some of the responses on here questioning the involvement of population growth with climate change. Seriously. Even the most vocal ones.. But my original view remains. Population growth is something I think has had a telling impact on climate change and the environment, and has contributed in no small part to the mess we are in now. As a species we need, as David Attenborough said, to break the 'taboo' of even acknowledging it. This applies most especially to those of us lucky enough to live in countries and regions of the developed world; the places which, by and large, are responsible for the crisis we're all now in.  For me, it's not an either/or situation. The issue of climate change is far too nuanced for that. That's my take on it anyway.  Our planet is finite and so are the resources on it. And we're seeing the damning consequences beginning to unravel before our eyes.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

Is population growth a factor in breaching planetary boundaries, including carbon emissions? Yes, of course - but focusing on it as a major casual issue is just a red herring and misses the real reasons why climate change has got so bad and why action to confront it has been so ineffective. We could carry out some sort of nazi mass sterilisation of half the globe tomorrow and still hit 1.5 degrees warming by 2050 with emissions increasing merrily towards 3 degrees.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century;  and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.  A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year,  35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.



Population growth is already predicted to continue falling and eventually turn negative. Nothing that could be reasonably done to hasten that would have a material affect on climate change in the required timescale.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century;  and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.  A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year,  35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.
> 
> I welcome some of the responses on here questioning the involvement of population growth with climate change. Seriously. Even the most vocal ones.. But my original view remains. Population growth is something I think has had a telling impact on climate change and the environment, and has contributed in no small part to the mess we are in now. As a species we need, as David Attenborough said, to break the 'taboo' of even acknowledging it. This applies most especially to those of us lucky enough to live in countries and regions of the developed world; the places which, by and large, are responsible for the crisis we're all now in.  For me, it's not an either/or situation. The issue of climate change is far too nuanced for that. That's my take on it anyway.  Our planet is finite and so are the resources on it. And we're seeing the damning consequences beginning to unravel before our eyes.



Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.


Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so.  Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

Wilf said:


> Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so.  Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.


Or just blind


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

Or just racist


----------



## Chemical needs (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> .....And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations ....


Like you say, this is a red herring, and not something to be engaged with seriously.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Population growth is already predicted to continue falling and eventually turn negative. Nothing that could be reasonably done to hasten that would have a material affect on climate change in the required timescale.



Fair point.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

A bigger problem than population or methane is the kind of useless abject despair that someone like me feels when reading this stuff, todays report.
 I'm not even _that_ old or that much of an arsehole but the feeling that we are totally and utterly fucked, there is no hope of averting catastrophe and i'm just glad i don't have kids' means i might pathetically recycle my rubbish but i'm not going to be part of any solution because basically i've given up.
Don't know what to do about it, the shitty useless despair. Its too late to just leave it to the next generation to sort out.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> A bigger problem than population or methane is the kind of useless abject despair that someone like me feels when reading this stuff, todays report.
> I'm not even _that_ old or that much of an arsehole but the feeling that we are totally and utterly fucked, there is no hope of averting catastrophe and i'm just glad i don't have kids' means i might pathetically recycle my rubbish but i'm not going to be part of any solution because basically i've given up.
> Don't know what to do about it, the shitty useless despair. Its too late to just leave it to the next generation to sort out.


 
The way I think about it is this; _despair is what the bastards want_. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.

I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.



I absolutely concur. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to poor people. Indeed I stated that the richer, more developed countries especially need take responsibility for what has and is unfolding.


Wilf said:


> Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so.  Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.



Like I said  in one of my posts, it's not a case of either/or. It's far more nuanced than that I think. Including what you've pointed out here. And which I agree with.


lazythursday said:


> Or just racist



I'm not sure whether you're alluding to me. I'm taking it you were. So sincere apologies for my response below if you were not.

If you were, please just don't engage with me if you're going to use despicable, cheap and wholly false terms like that against someone you don't even know. I've been hospitalized by racist, homophobic scumbags several years back, as it happens, and I don't wish to engage with someone here who appears who throw out a baseless and untrue comment like that. If 'racist' is what you took from my posts, then fine. Have a pleasant day.  Now peace off.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

I don't really know anyone in their teens - 20s, would like to know if they feel more optimistic than me and what their hopes for averting catastrophe within their lifetimes look like.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The way I think about it is this; _despair is what the bastards want_. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.
> 
> I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.


I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
So what form does your hope take?
Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The way I think about it is this; _despair is what the bastards want_. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.
> 
> I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.


We'll have to do rather more than just blame the architects of the situation if we're to break on through to a better world.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> I absolutely concur. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to poor people. Indeed I stated that the richer, more developed countries especially need take responsibility for what has and is unfolding.
> 
> 
> Like I said  in one of my posts, it's not a case of either/or. It's far more nuanced than that I think. Including what you've pointed out here. And which I agree with.
> ...


I was responding to Wilf's post, eg to people who "separate population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism". It is quite clear that an awful lot of overpopulation discourse is either driven by directly by racism, or has the potential to generate racism and boost the far right. It's not cheap or despicable to point that out. In fact it is fucking essential that we do so.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
> So what form does your hope take?
> Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).



I suppose striking a balance between the light and the dark. I think it was Tennessee Williams who said "if I got rid of my demons, I'd lose my angels".


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> I suppose striking a balance between the light and the dark. I think it was Tennessee Williams who said "if I got rid of my demons, I'd lose my angels".


what? I'm not depressed, this isn't a personal mood issue, but when i read (bits of) that report today and in general about this subject for decades now, i feel complete useless and very counter productive despair.
Maybe younger people, or people in less class ridden places, less cynical & less disillusioned than me about the kind of men who hold the power in the world to make the necessary immediate changes, fare better than me on the despair front.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 9, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> We'll have to do rather more than just blame the architects of the situation if we're to break on through to a better world.



Generally, when architects build something that's hazardous and in danger of falling over, we find new architects.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
> So what form does your hope take?
> Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).


I think things have moved on a lot in the last couple of years, in the background a bit. What needs to be done has been worked out, scenarios developed, pathways to net zero spelled out. Have a look at the reports done by the Committee on Climate Change, for instance. The enormity of the transition ahead is becoming more and more understood within local councils, bits of the civil service, think tanks, all the stuff that surrounds politics - but politicians themselves are way behind. I think there's every chance we will suddenly see rapid progress - likely not quick enough to avoid two degrees of warming, but personally I think change will happen. Because it can't not happen, ultimately. There is an inexorable logic to the physics. Eventually we will see fossil fuel executives on trial, I firmly believe that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I think capital will adapt and will shift its investments around to more sustainable practices. But there will always be a strong element of greenwash, counting the wrong things as progress and, most of all, allowing business - and accumulation - as usual.  Neoliberalism is uniquely unsuited to secure any kind of global restraint (though, as noted upthread, we are really in an era of state monopoly capital, post 2008).  Ultimately, the question of whether a genuinely green capitalism can emerge, that really makes changes across the range of activities that affect climate change, can be answered by looking at the recent past.  We've known this was coming, but are still locked into growth models and accumulation. Fuck capitalism.


Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

This is a useful summary (still big) of the report.









						In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s sixth assessment report on climate science - Carbon Brief
					

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published the first part of its sixth assessment report (AR6), which will form the cornerstone of climate science for the years ahead.




					www.carbonbrief.org


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

I feel like maybe this Summer might turn out to have been an important time, in that everybody has seen the reality of it, not far away in a poor country but raging floods & fires, making the news for months, in California & in Europe. Bloody Siberia was luridly on fire ffs.
And as a result perhaps not only will nobody make climate change jokes any more but, maybe, the point has been passed now when doing nothing was acceptable, or even felt acceptable inside people's heads.


----------



## ChrisD (Aug 9, 2021)

I surround myself with other like-minded green/left wing people who all agree that regulation and change of likestyle is necessary....but then at lunchtime I looked at the responses to John Redwood's Twitter feed and realised that there is no consensus for action.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.


Yeh but the only way this starts getting sorted has to be under capitalism as we're not going to get another mode of production in the next ten years. Don't think the work can be finished under capitalism, that the changes necessary could tend towards another mode of production, but if we hang about waiting till the stars are right we're definitely toast


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

ChrisD said:


> I surround myself with other like-minded green/left wing people who all agree that regulation and change of likestyle is necessary....but then at lunchtime I looked at the responses to John Redwood's Twitter feed and realised that there is no consensus for action.


But there is never total consensus for anything. Generally I think polling shows there are far more people wanting to take action than not. But that's when it's abstract, rather than specific policies. 

I think the truth is there is still an enormous amount of ignorance about climate change and carbon emissions, but perhaps this is starting to change now. I wish more people understood that this is a cumulative problem, like filling a bathtub, that it's not enough just to reduce the flow from the taps slightly. At some point you have to shut the taps off, the sooner the better.


----------



## ChrisD (Aug 9, 2021)

I assumed that all reasonable people would agree that some action is required but Redwood followers seem a bit resistant to any change.  I've never really come across climate deniers or whatever they're called before.  So depressing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Overpopulation is one of the causes of our environmental problems. That does not mean that any of the blame lies at the door of individuals. You can lay some of the blame at the door of institutionalised religions and governments which insist on the unending reproductive functions of the female half of the population. And also at the door of political elites and systems which insist upon inequality . What you can't do is pretend that the explosive growth of one particular species will not have a detrimental impact on most other species in the world, with all the attendant ecological consequences. Not if you want to be taken seriously. That is not a call for the culling of human beings. Just a realistic appraisal of the situation. The culling of humanity will, probably, occur in the next few decades, with rising sea levels, floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, disease and resource wars.


no, it’s not overpopulation, it’s unequal wealth and resources that are the problem


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

The moment my despair set in was sometime twenty+ years ago sat in a then "3rd world" country, thinking how the hell are these people going to be told that sorry you were too slow you can't have cars and fridges and air conditioning.


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

ChrisD said:


> I assumed that all reasonable people would agree that some action is required but Redwood followers seem a bit resistant to any change.  I've never really come across climate deniers or whatever they're called before.  So depressing.



I think there's certainly going to be a wing of the Tory party (the ERG, the CRG, and they'll probably re-brand to the Climate RG or something) that'll be against any changes to mitigate climate change. Whether they have any power depends on a load of other factors. It will be very similar to the pandemic in many ways.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> The moment my despair set in was sometime twenty+ years ago sat in a then "3rd world" country, thinking how the hell are these people going to be told that sorry you were too slow you can't have cars and fridges and air conditioning.


That's making an assumption that the western consumerist model of development is the only one worth having. There is a lot of interesting academic work on what development that prioritises human wellbeing rather than economic growth might look like. I don't see that there's any reason why developing countries can't have a functioning sustainable electricity system and many of the basic necessities for life that we take for granted in a post-carbon world.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> That's making an assumption that the western consumerist model of development is the only one worth having. There is a lot of interesting academic work on what development that prioritises human wellbeing rather than economic growth might look like. I don't see that there's any reason why developing countries can't have a functioning sustainable electricity system and many of the basic necessities for life that we take for granted in a post-carbon world.


Not my assumption, but look at the celebrated burgeoning middle class of India (& china and elsewhere), over last few years. That is defined pretty much as 'has a car and a fridge'.
Will PM Modi etc be telling their electorate that they need to prioritise human wellbeing and not having more stuff?
 I am sorry. Do not want to be so negative. Your post before was great & it really helped.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but the only way this starts getting sorted has to be under capitalism as we're not going to get another mode of production in the next ten years. Don't think the work can be finished under capitalism, that the changes necessary could tend towards another mode of production, but if we hang about waiting till the stars are right we're definitely toast


Agreed.  

What we need to do though is kick back at suggestions that “industry needs to be at the table”, for example.  We have known - in general - the gist of today’s report for more than 50 years: we had all the scientific evidence we needed to act on global warming for decades,  but the fossil fuel industry spent millions to spread disinformation and block climate action.  Global warming isn’t a tragedy, it’s a crime.

Eg. BP deliberately kicked the ball into the long grass with “carbon footprints”. 

The anger we feel needs to erupt into societal common sense that the blame lies with these few big actors.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> Not my assumption, but look at the celebrated burgeoning middle class of India (& china and elsewhere), over recent years. That is defined pretty much as 'has a car and a fridge'.


Well it is a built in part of all the international frameworks that developing countries get a bit more time / fairer share of the remaining carbon budget (you could argue that given historical emissions this isn't fair enough) - which is why cutting fossil fuel use in developed countries is so urgent - we have to do our share ASAP, regardless of the fact that carbon emissions may be increasing rather than decreasing in India.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Agreed.
> 
> What we need to do though is kick back at suggestions that “industry needs to be at the table”, for example.  We have known - in general - the gist of today’s report for more than 50 years: we had all the scientific evidence we needed to act on global warming for decades,  but the fossil fuel industry spent millions to spread disinformation and block climate action.  Global warming isn’t a tragedy, it’s a crime.
> 
> ...



They need to be at the table as a precursor to being on the scaffold


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> They need to be at the table as a precursor to being on the scaffold


They need to be sidelined and vilified.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> Well it is a built in part of all the international frameworks that developing countries get a bit more time / fairer share of the remaining carbon budget (you could argue that given historical emissions this isn't fair enough) - which is why cutting fossil fuel use in developed countries is so urgent - we have to do our share ASAP, regardless of the fact that carbon emissions may be increasing rather than decreasing in India.



This is the stuff that makes me feel like we are fucked. 
And I don't remotely blame them for doing it.




__





						India to build 100 new airports by 2024 to boost air connectivity
					

India’s Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman has announced that 100 additional airports will be developed in the country by 2024.




					www.airport-technology.com
				











						China's civil aviation capacity to rise by 43% to 2 billion passenger trips within 5 years - Global Times
					






					www.globaltimes.cn


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> They need to be sidelined and vilified.


Quite so.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 9, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I wish more people understood that this is a cumulative problem, like filling a bathtub, that it's not enough just to reduce the flow from the taps slightly. At some point you have to shut the taps off, the sooner the better.


But in a bathtub there is not only turning the taps off but also pulling the plug. Is there something like a plug in this situation we find ourselves in?


----------



## LDC (Aug 9, 2021)

weltweit said:


> But in a bathtub there is not only turning the taps off but also pulling the plug. Is there something like a plug in this situation we find ourselves in?



Carbon capture and storage, but it's not that great as a solution in my (very) little understanding of it. Massive global reforestation projects on a huge re-shaping the ecology of the earth scale as well.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> This is the stuff that makes me feel like we are fucked.
> And I don't remotely blame them for doing it.
> 
> 
> ...


And China is also now making commitments on net zero by 2060 and doing a hell of a lot in the race to develop green technologies. Every country is still facing two ways on this issue, the reality of the situation hasn't yet shifted business-as-usual. I think ultimately that will happen because the costs to India (for instance) of a three degree rise in temperature are incalculable. Suspect a lot of infrastructure currently being built for a fossil fuel era will end up barely used or heavily repurposed.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 9, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Carbon capture and storage, but it's not that great as a solution in my (very) little understanding of it. Massive global reforestation projects on a huge re-shaping the ecology of the earth scale as well.


I suppose to take the analogy further - there is already a plug hole in the bath, which is the planet's ability to absorb carbon via forests and seas etc. It's not big enough to cope with the amount of carbon pouring in. We can expand it a bit (and all the scenarios to reach net zero involve doing this) - by planting trees, restoring peat, and maybe though new carbon cature technologies - but the idea we can ever create a plughole big enough to cope with continued large scale fossil fuel burning is a pipe dream. Making the plughole bigger would allow some very limited continued burning of fossil fuels in really hard-to-decarbonise sectors.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
> So what form does your hope take?
> Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).



Even if the worst case scenarios come to pass, I just don't see how giving in to despair helps anyone, least of all myself. But I also take the view that's never too late until humans are effectively extinct. We should have been have been replacing our coal plants with nuclear fission _fifty years ago_, but it's still worth it to start building them today. The proportion of carbon emissions generated by electricity generation alone can offer solutions that are attractive to everyone except fossil fuel companies, whose immense power can be broken, and will be sooner or later. Sooner is better, of course. But I believe it can be done.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Even if the worst case scenarios come to pass, I just don't see how giving in to despair helps anyone, least of all myself.


It helps absolutely nobody i agree, 'oh well we are all doomed what can i do about it', as a thought / attitude is a big part of the problem. I really want to get rid of it but so far can't.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> A bigger problem than population or methane is the kind of useless abject despair that someone like me feels when reading this stuff, todays report.
> I'm not even _that_ old or that much of an arsehole but the feeling that we are totally and utterly fucked, there is no hope of averting catastrophe and i'm just glad i don't have kids' means i might pathetically recycle my rubbish but i'm not going to be part of any solution because basically i've given up.
> Don't know what to do about it, the shitty useless despair. Its too late to just leave it to the next generation to sort out.


feel like this often


lazythursday said:


> .. Eventually we will see fossil fuel executives on trial, I firmly believe that.


you are an optimist


bimble said:


> The moment my despair set in was sometime twenty+ years ago sat in a then "3rd world" country, thinking how the hell are these people going to be told that sorry you were too slow you can't have cars and fridges and air conditioning.


Mine was about that time when "the new coca cola plastic bottle you don't need to take your glass bottle back" was introduced to Ecuador" mountains of plastic bottles in the mountains" was my thought
to balance this:
because the cost of a bottle deposit was 150% of the cost of the drink inside it, you could get your drink in a plastic sachet to take away and happily discard
so they were already fucked
:/

still thinking it could be done, just on a downswing right now.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> It helps absolutely nobody i agree, 'oh well we are all doomed what can i do about it', as a thought / attitude is a big part of the problem. I really want to get rid of it but so far can't.



I don't know what would work best for you personally, whether taking a mental step back might help, or if you're the kind of person who can lean into feelings like that, directing nervous energy towards something that's somewhat tangible on some level. Whatever the case may be, I can hazard a guess that letting it stew doesn't help very many people at all. The current state of the world is one of the reasons that I'm glad to have knocked on the head the habit of doomscrolling through social media. I still keep an eye on current events, but I'm no longer mainlining an endless rolling news cycle on platforms that are deliberately designed to facilitate engagement over anything else.

Your experience may be different, of course.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

Again, I don’t think this is a me thing or a mental hygiene thing, just about do you think it possible that within ten years from today global emissions will be radically reduced or not.


----------



## bimble (Aug 9, 2021)

.


----------



## stdP (Aug 9, 2021)

Owing much of it to my geology-heavy upbringing, I was worried we were fucked by the time I was 16 (my love of DNA and H2G2 led me to _Last Chance to See_) and by the time I'd finished my geology degree (which as you might expect covered a great deal of climatology and fossil fuels) I was certain of it; I think the term the Holocene Extinction Event was actually coined during my time at uni. In a way we'd already been fucked since well before I was born, and this was the major factor in me deciding from a very early age that I never wanted kids.

It's not a very comfortable thought to live with, and the true scale of even something as tiny as a single decade of weather isn't something most people can easily comprehend, so when confronted with all of this, denial is often the depressingly likely outcome. Even I'm somewhat in denial about the scale of the problem I suspect, and I certainly hoped I'd be dead before it got too horrifying.

But lockdown in combination with endless news reports on freak weather, and endless time with which to contemplate it in, has cemented the idea of anthropogenic climate change in most people's minds as a probable fact (even by Torygraph-guzzling father who's been ranting about "hippy do-gooders" my entire life has acknowledged there might be a teensy problem). There's a lot more political capital behind greener projects, although I think even if wholly drastic action is taken we're in for a really fucking rough fifty years.

As a related aside, I do believe overpopulation is very much an issue; yes, unequal distribution is one of the key causes of famine, and a billion new people every decade wanting cars, package holidays, fridges and food is certainly a huge logistical strain, but the only way we can actually grow enough food at all is largely down to our current overabundance of petrochemicals. Even if climate change leaves most breadbasket regions viable for farming, if we haven't curbed population by the time the oil starts running out, we'll likely have wars and mass famines not unlike something out of a pulpy Mad Max ripoff.

<goes off to watch one of the first eco-disaster movies _The Day the Earth Caught Fire_ and reminisces about the good old days when the worst thing we had to worry about was nuclear war>

All of the above probably sounds very depressing, and I dare say it is. We won't and most likely can't save everything but that's not an excuse to not at least try saving something.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 9, 2021)

bimble said:


> Again, I don’t think this is a me thing or a mental hygiene thing, just about do you think it possible that within ten years from today global emissions will be radically reduced or not.



I honestly don't know, my crystal ball's all foggy. But looking back where I can actually see, I have noticed that the mood music from the denialists and defenders of the fossil fuel industry has changed over the past decade or so. Flat-out denial is becoming increasingly untenable, and so they have moved on to trying to argue that it won't be so bad, or that taking action will be too expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the fossil fuel industry is actively trying to weaponise the sense of futility and powerlessness engendered climate change-driven weather extreme events and the constant breaking of records. Others have already mentioned their attempt to shift blame with the carbon footprint idea; I expect that kind of tactics to also intensify.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 9, 2021)

I think 


danny la rouge said:


> Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.


I think this should be seized as an opportunity to try and smash this system. We don't really have a choice if we want to survive


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I think
> 
> I think this should be seized as an opportunity to try and smash this system. We don't really have a choice if we want to survive


All ideas gratefully received.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 9, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> All ideas gratefully received.



"Lawyers Guns and Money"

Failing that, class consciousness and a healthy penchant for revolution since the world's on its arse


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 9, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.


It's not as if it's one of many problems facing us. It is *the *existential problem.


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2021)

Have noticed something: The people who actually know about this stuff, those who have a clear grasp on what exactly is going on and what interventions would if implemented avert the worst, they are not wasting their time wallowing in despair. So i reckon if i learn more i might become less useless.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

bimble said:


> Have noticed something: The people who actually know about this stuff, those who have a clear grasp on what exactly is going on and what interventions would if implemented avert the worst, they are not wasting their time wallowing in despair. So i reckon if i learn more i might become less useless.


Indeed.  Do you twit?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

The IPCC AR6 WG1 Report: A Teachers’ Guide
					

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the long awaited Working Group 1 report of it’s 6th Assessment. We need to remember this date. It will be the day history looks b…




					geogramblings.com


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2021)

if we get a new climate emergency forum, it would be nice to have a 'good news' thread in it. 
Like for instance just stumbled upon this, which is pretty brilliant. 








						New maps reveal heat stored in Britain’s abandoned coal mines
					

The British Geological Survey and Coal Authority have released maps that for the first time reveal the extent to which heat is stored in Britain’s abandoned coal mines.




					www.gov.uk


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 10, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> no, it’s not overpopulation, it’s unequal wealth and resources that are the problem


Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources  and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller. 

It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?

Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources  and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller.



Which is why focusing on so-called "overpopulation" is an absolute garbage way of looking at the problem. It focuses on people as the problem, rather than pollution.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 10, 2021)

Fuck off Kevbad the Bad


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. *How very different are we to rats?*



Yeah, no idea, you totally got me.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Look, I don't want to bang on about this, but I can't just let it go. Every human on the planet eats, drinks, shits, wears clothes, lives in some kind of dwelling, uses some kind of transport, spends all day doing stuff which uses up resources  and living space which other organisms might use. This is not news. The more of us there are, the more trouble we create. If we all did things in as green, ecological and non-destructive a way as we possibly could, we would still be displacing other species at a rate of knots, altering our environment in negative ways, just as we did unknowingly in earlier times when our population was so much smaller.
> 
> It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?
> 
> Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.


I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.

There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers. 

So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

andysays said:


> I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.
> 
> There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers.
> 
> So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.



The development of technology also means that the Earth's "carrying capacity" is an elastic rather than static property. Today's population could never be supported with medieval or even pre-Green Revolution agriculture.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The development of technology also means that the Earth's "carrying capacity" is an elastic rather than static property. Today's population could never be supported with medieval or even pre-Green Revolution agriculture.


Yeah, that was kind of the point I was trying to make, though you've made it better than I did


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 10, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Fuck off Kevbad the Bad


Ah yes. That old intellectual response.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Ah yes. That old intellectual response.


so often 'fuck off' is the first refuge of the scoundrel


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, no idea, you totally got me.


Answer: not as different as we think


----------



## smmudge (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Others have already mentioned their attempt to shift blame with the carbon footprint idea; I expect that kind of tactics to also intensify.



And imagine if all the consumers overnight decided to ensure we live a completely carbon neutral lifestyle. Corporations and industries, shareholders, stock markets and governments would all shit themselves, then probably spend a lot of time and money getting everyone to do things that burn fossil fuels again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2021)

andysays said:


> I don't really want to pursue this overpopulation argument too far, but it might be worth pointing out that the reason the human population had risen to the level it has is precisely because of human technologies, from agriculture through the industrial revolution and beyond.
> 
> There is no way chimpanzees could ever have achieved a global population of 7 billion, anymore than humans could have done so had they remained as hunter gatherers.
> 
> So it's somewhat ironic that all that technological progress which enabled us to achieve so much is now looking like it will be our downfall if we don't find ways of doing without much of it.


I suppose if one was to be fatalist about it, the proliferation of technology and the consequential impact on other living things and the environment could be viewed as a natural but inevitable consequence of the evolution of the most successful animal on the planet.


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2021)

Really good, NoXion’s link above. I knew none of this.








						The devious fossil fuel propaganda we all use
					

“This is one of the most successful, deceptive PR campaigns maybe ever.”




					mashable.com


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.

Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism and to serve its needs, so mostly the problems within them are a result of this being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Ah yes. That old intellectual response.


Your psuedo-rational Malthusian shite doesn't deserve the time and energy I could waste explaining why it's the wrong tree to be barking up. Many others on this thread have already done so. But you won't let it go. The vast majority of the emissions are being caused by a relatively small number of people. The same people who have the power to change the world and don't, deliberately, because they're making too much money the way things are. But yes, let's focus on birth rates in Nigeria and Ethiopia and how religion is responsible for the world's woes.

You're playing right into their hands. Thought better of you. Ciao


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Misanthropy (people are bad), anti-technology, (technology is bad), and population (people are OK but there's too many of us) are just all variations on a simplistic and incorrect theme.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.
> 
> Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism, so mostly the problems within them are a result of them being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.


Yeah, I should have made a point of situating developing technologies within the social and economic systems which produced them, mostly capitalism.

I wasn't trying to argue that "technology is to blame" merely pointing out human population could never have grown to the level it has without the very technologies whose unbridled use under capitalism are causing climate change.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.
> 
> Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism and to serve its needs, so mostly the problems within them are a result of this being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.



Here's what I think is a concrete example of what you mention:









						As profits slip, Big Oil looks to plastic for cash flow – DW – 03/26/2020
					

With fuel demand depressed by coronavirus and a price war threatening to pump out more oil, the fossil fuel industry's traditional revenue streams are on even shakier ground. Climate change will make that worse.




					www.dw.com
				




The petrochemical industry is pushing for more plastic production, to preserve their revenue stream as demand for fossil fuels begins to peak.


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I should have made a point of situating developing technologies within the social and economic systems which produced them, mostly capitalism.
> 
> I wasn't trying to argue that "technology is to blame" merely pointing out human population could never have grown to the level it has without the very technologies whose unbridled use under capitalism are causing climate change.



Yeah, for sure, wasn't meaning it as a reply to you, just words in my head!


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 10, 2021)

Well, thanks all those of you misrepresenting my views, putting words in my head and in my postings. I'm not misanthropic, anti technology, racist nor nuffink like any of that. (Although I am anti-religion, well spotted Flavour, but I don't think it the cause of all ills, just an ongoing negative irritant). I also don't think technology will necessarily get us out of the mess we're in. It might, and might have done more efficiently if used constructively in the past. Like most of us on here I have a reasonable idea of what needs to be done to save future generations, but am unsure how the fuck to achieve those things quickly in the actual world we live in. 
That doesn't stop me looking at the world and, sometimes, looking at humans as if we were no more than another species, going blithely about our business taking no real thought or action about the future.


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Well, thanks all those of you misrepresenting my views, putting words in my head and in my postings. I'm not misanthropic, anti technology, racist nor nuffink like any of that. (Although I am anti-religion, well spotted Flavour, but I don't think it the cause of all ills, just an ongoing negative irritant). I also don't think technology will necessarily get us out of the mess we're in. It might, and might have done more efficiently if used constructively in the past. Like most of us on here I have a reasonable idea of what needs to be done to save future generations, but am unsure how the fuck to achieve those things quickly in the actual world we live in.
> That doesn't stop me looking at the world and, sometimes, looking at humans as if we were no more than another species, going blithely about our business taking no real thought or action about the future.



Wasn't suggesting you were misanthropic or anti-tech, but trying to point out the similarities between those positions and the over-population one.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 10, 2021)

Well I'd probably agree with Kevbad the Bad about technology to at least some extent, and I think this is the most interesting dividing line amongst academic environmentalists. On the one side, the eco modernists, who believe we can decouple growth from carbon emissions and resource use, principally through productivity gains and technology. On the other, the degrowthers / post growthers, who beleive this is likely impossible, more sceptical about the role of technology, and argue for a society operated on different metrics, focusing on human wellbeing and equality rather than growth. This doesn't neatly divide onto pro-capitalism/socialism either, as lots of socialists are also eco-modernists (but they think the roll out of the tech / prevention of emissions can't be achieved under the logic of capitalism) and lots of the degrowthers seem to shy away from using the word socialism (although some eco-socialists are also degrowthers). Jacobin magazine seems to be a particular haunt of the eco-modernist socialists. 

I think ultimately any society that is truly sustainable and able to live within planetary limits is the kind of one proposed by degrowthers, rather than some technological utopia.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 10, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It's all pretty basic. When the deer population in this country gets 'too big' the deer get culled. This is normal, even if some might object. When mice or rats have population explosions we attempt to kill them off, because the consequences for us are otherwise too bad. When rats get introduced to remote islands they initially have a grand old time eating all the bird's eggs until the birds die off. Then the rats do as well. How very different are we to rats?
> 
> Just imagine a world where there were 7 billion chimpanzees, without any fossil fuel use at all. Would that be feasible or sustainable? Now substitute humans for chimps and add in our technologies.



Damn dude.  I've always counted myself among the misanthropes, but you've got me beat all to hell with this.


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Yeah, I wanted to say something more nuanced about technology as I agree much of it, having been developed for the needs of capital, is problematic, if not in its use then in the way it is produced and/or operates. I guess it's where you situate that, as a root cause divorced from capitalism, or something inherent in technology itself. Its much like people in that way, we're pretty fucked up due to capitalism, but we're not inherently so.


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Here's what I think is a concrete example of what you mention:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even that contains encouraging news doesn't it.  In that they may be desperate to sell as much plastic as possible to shore up their businesses but their claim that they're just responding to demand looks transparently false.
Imperfect but significant, stuff like this: 34 Plastic Bans in Africa | A Reality Check - Greenpeace Africa


----------



## Flavour (Aug 10, 2021)

You're right lazythursday , and actually I'd say a lot of the classic socialist/communist types are eco-modernists in the sense that they believe in high-tech future at the service of the people. I am pretty skeptical of that. It's sort of a hangover from the firm belief in industry and production of Soviet tradition, a sort of prevailing anti-Green position on much of the classic left which is much based on a class tension (Greens/hippies/environmentalists viewed as middle-class, liberal, fundamentally reactionary and status quo supporters... XR did much to reinforce these stereotypes) as well as being based on wilful ignorance of the scale of the problem and the inadequacy of currently-existing systems to tackle those problems... blind faith that communist revolution would magically solve everything.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

I've yet to see a compelling alternative to socialist eco-modernism. It's certainly a better vision than everyone becoming eco-peasants in hair shirts.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Viewing technology as the problem is a similar 'common sense' and attractively simple position in the same but incorrect way that seeing population as the problem is.
> 
> Technological systems and individual technologies have almost completely developed under capitalism and to serve its needs, so mostly the problems within them are a result of this being deeply entwined with capitalism and the way that operates and prioritizes certain things over others.



When manipulation doesn't work, they use regulation.  Its common for home solar systems to be illegal in some parts of the US.  This is due to power generation, coal, and oil interests that have pressed legislators to embed their monopoly in law:



> While the precise rules vary from state to state, one explanation is the same: opposition from utilities grown nervous by the rapid encroachment of solar firms on their business.
> 
> The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there.
> 
> ...











						Rules prevent solar panels in many states with abundant sunlight
					

Few places in the country are so warm and bright as Mary Wilkerson's property on the beach near St.




					www.latimes.com
				




Those industries have also sponsored opposition groups where I live, trying to make wind energy illegal.  They managed to kill a project in my county, telling people that windmills "are too noisy."  









						New rebellion against wind energy stalls or stops projects
					

Growing opposition cites noise, health concerns and marred views, but many landowners welcome the revenue.




					www.seattletimes.com
				




Ultimately, I think these barriers will be overcome.  Leasing a plot of land for windmills is extremely profitable.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I've yet to see a compelling alternative to socialist eco-modernism. It's certainly a better vision than everyone becoming eco-peasants in hair shirts.


i think there's a middle-ground which is neither techno-utopian nor primitivist, but i couldn't describe it very well. work in progress


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

So much for the sanctity of private property! How the fuck do they justify banning solar? Do they even bother to give an excuse?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> So much for the sanctity of private property! How the fuck do they justify banning solar? Do they even bother to give an excuse?


It is quite amazing really. From the article:



> When Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., installed solar panels a few years ago, for example, the local utility, Dominion Virginia Power, threatened legal action. The utility said that only it could sell electricity in its service area. The university and the solar firm it worked with had to change their lease arrangement and forfeit valuable tax credits.



So much the beauty of competition in capitalism!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> So much for the sanctity of private property! How the fuck do they justify banning solar? Do they even bother to give an excuse?



I believe they try to say its an electrical hazard and it gets prohibited under electrical building codes.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I believe they try to say its an electrical hazard and it gets prohibited under electrical building codes.



Despite the fact that there are entire US states (and outside the US, entire countries) who manage to have rooftop solar just fine without having too many places burn down on account of it. In fact solar power seems to be in a kind of golden age at the moment, so shit like this really needs to be fought.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I've yet to see a compelling alternative to socialist eco-modernism. It's certainly a better vision than everyone becoming eco-peasants in hair shirts.


I think this is a huge misrepresentation of the degrowth position. Though to be fair, I thought very similarly to you until recently.


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

Flavour said:


> i think there's a middle-ground which is neither techno-utopian nor primitivist, but i couldn't describe it very well. work in progress



Communist steam-punk? 

E2A: read this recently after getting it recommended. It's not brilliant, but it's an interesting way of framing some possible futures.









						Four Futures: Life After Capitalism review – will robots bring utopia or terror?
					

Peter Frase’s roaming, thoughtful work of ‘social science fiction’ sketches out a frightening future of rich v poor




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is a huge misrepresentation of the degrowth position. Though to be fair, I thought very similarly to you until recently.



There's some nice stuff in it about the importance of care work and moving away from strictly economic measures like GDP, but I'm pretty sure that's not exclusive to the degrowth position.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 10, 2021)

Thing is, I don't see any way out of total emergency now, except rowing back from globalisation and economic growth. But then it feels like the environment would still be fucked, with a side order of us also having more miserable, constrained lives as well. With particular impact on the poorest countries if everyone has to cut down on flights, cars, energy use, export/import etc.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 10, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is a huge misrepresentation of the degrowth position. Though to be fair, I thought very similarly to you until recently.



I recently read this book by Kate Soper and found it very compelling. It argues that a post-growth economy could be a form of 'alternative hedonism' based on less work, less consumption, more leisure time, more green spaces etc.    





__





						Verso
					

Verso Books is the largest independent, radical publishing house in the English-speaking world.




					www.versobooks.com


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

Flavour said:


> i think there's a middle-ground which is neither techno-utopian nor primitivist, but i couldn't describe it very well. work in progress


Post-scarcity anarchism.  And I’m perfectly serious.  

The point made by LynnDoyleCooper about technology currently being created in capitalism’s image is a good one. That’s why real change needs societal change. We need to stop the assumption that the only way to do things is growth and GDP and all that.  We need to recalibrate what we mean by Plenty.  We can have _actual_ plenty. Just not capitalism’s version of it.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 10, 2021)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> When manipulation doesn't work, they use regulation.  Its common for home solar systems to be illegal in some parts of the US.  This is due to power generation, coal, and oil interests that have pressed legislators to embed their monopoly in law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You would think renewable energy would be a capitalist's dream! Making money when the wind blows and when the sun shines! What more could you ask for?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

smmudge said:


> You would think renewable energy would be a capitalist's dream! Making money when the wind blows and when the sun shines! What more could you ask for?


To quote Betty Davis, “we have the stars. Why ask for the moon?”


----------



## smmudge (Aug 10, 2021)

Cloo said:


> Thing is, I don't see any way out of total emergency now, except rowing back from globalisation and economic growth. But then it feels like the environment would still be fucked, with a side order of us also having more miserable, constrained lives as well. With particular impact on the poorest countries if everyone has to cut down on flights, cars, energy use, export/import etc.



I feel like that's the inherent myth of capitalism though: "life would be miserable without endless consumption." I think that's one of the problems that we're essentially told this every day, though not explicitly (in case we question it).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2021)

Cloo said:


> Thing is, I don't see any way out of total emergency now, except rowing back from globalisation and economic growth. But then it feels like the environment would still be fucked, with a side order of us also having more miserable, constrained lives as well. With particular impact on the poorest countries if everyone has to cut down on flights, cars, energy use, export/import etc.


i think you'll find there's already a particular impact on the poorest countries


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)




----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

* I’d change that to “people”. But the point stands. It’s not “human actions” or “human nature” that are in some vague way to blame.  It is caused by specific investments by specific people in specific things. And governments refusing to act. For 50 years.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2021)

smmudge said:


> You would think renewable energy would be a capitalist's dream! Making money when the wind blows and when the sun shines! What more could you ask for?


But once you've bought the equipment you need, there is little or no opportunity for the capitalist to make a profit out of selling you anything, that's why domestic and small scale renewable energy has to be discouraged.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

andysays said:


> But once you've bought the equipment you need, there is little or no opportunity for the capitalist to make a profit out of selling you anything, that's why domestic and small scale renewable energy has to be discouraged.



Well that's not really true. There's plenty of money to be made in servicing, repairs and upgrades. Shit breaks and technology marches on. And it's not like the companies selling the home renewable systems in the first place are charities. They're in it for money too.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Well that's not really true. There's plenty of money to be made in servicing, repairs and upgrades. Shit breaks and technology marches on. And it's not like the companies selling the home renewable systems in the first place are charities. They're in it for money too.


Not literally true, but significantly less money, and made by other people than the current fossil fuel peddlers, who are doing their best to block it.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 10, 2021)

Some similar reasons why the market has not rushed to install charging points. Electricity is too cheap to create a nice stream of profit to justify the initial investment. These sorts of things are why much of the transition just has to be state led.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 10, 2021)

andysays said:


> Not literally true, but significantly less money, and made by other people than the current fossil fuel peddlers, who are doing their best to block it.



I think the fossil fuels industry doing their best to strangle a nascent renewable energy industry in its crib is the main thing. If nearly every roof in the world had solar panels on it (never mind other forms of renewable energy), then that would represent a truly enormous sector dedicated to their upkeep.


----------



## bimble (Aug 10, 2021)

Just read this from an interview with Greta Thunberg. 

"“This is some kind of misconception about activists, especially about climate activists, that we are just negative and pessimists and trying to spread fear but that’s the exact opposite,” she said, “*we are doing this because we are hopeful,* we are hopeful that we will be able to make the changes necessary.”

Helpful, again clarifies that maybe the more you actually understand the problem and the solutions the less likely you are to be a  useless despairer.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 10, 2021)

smmudge said:


> You would think renewable energy would be a capitalist's dream! Making money when the wind blows and when the sun shines! What more could you ask for?



I think they're moving that direction, but they want to maximize their current investments in coal and oil.  Smaller businesses have moved that direction before them, so regulation is there to stall the competition until they catch up with the technology.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 10, 2021)

bimble said:


> Just read this from an interview with Greta Thunberg.
> 
> "“This is some kind of misconception about activists, especially about climate activists, that we are just negative and pessimists and trying to spread fear but that’s the exact opposite,” she said, “*we are doing this because we are hopeful,* we are hopeful that we will be able to make the changes necessary.”
> 
> Helpful, again clarifies that maybe the more you actually understand the problem and the solutions the less likely you are to be a  useless despairer.



Mmm, I think age has something to do with it. I've been on just about the wrong side of everything all my life and you do get so cynical and...despair. I don't think that makes me useless mind. And humour helps. And it's still better to live aware and in (a bit of) despair than it is to close your eyes. 

And you've probably got 20 years on me anyway so feel free to ignore that.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

bimble said:


> Just read this from an interview with Greta Thunberg.
> 
> "“This is some kind of misconception about activists, especially about climate activists, that we are just negative and pessimists and trying to spread fear but that’s the exact opposite,” she said, “*we are doing this because we are hopeful,* we are hopeful that we will be able to make the changes necessary.”
> 
> Helpful, again clarifies that maybe the more you actually understand the problem and the solutions the less likely you are to be a  useless despairer.


Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over.  They want us to think nothing can be done.  That it’s too late.

It isn’t too late. We can still act.  We must still act.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 10, 2021)

It's never too late, because even 3 degrees of warming is better than 4. This is an ongoing emergency until action is taken and sustained, there isn't really the option of accepting some climate change as inevitable. Because that's just a temporary holding position.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 10, 2021)

Essentially we’re not all going to be able to live the cars and hamburgers lifestyle the last 60 years of policy has been based on and we need to decide what a future involving that looks like


----------



## LDC (Aug 10, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over.  They want us to think nothing can be done.  That it’s too late.
> 
> It isn’t too late. We can still act.  We must still act.



"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."





__





						Capitalist realism - Mark Fisher
					

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. After 1989, capitalism has successfully presented itself as the only realistic political-economic system - a situation that the bank crisis of 2008, far from ending, actually compounded. The book analyses the development...




					libcom.org


----------



## weltweit (Aug 10, 2021)

I can see the change from ICE cars and the like to EV being motivated by vastly increased taxation on petrol and diesel fuels eventually making running a ICE vehicle prohibitively expensive. 

Hopefully while this is happening the EV offering will expand a lot and include budget models which ordinary motorists can actually afford.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How lucky we are to live at a time when we won't have to imagine either


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over.  They want us to think nothing can be done.  That it’s too late.
> 
> It isn’t too late. We can still act.  We must still act.


Tbh we have nothing to lose and people with nothing to lose are dangerous indeed


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I wanted to say something more nuanced about technology as I agree much of it, having been developed for the needs of capital, is problematic, if not in its use then in the way it is produced and/or operates. I guess it's where you situate that, as a root cause divorced from capitalism, or something inherent in technology itself. Its much like people in that way, we're pretty fucked up due to capitalism, but we're not inherently so.


While I absolutely agree with the point you are making about how capital uses technology it important not to forget that there will always be two sides of the coin.

Labour is never a passive force, it has input into the develop and use of technology like anything else. Of course capital will use technology to further its own aims but as ever class struggle comes into it.

And building on the potential of labour goes hand in hand with the humanism that is needed, as opposed to either the anti-humanistic malthusian or the techno-optimistic position.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha ha, I’m just out of a meeting where someone quoted that!


----------



## cloudyday (Aug 10, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Ha ha, I’m just out of a meeting where someone quoted that!



on that quote:

It has recently become something of a cliché, at least on the Left, to cite the claim, first made by Fredric Jameson in Seeds of Time (1994), that in the current conjuncture it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. "Someone once said," Jameson writes in "Future City" (2003), where he recapitulates and revises the point, and where it becomes apparent that he is probably misremembering some comments made by H. Bruce Franklin about J. G. Ballard, "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism."









						(PDF) Imagining the end times: Ideology, the contemporary disaster movie, contagion
					

PDF | It has recently become something of a cliché, at least on the Left, to cite the claim, first made by Fredric Jameson in Seeds of Time (1994), that... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2021)

Just what we’ve been talking about.  The creepy abusive ex-boyfriend energy of the oil and gas industry:


----------



## Spandex (Aug 11, 2021)

News values:

Monday's headlines/Tuesday's front pages - Climate emergency! Whole world doomed! We must act now!

Tuesday's headlines/Wednesday's front pages - Royal rapist/A-level results.

Wednesday - climate emergemcy? Yeah, I vaguely remember something about that. Everyone carries on as normal.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 11, 2021)

Spandex said:


> News values:
> 
> Monday's headlines/Tuesday's front pages - Climate emergency! Whole world doomed! We must act now!
> 
> ...



So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I'm seeing plenty of stuff in the news about wildfires and extreme weather events across the world, so it's not as if they're burying this shit. The new IPCC report doesn't change the fact we still need to get up and work for a living, so "carrying on as normal" was always going to happen for the vast majority of people.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I


Where to start.....


----------



## ska invita (Aug 11, 2021)

...when the press want something done like ousting a socialist labour leader or demonising migrants they campaign for it: they doorstep politicians, they put pressure on, they create a sense of panic day in day out... theres none of that here.
 havent seen Johnson cornered and Tory plans scrutinised. Ive no idea what Starmers position is, other than some laughable thing i saw on Twitter about Labour want 70% emissions cuts as opposed to the Tories 68%.

Wheres the photomontaage of East Anglia under water? Wheres the Daily Mail piece on house prices in places like Worthing that are due to be submerged?
How are the government going to build sufficient sea defences to stop all this?
How the Thames flood barrier can't handle that level of sea rise...

Wheres the front page analysis of the key business polluters? Wheres the discussion on rationing air flights?
 What's the criticism of UKs Net Zero policy that doesn't include externalised production-consumption  in places like India and China? Wheres the discussion of continuous capitalist growth?
Etc etc etc etc etc etc 
All several decades too late


----------



## teqniq (Aug 11, 2021)

Well that's just great:









						Rishi Sunak 'blocking climate change plans by refusing to commit funding for net-zero drive'
					

The Chancellor is adamant that he has spent generously on policies which will help reduce carbon emissions in the UK




					inews.co.uk


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

Meanwhile, Mr Johnson is the person who gets to decide whether its a good idea to go ahead with  the massive new oil field off Shetland and the coal mine in Cumbria. 








						Boris Johnson insists Cambo field 'contracts' cannot be 'torn up'
					

Boris Johnson has insisted that "we can't just tear up contracts" as campaigners urged him to block the Cambo oilfield project, west of Shetland. Industry




					www.energyvoice.com
				











						Opponents of Cumbria coal mine welcome Prime Minister's comments on coal  | ITV News
					

Responding to a major climate change report, the Prime Minister said that leaders should "consign coal to history". | ITV News Border




					www.itv.com


----------



## Spandex (Aug 11, 2021)

NoXion said:


> So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I'm seeing plenty of stuff in the news about wildfires and extreme weather events across the world, so it's not as if they're burying this shit. The new IPCC report doesn't change the fact we still need to get up and work for a living, so "carrying on as normal" was always going to happen for the vast majority of people.


If a politician is caught fucking someone they shouldn't the news will run with it for days. Yet we're literally faced with the end of the world as we know it and after dutifully somber reporting of the IPCC Report it disappears from the news agenda again.

The Mirror could start a Countdown to Armageddon. The Guardian could have a black Climate Emergency banner on the front page every day. The Mail could bemoan the effect on house prices of Worthing disappearing beneath the waves. The Express could go with Kate's Tears: People's Princess tells of her fears for the future. The Times could report Gove's hopes for the COP26 summit. The Telegraph could report what it wants Johnson to do at the COP26 summit. BBC news could tie together the various climate catastrophes happening right now into one issue, rather than reporting them as separate events. Channel 4 News might already be running a series of reports on it for all I know, it's on at the kids' bedtime so I haven't watched it for years. If the media put their minds to something they can make it An Issue Where Something Must Be Done. But they're not.

Of course people will carry on their lives as normal. This is too big an issue for individual action to make much impact. It needs governments to take meaningful, far reaching action, and without pressure on them it seems they can't be arsed.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

And it's clear from the reporting that does exist that there's an enormous gap of understanding amongst journalists who just don't really even get the basics about the science, the cumulative effects of carbon, the principle of carbon budgets, the incredible lack of time to transform our infrastructure. Newsnight a couple of nights ago was absolutely woeful. If Kirsty Wark and co went on just one day's training they could tear the government and opposition to shreds, but they just don't have the knowledge so ask stupid questions.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

I suspect off the back of the COP event there will be a rush of fossil fuel projects that will be greenlit as "one last project". Like a smoker saying he'll just have one more pack/smoke before quitting. 

Can't say I'm looking forward to governments doing nothing except making things we all need more expensive. Like food and clean water.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> And it's clear from the reporting that does exist that there's an enormous gap of understanding amongst journalists who just don't really even get the basics about the science, the cumulative effects of carbon, the principle of carbon budgets, the incredible lack of time to transform our infrastructure. Newsnight a couple of nights ago was absolutely woeful. If Kirsty Wark and co went on just one day's training they could tear the government and opposition to shreds, but they just don't have the knowledge so ask stupid questions.


Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).



One of the things that's shocking about much of the media is the lack of time they have (give themselves) to cover things, and that makes a massive difference to how they cover stuff, there's just not time to go into any details really at all, it's all very surface level. That and being hampered by the ideological blinkers where some ideas are not so much off-limits as just not in their vision at all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One of the things that's shocking about much of the media is the lack of time they have (give themselves) to cover things, and that makes a massive difference to how they cover stuff, there's just not time to go into any details really at all, it's all very surface level. That and being hampered by the ideological blinkers where some ideas are not so much off-limits as just not in their vision at all.


Exactly.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).


It's probably a bit of both. 

If you spend time delving into the Committee on Climate Change reports on decarbonisation, the immense effort involved across every sector is really quite overwhelming. It's completely outside of the political zone of business as usual. Clearly most politicians just haven't grasped this and nor has the media and commentariat. They just can't conceive of this level of change, it's outside of acceptable debate. Even though said Committee/organisation is a statutory one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> it's outside of acceptable debate.


Indeed.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

It's something that does get done, but I think the targeting of the BBC and other media is also a completely wrong direction to take, even with the above issues in mind. And even more so post-covid with all the MSM/conspiracy stuff about.

On a related note I predict a shift of some of the covid conspiracy types to anti-climate change stuff, fitting it into their whole 'social control of the masses' narrative. Already seen someone saying the flooding in N. Europe was some 'elite weather control technology' thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's something that does get done, but I think the targeting of the BBC and other media is also a completely wrong direction to take, even with the above issues in mind. And even more so post-covid with all the MSM/conspiracy stuff about.


Agreed. Far better to press journalists to change focus. Shouting at them that they’re liars is never a good look or productive.

This is a more constructive approach:



But of course that requires them to know the right questions to ask. So they need to be helped.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

It almost certainly needs a new thread, but thinking about strategy for all this. Three strands going on in my head...

1) Their solutions are not going to be good ones. Higher taxes, some kind of eco-austerity, unemployment, etc. That all needs to be resisted, not on some old union 'protect jobs/the way things' are but in conjunction with people in those industries and areas that are going to be impacted. Full unconditional financial support for all people impacted.

2) Are there things that have a high carbon output that can be changed or got rid of without massive and disruptive impacts for the majority of people? And not telling people to eat less meat or drive less ffs. Structural stuff.

3) Related to 2), what are the 'easy' victories that can have an impact on carbon emissions but not on most people's daily lives? Stopping any new oil and gas exploration and extraction, and also no new airports must be two?


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It almost certainly needs a new thread, but thinking about strategy for all this. Three strands going on in my head...
> 
> 1) Their solutions are not going to be good ones. Higher taxes, some kind of eco-austerity, unemployment, etc. That all needs to be resisted, not on some old union 'protect jobs/the way things' are but in conjunction with people in those industries and areas that are going to be impacted. Full unconditional financial support for all people impacted.
> 
> ...



I'd have to go and check the stats but there is no getting away from the fact that none of this is easy. About 25% of carbon emissions come from domestic properties, with 20% of that being space and hot water heating. That is really the biggie and it means most properties having to both be properly insulated and have a change of heating system. How that happens without people who can't afford it having a huge cost, or people being left behind by landlords who don't give a fuck, is a big political question. 

Transport is another huge chunk and is the one area that is consistently getting worse not better (emissions have gone down at least a bit in most other areas, with electricity generation leading the way). There is no way to do this without people driving less. There is no way to get around that fact. 

Land use and agriculture is another enormous issue. People do have to eat less meat on a population level. There is no getting away from that. Some of that is due to methane and some is due to the fact that we do need to use a fair portion of agricultural land for biofuels and planting trees. (yes I know both of these options get dismissed by people - but most net zero scenarios rely on them to some extent to get the sums to add up).

I agree this can't come down to hectoring people not to eat meat or not to drive - the structural stuff is putting place alternatives, subsidising them, discouraging driving / meat eating in some way over time.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It almost certainly needs a new thread, but thinking about strategy for all this. Three strands going on in my head...
> 
> 2) Are there things that have a high carbon output that can be changed or got rid of without massive and disruptive impacts for the majority of people? And not telling people to eat less meat or drive less ffs. Structural stuff.



I would have thought this obvious. Something like restricting air travel will have a significant impact on people’s lives, making foreign trips the preserve of the wealthy once again.

However no one notices how their electricity is produced. Five more Hinckley Cs coupled with the existing growth of renewables would be enough to eliminate fossil fuel burning from UK electricity generation, taking its share from around 50% to zero.

Green campaigners should be kicking themselves that they campaigned against nuclear for so long.

Where is our plan to stop burning gas to make electricity?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> 2) Are there things that have a high carbon output that can be changed or got rid of without massive and disruptive impacts for the majority of people? And not telling people to eat less meat or drive less ffs. Structural stuff.



Ban all domestic flights except to NI and small ones for Scottish islands. France has done something similar recently.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I agree this can't come down to hectoring people not to eat meat or not to drive - the structural stuff is putting place alternatives, subsidising them,


Yup.  Otherwise we’re back to calling people “stupid humans” for wrapping plastic round bananas and producing too much household waste. WE DIDN’T WRAP THE FUCKING BANANAS.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I would have thought this obvious. Something like restricting air travel will have a significant impact on people’s lives, making foreign trips the preserve of the wealthy once again.
> 
> However no one notices how their electricity is produced. Five more Hinckley Cs coupled with the existing growth of renewables would be enough to eliminate fossil fuel burning from UK electricity generation, taking its share from around 50% to zero.
> 
> ...


I think this is the wrong place to focus actually. Energy generation accounts for about 20% of current emissions - and that has already fallen a lot. It's the sector where most has been achieved, where there appears to be the greatest momentum. It's the UK's success story, to some extent (though some elements such as Drax are controversial / questionable). 

It is heavy industry, residential properties and transport that are the biggest problems.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One of the things that's shocking about much of the media is the lack of time they have (give themselves) to cover things, and that makes a massive difference to how they cover stuff, there's just not time to go into any details really at all, it's all very surface level. That and being hampered by the ideological blinkers where some ideas are not so much off-limits as just not in their vision at all.


the "news cycle" is inane. politicians love it - means whatever it is will blow over in a couple of days


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Ban all domestic flights except to NI and small ones for Scottish islands. France has done something similar recently.



Domestic flights account for 0.04% of UK annual CO2. It’s a distraction.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Domestic flights account for 0.04% of UK annual CO2. It’s a distraction.


Source? seems low. would be a thing to do anyway to send a message. make people take this seriously. 

i'd also massively subsidise solar and wind. unfortunately much of uk too consistently cloudy for solar to be as impactful as it would be further south


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is the wrong place to focus actually. Energy generation accounts for about 20% of current emissions - and that has already fallen a lot. It's the sector where most has been achieved, where there appears to be the greatest momentum. It's the UK's success story, to some extent (though some elements such as Drax are controversial / questionable).
> 
> It is heavy industry, residential properties and transport that are the biggest problems.



But it’s incredibly easy to reduce it to zero using existing tech and without impacting people’s lives (such impacts typically falling on the poorest).

Applying external insulation to all the pre-war housing and eliminating gas boilers within fifteen years is something we should tackle but which will be a hell of bigger challenge than stopping burning fossil fuels for electricity generation.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Source? seems low. would be a thing to do anyway to send a message. make people take this seriously.



Back of envelope quickie google from 4416 tonnes a week ( www.leasefetcher.co.uk/blog/domestic-flights-london-co2-emissions) and 468 million tonnes a year (UK: total CO2 emissions 1990-2019 | Statista)


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Domestic flights account for 0.04% of UK annual CO2. It’s a distraction.


This is absoltuely not the correct figure - but yes it's not a huge percentage. The problem is that it is one of the fastest growing percentages. As we cut carbon in other areas, aviation is steadily growing to become more and more of a problem. It isn't the worst element, but it is not sustainable. Remember we have to get to ZERO. As quickly as possible. When we get to net zero we will still be able to burn a small amount of carbon - but that can't just be used for aeroplanes.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Back of envelope quickie google from 4416 tonnes a week ( www.leasefetcher.co.uk/blog/domestic-flights-london-co2-emissions) and 468 million tonnes a year (UK: total CO2 emissions 1990-2019 | Statista)


Well you're making rather a big error in only including domestic flights in your calculation.

edit - sorry, I see that was the point you were trying to make.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> But it’s incredibly easy to reduce it to zero using existing tech and without impacting people’s lives (such impacts typically falling on the poorest).
> 
> Applying external insulation to all the pre-war housing and eliminating gas boilers within fifteen years is something we should tackle but which will be a hell of bigger challenge than stopping burning fossil fuels for electricity generation.


My point is that the energy generation sector is transforming at some speed. Perhaps not quick enough but it is the one sector which seems to be keeping pace with targets. The rest are not so that is where focus really needs to be.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> My point is that the energy generation sector is transforming at some speed. Perhaps not quick enough but it is the one sector which seems to be keeping pace with targets. The rest are not so that is where focus really needs to be.



It's not though - we're building more wind but we're also building more gas turbines. We won't eliminate fossil fuels in the required timescale unless we build more nuclear already. We know exactly what to do, and how to do it, but we don't even have a plan. This really is low-hanging fruit to eliminate a huge share of CO2 compared to anything else.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's not though - we're building more wind but we're also building more gas turbines. We won't eliminate fossil fuels in the required timescale unless we build more nuclear already. We know exactly what to do, and how to do it, but we don't even have a plan. This really is low-hanging fruit to eliminate a huge share of CO2 compared to anything else.


Well there _are_ plans - Ofgem has one, I'm sure the CCC has proposals, whether they are effective and adopted quickly enough is another matter. But the fact remains that on energy generation there has been significant progress. 

It's not a huge share compared to anything else. It's smaller than transport. My point is, we can't spent the next ten years just focusing on electricity generation because it's easier and doesn't impact on ordinary people. The rest still needs doing and can't be put off. If we were to meet our carbon budget under 1.5 degrees (yes I know, no chance) then action has to be taken simultaneously across every sector.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> Well there _are_ plans - Ofgem has one, I'm sure the CCC has proposals, whether they are effective and adopted quickly enough is another matter. But the fact remains that on energy generation there has been significant progress.
> 
> It's not a huge share compared to anything else. It's smaller than transport. My point is, we can't spent the next ten years just focusing on electricity generation because it's easier and doesn't impact on ordinary people. The rest still needs doing and can't be put off. If we were to meet our carbon budget under 1.5 degrees (yes I know, no chance) then action has to be taken simultaneously across every sector.



Remember that generation needs to stop burning fossil fuels in order to transition private and commercial transport to clean electricity too. So it's a huge share when that is also taken into account.

If we can't do this easy thing involving mature technology that won't affect people's lives, how can we possibly hope to tackle stuff like home heating?

CCC talk about maintaining nuclear at 20% and then "Gas With Carbon Capture and Storage" - it's like there's no urgency.


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

This is good. If someone like Johnson implements any of the necessary policies it will likely be because he sees things like this.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Remember that generation needs to stop burning fossil fuels in order to transition private and commercial transport to clean electricity too. So it's a huge share when that is also taken into account.
> 
> If we can't do this easy thing involving mature technology that won't affect people's lives, how can we possibly hope to tackle stuff like home heating?
> 
> CCC talk about maintaining nuclear at 20% and then "Gas With Carbon Capture and Storage" - it's like there's no urgency.


Look - I agree with you (though sceptical that nuclear has to be part of the mix - I've had presentations from people who are much bigger experts on this than me who maintain it isn't essential). Of course dealing with energy generation is vital. I just don't think it is where the sole focus should be of activism (other than stopping new fossil fuel infrastructure) and I think it is strategically wrong to focus on this and put off the difficult shit. As I said, a lot of progress has been made in this sector. Very little in the biggest sector (transport) where most gains do date relate to greater efficiency of fossil fuel rather than actual decarbonisation.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

You know what, fuck it, let's go mental with policies to punish the rich.

Increase road tax by 500% for SUVs. 

Introduce progressive motorway tolls. Small cars with at least 2 occupants pay the least, big cars with a single occupant pay the most. Fag packet figures: London to Manchester for a Renault Clio with 3 people in it: £10. Figure for a Porsche Cayenne with 1 person: £750.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

Electricity bills to be made progressive too, in line with income and house size. End result should be significantly lower bills for poorer families living in small homes, and arse-clenchingly massive increases for rich cunts with big homes.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

I'd like to see some kind of tax relief / rebate (perhaps on council tax?) for individuals or households without cars. 

Some kind of 'warm clean home guarantee' - programme of insulation and new heating with a sliding scale of costs (or free) according to your ability to pay, with the cost to the average household being a similar price to buying and installing a new gas boiler.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 11, 2021)

We need iron fist Marxism-Lentilism as soon as possible.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage You might be interested in this, just out today - the National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios.

News article about it - Clean power by 2035 to meet climate targets says National Grid - Ember

Main document - https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/202851/download

Basically outlines four different scenarios, one of which is a failure and the other three get to pretty much clean energy by 2035. It's covering the whole energy system, not just electricity generation, but if you look at the nice sankey diagrams on page 142-145 you see that gas no longer plays a significant role in electricity generation in the three successful scenarios. Of course this isn't a plan as such, more of a long range forecast, but these are the futures envisaged by the people running the system right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2021)

Flavour said:


> You know what, fuck it, let's go mental with policies to punish the rich.
> 
> Increase road tax by 500% for SUVs.
> 
> Introduce progressive motorway tolls. Small cars with at least 2 occupants pay the least, big cars with a single occupant pay the most. Fag packet figures: London to Manchester for a Renault Clio with 3 people in it: £10. Figure for a Porsche Cayenne with 1 person: £750.


Liberal


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> platinumsage You might be interested in this, just out today - the National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios.
> 
> News article about it - Clean power by 2035 to meet climate targets says National Grid - Ember
> 
> ...



Interesting. I will look into it more, but at first glance it seems that they're relying a huge amount on wind power, with hydrogen to balance demand for when it's not windy. In fact most of their scenarios seems to rely on hydrogen doing lots of things in various places that it hasn't yet done for any country's energy systems.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Interesting. I will look into it more, but at first glance it seems that they're relying a huge amount on wind power, with hydrogen to balance demand for when it's not windy. In fact most of their scenarios seems to rely on hydrogen doing lots of things in various places that it hasn't yet done for any country's energy systems.


Yes - I'm highly sceptical myself of many of the claims for hydrogen, particularly in home heating, where is is being lobbied for hard by the gas industry to maintain their business rather than necessarily being the best or most efficient solution and until hydrogen from gas with CCS is actually a proven technology it seems utterly daft to bet on it. Hydrogen from electrolysis for industry etc is a different matter.

But I think it's very interesting and positive that the National Grid can see realistic ways of getting to pretty much clean energy by 2035.


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

European temperature record apparently broken today in Syracuse, Sicily: 48.8 degrees


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

So XR are planning another round of pissing off the working class by camping in the road. This time, they say, indefinitely.

They've learnt nothing

_Or is it learned?_


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> So XR are planning another round of pissing off the working class by camping in the road. This time, they say, indefinitely.
> 
> They've learnt nothing
> 
> _Or is it learned?_


Well we don't know what the protests are, do we? I thought most of it was focused on the City of London, so not necessarily 'pissing off the working class' as such.

I've not been happy with a lot of what XR have done but I'm at a bit of a loss for what the alternative is. They are the only show on the road right now. Hopefully they have learned from some of the criticism.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> So XR are planning another round of pissing off the working class by camping in the road. This time, they say, indefinitely.
> 
> They've learnt nothing
> 
> _Or is it learned?_


Genuine question. What kind of extra parliamentary action can we take on climate change which a) has some actual impact, b) won't be crushed by the state, and c) won't piss off  (some of) the working class?


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

I do think XR need to have a good re-think about their strategy and tactics though or risk becoming irrelevant, or even a hindrance, to climate politics. Much of what they have done so far is raise awareness (even if it has has other goals as well) which has worked pretty well. But is there a need to just shout about climate stuff and how bad it'll be now? Just reading the poorly titled _How to Blow Up a Pipeline_ by Andreas Malm that was recommended to me, and the book talks about how passivity, politeness, and stupid dressing up will not work, and much more is needed.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> So XR are planning another round of pissing off the working class by camping in the road. This time, they say, indefinitely.
> 
> They've learnt nothing
> 
> _Or is it learned?_



If your protests not pissing people off your doing it wrong.


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I do think XR need to have a good re-think about their strategy and tactics though. Much of what they have done is raise awareness (even if it has has other goals as well) which has worked pretty well. But is there a need to just shout about climate stuff and how bad it'll be now? Just reading the poorly titled _How to Blow Up a Pipeline_ by Andreas Malm that was recommended to me, and that talks about that. Passivity, politeness, and stupid dressing up will not work.



But if they block roads or access to Heathrow that upsets the working class as mentioned in the post above?

What's a protest movement to do...


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I do think XR need to have a good re-think about their strategy and tactics though. Much of what they have done is raise awareness (even if it has has other goals as well) which has worked pretty well. But is there a need to just shout about climate stuff and how bad it'll be now? Just reading the poorly titled _How to Blow Up a Pipeline_ by Andreas Malm that was recommended to me, and the book talks about how passivity, politeness, and stupid dressing up will not work, and much more is needed.


I thought they were pivoting to key (and perhaps more realistic) demands - eg “Stop all new fossil fuel investment immediately“ and targeting actions accordingly, which seems like an improvement over last time. 

I want to read that book.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 11, 2021)

USA's got this at least.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Genuine question. What kind of extra parliamentary action can we take on climate change which a) has some actual impact, b) won't be crushed by the state, and c) won't piss off  (some of) the working class?



No more fossil fuel exploration and extraction or airport construction. No more internal UK flights. That kind of thing.

But with mass forceful collective action with full financial support for all those impacted in job losses with some kind of green furlough scheme.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No more fossil fuel exploration and extraction or airport construction. No more internal UK flights. That kind of thing.
> 
> But with mass forceful collective action with full financial support for all those impacted in job losses with some kind of green furlough scheme.


but those are demands, rather than tactics / actions. Some people seem to have decided that any climate related protest that causes inconvenience is out of order, cos the working class, or something.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> Well we don't know what the protests are, do we? I thought most of it was focused on the City of London, so not necessarily 'pissing off the working class' as such.
> 
> I've not been happy with a lot of what XR have done but I'm at a bit of a loss for what the alternative is. They are the only show on the road right now. Hopefully they have learned from some of the criticism.


They have said they intend to do what they did before in respect of blocking roads and camping down.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> If your protests not pissing people off your doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> But if they block roads or access to Heathrow that upsets the working class as mentioned in the post above?
> ...



Pissing people off is a red herring. Don't be looking for things that don't piss people off. Look for things that work. I think the complicated reality is there will be plenty of people that resist some of the changes needed. But it'll be very like the pandemic and the lockdown/restrictions. People's happiness and willingness to go along with changes will be directly connected to how much they're negatively impacted by them.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Genuine question. What kind of extra parliamentary action can we take on climate change which a) has some actual impact, b) won't be crushed by the state, and c) won't piss off  (some of) the working class?


I'd have no problem if they occupied banks or the offices of polluters. But stopping people's commutes just causes aggravation and sows resentment. 

As to your question, there's probably nothing. But I guess the issue is whether you can achieve some awareness or consciousness raising and force a tipping point


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> They have said they intend to do what they did before in respect of blocking roads and camping down.


I don't think blocking roads in the City is going to affect more than a teeny tiny portion of the country's working class.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> but those are demands, rather than tactics / actions. Some people seem to have decided that any climate related protest that causes inconvenience is out of order, cos the working class, or something.



Yeah but they lead to a strategy maybe in targeting those kind of things. I do think getting hung up on the pissing people off/inconvenience thing is a bit weird. But it is easy to get stuck on something like road blocking as it feels confrontational etc. and lose sight of what's the best stuff to do.

Fuck blocking roads tbh, I think it's a tactic that is very past its use by date for this stuff.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> If your protests not pissing people off your doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> But if they block roads or access to Heathrow that upsets the working class as mentioned in the post above?
> ...


I think it depends who youre pissing off. If it's the Tories and their oil baron allies then that's fine. If it's the people you're trying to win over who are barely holding it together then that's problematic. XR have repeatedly shown a tone deaf attitude to the latter. In fact I have heard credible reports that, following their last such proitest, they all packed up their stuff in 4x4's and drove off. That's not going to play well.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

Looking at the website (and I heard one of the organisers on Newsnight a couple of days ago) I don't think there is any concrete information to suggest that blocking roads is the main action, I think that is being extrapolated from very scant info. Perhaps it is, but I can't see evidence for that.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> They have said they intend to do what they did before in respect of blocking roads and camping down.



Where have they said this?


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> In fact I have heard credible reports that, following their last such proitest, they all packed up their stuff in 4x4's and drove off. That's not going to play well.



Give over, that's Daily Mail level shit.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Where have they said this?


Newsnight


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

The _gilets jaunes_ 'End of the month, end of the world: same perpetrators, same fight' is an slogan and attitude XR would be better to emulate rather than the bollocks like the Animal Rebellion stuff they like so much.

That Clare Farrell on Newsnight is a fucking political abomination.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

I'm fine with 90+% of their tactics. They could pick their tube stations a bit better but I don't see what else they can do apart from repeatedly shut down London.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

While XR have done a great job in raising consciousness, and while they are absolutely right that this is an existential crisis in the real sense of the words, what they tend to get wrong is their finger-pointy individual responsibility vibe.  People generally feel they’re being preached to by self-righteous killjoys.  The message seems to be green austerity and guilt.

That may be unfair, but it’s what comes across.  They really need to make it more clear that the culprit is capitalism.  But they need to do so in a less vanguardist way.  They need to bring people with them by actually involving people. Educate by organising. Agitate by educating. And listen to people’s concerns and centre working class people’s vision for a green future.

At the moment they come across as rather disconnected, earnest, middle class ascetics.


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> On a related note I predict a shift of some of the covid conspiracy types to anti-climate change stuff, fitting it into their whole 'social control of the masses' narrative. Already seen someone saying the flooding in N. Europe was some 'elite weather control technology' thing.



Yep, there was already an overlap. If only these people could see how useful they are to the very system they claim to be against.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

Where in that does she say the main focus is blocking roads? She talks about multiple, rolling occupations, and that there will be disruptive protest. She doesn't say 'We will block all the roads for weeks'. Unless that is at the end, I got bored.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm fine with 90+% of their tactics. They could pick their tube stations a bit better but I don't see what else they can do apart from repeatedly shut down London.


But they aren't shutting down London. If they managed to do that I'd be impressed and would certainly revisit my opinion. Instead they are just inconveniencing the people they need on side. I doubt BP are going to be affected.

I dont' say this for fun. I have many issues with XR but their members are largely good and decent people. I just think this is wrong headed. They continually refuse to see capitalism for what it is


----------



## cloudyday (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> And listen to people’s concerns and centre working class people’s vision for a green future.



a future where class division still exists is no future, green or otherwise.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

Did you mean to ask something, cloudyday ?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Did you mean to ask something, cloudyday ?


Ah, I see your edit.  Yes, I agree.


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

Some people, daily mail etc, will just_ always _take pleasure in being pissed off at anybody who spends their time doing actions , because why aren't they all at work. Same as it ever was.
I don't know if  the target of the protest makes much difference to that contingent and reckon their pissed off-ness is probably not worth worrying about much at all.

It does seem to me that the awareness raising time is done now, if you're not aware by now that's a choice. So thats kind of a waste of time, as a general intention.
That little survey i posted up earlier, with across the board in the UK now, after this summer, all ages & all political labels included,  the vast majority saying no change now is scarier than making the changes to reduce warming, i found that really encouraging.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> But they aren't shutting down London. If they managed to do that I'd be impressed and would certainly revisit my opinion. Instead they are just inconveniencing the people they need on side. I doubt BP are going to be affected.
> 
> I dont' say this for fun. I have many issues with XR but their members are largely good and decent people. I just think this is wrong headed. They continually refuse to see capitalism for what it is


So what should they do then? Personally I reckon the working classes at Stratford station (of whom I was one when they protested there) will be even more pissed off when they're swimming to work. Climate change is going to cause an awful lot of inconvenience.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> So what should they do then? Personally I reckon the working classes at Stratford station (of whom I was one when they protested there) will be even more pissed off when they're swimming to work. Climate change is going to cause an awful lot of inconvenience.



On some level I agree, pissing people off is a bit inevitable, and it shouldn't be worried about too much. The problem for me with that (and other similar) actions is that like much of the road blocking it creates attention and makes people aware of the situation, but not much more. But one of the serious down sides is that it gives the impression of finger pointing moralism (don't drive, don't fly, don't eat meat, don't go to work...) and that allows division to be very easily exacerbated between XR and others.

The root problem is that XR want a revolution (even if they don't say or know that) and to get that you need some level of violence and militancy combined with some control of productive and material forces (transport, power generation, food production and distribution, etc.) which XR have no involvement with, so it leaves them as shouty activists trying to create chaos and disruption as their source of power, which is very limited.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> it gives the impression of finger pointing moralism (don't drive, don't fly, don't eat meat, don't go to work...) and that allows division to be very easily exacerbated between XR and others.


Exactly.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

I really can't be the only person though who has reached a point where I feel I have to _do _something, even if that means risking arrest, and XR have to channel that somehow, and I'm not sure of the best way to do that without the risk of it looking like moralism. Perhaps relentlessly targeting fossil fuel companies and the institutions that fund them or take their money.

(I'm not actually going to do anything particularly because I'm not much wanting to up sticks and go and hang around central London indefinitely, but the urge is there...)


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> On some level I agree, pissing people off is a bit inevitable, and it shouldn't be worried about too much. The problem for me with that (and other similar) actions is that like much of the road blocking it creates attention and makes people aware of the situation, but not much more. But one of the serious down sides is that it gives the impression of finger pointing moralism (don't drive, don't fly, don't eat meat, don't go to work...) and that allows division to be very easily exacerbated between XR and others.
> 
> The root problem is that XR want a revolution (even if they don't say or know that) and to get that you need some level of violence and militancy combined with some control of productive and material forces (transport, power generation, food production and distribution, etc.) which XR have no involvement with, so it leaves them as shouty activists trying to create chaos and disruption as their source of power, which is very limited.


Well they need about fifty times as many people as they've got to pull off a revolution (which won't be an anti-capitalist) one so all they can do is turn up and cause as much disruption as they can and hope it will grow.  They'll grow faster this way than meetings and paper sales. If they're bigger this time then they're onto something. 

They currently seem the best option for saving the world. I'm not completely happy with the demands but it's an improvement on continuing blindly forward with the vicious kleptocracy that's being created at the moment.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

I think they need to give up on civil disobedience and go with forceful and militant direct action tbh, the civil disobedience stuff is really holding them back imo, especially since it has brought its own sub-cultural and middle class and semi-religious baggage and been made into the same as being polite and 'nice'.


----------



## LDC (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well they need about fifty times as many people as they've got to pull off a revolution (which won't be an anti-capitalist) one so all they can do is turn up and cause as much disruption as they can and hope it will grow.



That's a problem. Disruption will not grow the movement. It will hold it back.


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

The couple of people I know who got really involved in xr are silly people tbh, sweet and well meaning but daft, I think it’s a bit of a festival thing for them.
But I am so sick of hearing XR are no good, they should not do this, they should not do that.
Want someone to say what I should do. Cos honestly I have no clue. Not going to sit down in a road if I don’t even see the point of the action though.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

What I'm saying is we'll see what happens in September. If they've got significantly more people on the ground than last time then as far as I'm concerned it means they're doing the right thing. They want a revolution and to an extent that's a numbers game.


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

If there were a million people sitting in the streets in London in September, and protesting at heathrow etc etc then what? The government / BP would think, ok we better do what these people have on their list of demands? maybe that would happen.

 I think in a targetted way it could work, like maybe if the sitting happened in Cumbria to make the proposed new coal mine a news item too embarrassing to approve.
 But even that is complicated, because jobs. Nothing seems simple tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2021)

bimble said:


> If there were a million people sitting in the streets in London in September, then what? The government / BP would think, oh ok we better do what these people have on their list of demands? maybe that would happen.


If you remember a million or more people in London on 15.2.03 having er no impact on the government's plan to invade iraq then you'll realise how unlikely it is a million people in London next month would be to have an impact on a the government for a larger, more expensive and permanent project, even if delay will end up costing us more


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

bimble said:


> If there were a million people sitting in the streets in London in September, and protesting at heathrow etc etc then what? The government / BP would think, ok we better do what these people have on their list of demands? maybe that would happen.
> I think in a targetted way it could work, like maybe if the sitting happened in Cumbria to make the proposed new coal mine a news item too embarrassing to approve. But even that is complicated, because jobs. Nothing seems simple tbh.


Why are they sitting in the street in London?  That makes the message seem like “individual citizens: stop driving”.

They should be trying to close down Fawley refinery, or Grangemouth refinery.  They need to hit Exxon and BP. Not exacerbate congestion zone queues.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

bimble said:


> If there were a million people sitting in the streets in London in September, and protesting at heathrow etc etc then what? The government / BP would think, ok we better do what these people have on their list of demands? maybe that would happen.
> 
> I think in a targetted way it could work, like maybe if the sitting happened in Cumbria to make the proposed new coal mine a news item too embarrassing to approve.
> But even that is complicated, because jobs. Nothing seems simple tbh.


No. Then they'd have to start occupying buildings and getting into fights but they claim to have researched insurrections and revolutions and appear to be targeting the capital so I'm assuming they've worked that out. 



Pickman's model said:


> If you remember a million or more people in London on 15.2.03 having er no impact on the government's plan to invade iraq then you'll realise how unlikely it is a million people in London next month would be to have an impact on a the government for a larger, more expensive and permanent project, even if delay will end up costing us more


To be fair all the people on the Iraq demos went home at the end of the day.


----------



## bimble (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. Then they'd have to start occupying buildings and getting into fights but they claim to have researched insurrections and revolutions and appear to be targeting the capital so I'm assuming they've worked that out.


So whats the point of the initial bit if it would take other tactics to effect change?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Why are they sitting in the street in London?  That makes the message seem like “individual citizens: stop driving”.
> 
> They should be trying to close down Fawley refinery, or Grangemouth refinery.  They need to hit Exxon and BP. Not exacerbate congestion zone queues.



Most of the refinery's are a pisser to get to these days but various groups have done sterling work fighting against fracking in local areas.

Sadly they are also fighting HS2 because trains are bad.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Most of the refinery's are a pisser to get to these days but various groups have done sterling work fighting against fracking in local areas.


Sure, and XR are in many ways great. They get people out. And you’re right, the anti fracking groups have been great. (Although sadly one in my former neck of the woods went a bit 5G conspiracy. But that’s another thread).

My issue with seeming to have the message “private citizen: don’t drive!” is take just for example where my family are from: Blantyre. It’s an ex-coal mining town with a nearby ex-steel works.  All the jobs were in the mine or the steel.  Then there were none.  Now most people (if they work) work in things like care.  So they’re scattered over the central belt. You used to be able to cycle to Ravenscraig or walk to the mine. But if your care home is in East Renfrewshire, if you don’t drive you don’t get there.  Trying to do that on public transport would involve overnight stays!

So you need to provide the alternatives. How do people in low wage jobs get to work?  If your message just looks like “stop driving”, you may as well be talking Klingon. It doesn’t relate to real lived experience of people.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Most of the refinery's are a pisser to get to these days but various groups have done sterling work fighting against fracking in local areas.
> 
> Sadly they are also fighting HS2 because trains are bad.


I think this is my biggest problem with the sort of people who are often the most enthusiastic about XR - they also tend to bang on about HS2, and Drax, neither of which are anywhere near as bad as the road building programme or gas fired power stations. Priorities all wrong and no understanding of the complexity of decarbonisation.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Sure, and XR are in many ways great. They get people out. And you’re right, the anti fracking groups have been great. (Although sadly one in my former neck of the woods went a bit 5G conspiracy. But that’s another thread).
> 
> My issue with seeming to have the message “private citizen: don’t drive!” is take just for example where my family are from: Blantyre. It’s an ex-coal mining town with a nearby ex-steel works.  All the jobs were in the mine or the steel.  Then there were none.  Now most people (if they work) work in things like care.  So they’re scattered over the central belt. You used to be able to cycle to Ravenscraig or walk to the mine. But if your care home is in East Renfrewshire, if you don’t drive you don’t get there.  Trying to do that on public transport would involve overnight stays!
> 
> So you need to provide the alternatives. How do people in low wage jobs get to work?  If your message just looks like “stop driving”, you may as well be talking Klingon. It doesn’t relate to real lived experience of people.


But the message isn't meant to be that, is it? It may be what is being interpreted, I grant you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> But the message isn't meant to be that, is it? It may be what is being interpreted, I grant you.


That’s exactly my point. Their choice of action is in large part what gives that impression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is my biggest problem with the sort of people who are often the most enthusiastic about XR - they also tend to bang on about HS2, and Drax, neither of which are anywhere near as bad as the road building programme or gas fired power stations. Priorities all wrong and no understanding of the complexity of decarbonisation.


As I understand it the big selling point of hs2 is it would make it marginally faster to get to London from Birmingham at a cost of billions and damage to loads of ancient woodlands, not to mention the very real damage it's doing to thousands of people's lives in London. It seems a perverse project, as does the roadbuilding. It shouldn't be a case of either or but in this instance neither


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> As I understand it the big selling point of hs2 is it would make it marginally to get to London from Birmingham at a cost of billions and damage to loads of ancient woodlands, not to mention the very real damage it's doing to thousands of people's lives in London. It seems a perverse project, as does the roadbuilding. It shouldn't be a case of either or but in this instance neither


This isn't the thread for it, but it isn't really, the main point is increased capacity. Which we will need given we need to change the transport system. I think ancient woodlands should be untouchable and I don't think the project has been well planned or executed, but it's really not the most evil thing out there.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> it's really not the most evil thing out there.


It’s no gravy on pizzas.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I think this is my biggest problem with the sort of people who are often the most enthusiastic about XR - they also tend to bang on about HS2, and Drax, neither of which are anywhere near as bad as the road building programme or gas fired power stations. Priorities all wrong and no understanding of the complexity of decarbonisation.



It’s also both centralised but decentralised. The vision and marketing is quite centrally led but the groups are quite grassroots.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s exactly my point. Their choice of action is in large part what gives that impression.


I think it's more the fact that the media drags all conversations about the environment onto personal responsibility in order to obfuscate. Every thing of theirs I've ever read and every time I've ever seen one of them talk they've been at great pains to point out that this isn't about personal carbon footprint or any of that bollocks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think it's more the fact that the media drags all conversations about the environment onto personal responsibility in order to obfuscate.


That’s definitely something that happens.  The BBC did exactly that on Monday:


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 11, 2021)

They block roads (amongst many other things) because it's a simple and immediate way of getting attention, not because of anything about cars.

There is literally nothing they could do which wouldn't get reframed by the press and government as "against hard-working people". I've taken pictures at many XR events, and while there have been a couple of people in traffic who just shout and sometimes even attempt to drive through them (slowly/half-heartedly tbh, not in a murderous way) in general most people are quite positive about it all and appreciate the need for what's happening.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> That’s definitely something that happens.  The BBC did exactly that on Monday:
> 
> View attachment 283183


The BBC are fucking shameless these days. It's not like they were anything other than the state broadcaster previously but it's like watching CCTV in China now.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 11, 2021)

maomao said:


> So what should they do then? Personally I reckon the working classes at Stratford station (of whom I was one when they protested there) will be even more pissed off when they're swimming to work. Climate change is going to cause an awful lot of inconvenience.


I wish I had an answer for you. 

Of course I agree that climate change will create greater consequences than a delayed train or a gridlock, but do most/enough people draw that conclusion yet? Even now?


----------



## vanya (Aug 11, 2021)

Why nothing has been done about climate change. Can capitalism adapt to the environmental crisis or is it a case of socialism or barbarism?









						Climate Change and Institutional Failure
					

Here are some of the headlines from the IPCC report on climate change, released yesterday (summary here ).   * The scale of recent changes a...




					averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2021)

vanya said:


> Why nothing has been done about climate change. Can capitalism adapt to the environmental crisis or is it a case of socialism or barbarism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Capitalism has always been barbarism

So yes it is socialism or barbarism


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 11, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Capitalism has always been barbarism
> 
> So yes it is socialism or barbarism


surely there are degrees of barbarism though. there's savage dystopian nightmare and then there's savage dystopian nightmare at 40 degrees in the shade.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> surely there are degrees of barbarism though. there's savage dystopian nightmare and then there's savage dystopian nightmare at 40 degrees in the shade.


Sadly there are barbaric degrees of socialism too


----------



## Flavour (Aug 11, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Why are they sitting in the street in London?  That makes the message seem like “individual citizens: stop driving”.
> 
> They should be trying to close down Fawley refinery, or Grangemouth refinery.  They need to hit Exxon and BP. Not exacerbate congestion zone queues.



I agree.  This is what I meant about building on the successes of Ende Gelande


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

Read the book _How to Blow Up a Pipeline_ yesterday and recommend it, especially to those people saying things like 'Yeah XR aren't great, but what else is there to do?'

I was going to write a quick review of it for here, but there's a few articles/interviews here that cover the interesting and useful points...









						Destroying the Means of Planetary Destruction: Richard Seymour in Conversation with Andreas Malm
					

In urgent times comes the urgent necessity of new hedonism, and of inflicting losses on our enemies, of revelling in certain fires.




					salvage.zone
				







__





						‘Property Will Cost Us the Earth’: On Ecological Rage and Class Hatred
					

Marxist climate-scholar Andreas Malm argues that the time for peaceful protest has passed




					artreview.com
				











						The Kaleidoscope of Catastrophe - On the Clarities and Blind Spots of Andreas Malm - Viewpoint Magazine
					

Reviews of Malm’s individual works may miss his blindspots and ambivalences, but once we read them side by side, we can begin to understand that they are structural to his work.




					viewpointmag.com
				




Sure there's plenty more out there, but it's a short book and the points it makes are pretty easily grasped.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

A good point that jumped out as me was thinking about carbon emissions as either _luxury_ or _subsistence_ rather then as all equal. Obviously they bleed into each other, but it related to what I said earlier on this thread about 'easy' victories. Meaning less about huge categories like domestic heating or aviation per se, but more about what areas can we attack and eliminate without huge disruption to the majority of people's lives.

So Malm talks about private aviation, SUVs, luxury yachts... climate class war if you like. And he mentions this has the advantage of acting as deterrent to those aspiring to this lifestyle, so changing the limits of what is acceptable culturally.

He also says lots on the poverty of XRs strategic insistence, not just on non-violence, but on no property damage, no sabotage, and insisting on a ridiculous level of politeness and 'nice' behavior. With this they've painted themselves into a corner with what's left to them as activity; basically some form of peacefully blocking roads and symbolic arty and dressing up stuff is pretty much all they can do with this very dogmatic position.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Why are they sitting in the street in London?  That makes the message seem like “individual citizens: stop driving”.
> 
> They should be trying to close down Fawley refinery, or Grangemouth refinery.  They need to hit Exxon and BP. Not exacerbate congestion zone queues.



Around here they either seem to sit on a roundabout stopping NHS workers getting to the large hospital or glue themselves to a local bank branch stopping pensioners from taking money out. 

I'm not sure that refinery type targets are much better - we don't actually want the refineries to shut down because we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet. Direct action is great when you actually want something to stop immediately , like a factory chucking mercury in the river or sending cluster bombs to Yemen or whatever.

I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).


Atomised protest through petitions and letter writing, which seems to be what you suggest, doesn't sound a great plan when years and years of such work, and of politicians receiving report after report detailing our progress down the road to catastrophe, have had so little impact.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Atomised protest through petitions and letter writing, which seems to be what you suggest, doesn't sound a great plan when years and years of such work, and of politicians receiving report after report detailing our progress down the road to catastrophe, have had so little impact.



That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.


A programme of assassinations then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.


So what do you mean by pressure on local and national politicians?


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> ... we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet.



Are we ready for floods, wildfires and hurricanes? It seems to me that fuel shortages for a while may turn out to be easier to manage, and less lethal to fewer people, than .. well. The kinds of climate events which are already inevitable, and already in progress. And can only worsen, while we shy away from eg. causing fuel shortages.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 12, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Are we ready for floods, wildfires and hurricanes? It seems to me that fuel shortages for a while may turn out to be easier to manage, and less lethal to fewer people, than .. well. The kinds of climate events which are already inevitable, and already in progress. And can only worsen, while we shy away from eg. causing fuel shortages.


We're ready for neither. It's not either/or. 

That's the tragedy of it. We should be ready.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Around here they either seem to sit on a roundabout stopping NHS workers getting to the large hospital or glue themselves to a local bank branch stopping pensioners from taking money out.
> 
> I'm not sure that refinery type targets are much better - we don't actually want the refineries to shut down because we aren't ready for diesel to stop being supplied to forecourts yet. Direct action is great when you actually want something to stop immediately , like a factory chucking mercury in the river or sending cluster bombs to Yemen or whatever.
> 
> I think pressure on politicians in both local and national government to expedite net zero plans is the only kind of protest that makes sense at the moment (other than peripheral stuff like luxury yachts that LynnDoyleCooper mentions).


I thought they were pretty careful not to hinder the emergency services and nurses etc. But I suppose they can't distinguish between commuters on public transport, while an ambulance is obvious. That's not going to go down well at this time, if they impede health staff of any kind


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> We're ready for neither. It's not either/or.
> 
> That's the tragedy of it. We should be ready.



Yeah exactly, fuel shortages impacting people negatively aren't inevitable, if they happen they'll be the result of the choices and priorities of politicians and business.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 12, 2021)

The argument just goes in circles.

It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.

I'm beginning to think someone needs to just start exploding infrastructure, not just blocking it. The consequences of not exploding infrastructure now seem potentially more serious for more people. But here I'm just restating my last post.

I'm not here to argue though, I'm here to read others' arguments. I'm simply at a loss to know what "we" who aren't in charge should do, if "they" who are in charge continue not to act. Ultimately Earth is as much my responsibility as yours, or any individual's. If the collective fails in its duty of care, what's an individual to do?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> The argument just goes in circles.
> 
> It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.
> 
> ...


Yup.  And to be fair to XR they have the numbers and they’re doing something.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> The argument just goes in circles.
> 
> It's the state and business that need to act! But they aren't acting. Then individuals need to act! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or, we need to prepare for both. But it's not individuals' fault! No, so government and business need to act! But they aren't acting. We must persuade them! They aren't listening. Persuade them harder! But that causes disruption. Worse disruption than climate change? It's not either/or..... etc.



I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.

The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.


----------



## bimble (Aug 12, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> So Malm talks about private aviation, SUVs, luxury yachts... climate class war if you like. And he mentions this has the advantage of acting as deterrent to those aspiring to this lifestyle, so changing *the limits of what is acceptable culturally.*


Yep that is interesting, shame is a powerful force. Like how nobody parks on the disabled bays for instance, and nobody (in UK) wears fur coats anymore. Are SUVs and yachts a significant contribution to emissions? idk but still. Ostentatious consumption becoming a shameful thing i can imagine quite easily.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.
> 
> The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.


I completely agree with you, though with the proviso that in targeting things like luxury emissions we don't end giving a different impression - that all that matters is the emissions of the rich, because while they are absolutely the worst offenders it isn't really true, unfortunately. System change does have to happen at every level (and people need to be supported with that). 

Occurred to me while out walking the dog in a leafy village nearby, that if finger pointing has any role at all in climate activism (whether intentionally or because that is how actions are going to be interpreted anyway) then that needs to be targeted at the most profiligate. There is a really interesting tool that came out recently that shows which neighbourhoods across the country are burning the most carbon. Place-based carbon calculator

The worst places are mainly rural and wealthy. Often these are the sorts of people that can damn well afford to spend the money on retrofitting their houses, buying electric cars, etc etc, but damn well aren't going to, because they can afford massive gas bills and don't give a fuck.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

Yeah the targeting the rich/luxury emissions is Malm's idea, not mine, and I'm not totally convinced by it. But there needs to be some discussion about what to do that isn't blocking roads and parading about in costumes and doing symbolic chalking of walls etc.

There's been some chat about, and targeting of, the banks (the finance behind carbon etc.), but the way that plays out is mostly at local branches which is just a slight variation on the road blocking in that it just annoys people and comes across as finger pointing moralism, and tbh I think it makes you look weird to pretty much anyone but Guardian readers. If you want to target the banks go to the houses of the CEOs etc. not the local branch ffs.


----------



## bimble (Aug 12, 2021)

i'm in a red place on that map, F- very bad. Rural. All my heating & hot water comes from oil delivered by a truck into my big plastic tank. I don't know what if anything i can do to change that.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

bimble said:


> i'm in a red place on that map, F- very bad. Rural. All my heating comes from oil delivered by a truck into my big plastic tank. I don't know what if anything i can do to change that.



Nothing and it doesn't matter.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Nothing and it doesn't matter.


I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2021)

I’m not on it.


----------



## bimble (Aug 12, 2021)

It can't be as simple as individual actions do not matter, consumer choices are irrelevant / the wrong tree to bark up. It's got to be at least a part of the mix hasn't it.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2021)

bimble said:


> It can't be as simple as individual actions do not matter, consumer choices are irrelevant / the wrong tree to bark up. It's got to be at least a part of the mix hasn't it.


At the end of the day one part of whole system change is individual behaviour and preferences. It's not just changes of regulations and laws and business practices. At some point in the next two decades we will all have to replace our heating systems, individual action will have to take place. It has to be part of the mix, it's just historically been perceived to be the only lever that is getting pushed.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.



I was being _slightly_ tongue in cheek, but yeah fair point, although it's massively dependent on being able to afford to do that as you say. It's also that this is going to be pushed as the solution so to some extent we need to be highly critical of it as well, or at least move it away from the political solutions discussion into personal life changes discussion as they get very mixed up in people's heads, encouraged by media/State etc.

I've made some changes, but why and what they are doesn't belong in any of these discussions I think.


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2021)

Governments acting rather than individuals at some point is going to involve governments putting limits on individual behaviour and individual access to resources. I think it's fine to discuss what those changes might be like, what might be more or less acceptable and even to start making those changes without waiting for them to be forced.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 12, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.
> 
> The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.



I fully agree.

It's not me being unhelpful though; it's the climate being unhelpful, and it's the people in charge being unhelpful. Don't look at me, I'm just 'little people' like you, with eyes and ears, and the ability to do what I can, which I do. Calling me 'unhelpful' (given my personal unimportance to any of this) is even more pointless than the circular arguments I've (we've all) been hearing for the last 40-odd years about _who should bear the heaviest burden of climate change._ The argument is nearly irrelevant, we know it will be the poorest. It always is (and ftr, 'the poorest' on a global scale isn't us in the UK).

The question for me is, how long do we go on talking about this, before we start throwing actual physical spanners into the works? The debates have been raging for at least 2 generations, when do we do something else? Yesterday? Today? Tomorrow? And we can direct action against companies and rich individuals as carefully as we like, but they will ensure they aren't the ones who bear the brunt of any losses and harms. They'll pass on whatever they can, downwards, because they always do.

I am in favour of extreme and destructive direct action, in the cause of inhibiting and disabling extreme and destructive systemic action. I always have been, and like many of us I've taken part personally. Once my parenting responsibilities are discharged I expect to find myself in trouble personally once again


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> It's not me being unhelpful though; it's the climate being unhelpful, and it's the people in charge being unhelpful. Don't look at me, I'm just 'little people' like you, with eyes and ears, and the ability to do what I can, which I do. Calling me 'unhelpful' (given my personal unimportance to any of this) is even more pointless than the circular arguments I've (we've all) been hearing for the last 40-odd years about _who should bear the heaviest burden of climate change._ The argument is nearly irrelevant, we know it will be the poorest. It always is (and ftr, 'the poorest' on a global scale isn't us in the UK).
> 
> ...



That's one of the issues Malm beings up in his book I mentioned above... "When is it time to be more forceful and direct, now, or at 2 degrees, or at 3 degrees? Should we wait for a consensus? A majority? A big minority?" (From memory, so not his exact words, but something like that.)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I don't think this is 100% true. Bimble could start working out what would be needed to do to insulate the property and have a heat pump installed (which is what I'm doing at the moment). I can't afford it right now but I want to be ready to take advantage of the next inevitable lot of government grants. Yes individual action isn't the priority BUT we do still need individuals to take action - apart from anything else research shows that there is a contagion effect from people taking action in improving their properties etc. We shouldn't be pushing individual action as a political message but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.


Yeah, just as shaming individuals to do stuff while ultimately the system is structurally to blame seems the wrong focus, so is it the wrong focus to ridicule people for at least trying.  You want to make some changes? Good. Go ahead.

But me recycling the plastic bag round the bananas is a drop in the ocean when a) the food industry needs to stop putting it round them in the first place, b) we can’t be sure it won’t just be shipped to Turkey rather than actually recycled anyway.

The individual acts aren’t nothing, but they aren’t enough nor are they what the main focus should be.


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2021)

The problem with 'more forceful and direct' is that it's very difficult to discuss in detail in public.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> Yeah, just as shaming individuals to do stuff while ultimately the system is structurally to blame seems the wrong focus, so is it the wrong focus to ridicule people for at least trying.  You want to make some changes? Good. Go ahead.
> 
> But me recycling the plastic bag round the bananas is a drop in the ocean when a) the food industry needs to stop putting it round them in the first place, b) we can’t be sure it won’t just be shipped to Turkey rather than actually recycled anyway.
> 
> The individual acts aren’t nothing, but they aren’t enough nor are they what the main focus should be.


I completely agree but we do have to recognise that the actions we want governments and industry to take will end up impacting on individuals and force individual action. Yes there are political choices about how those actions are put into place that can change how that impact is felt but the rhetoric from some parts of the left that this is all about a small number of evil companies obscures the fact that system change affects everyone.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I feel like you're missing the point, or interpreting it in a unhelpful way. I'm not seeing it as that circular thing at all.
> 
> The argument many are making is pretty simple; action needs to be taken, action that is more militant and forceful than is currently being taken, and it needs to target the production/extraction processes of fossil fuels and the luxury end of carbon emissions, while minimizing the negative impact on most people's lives, push for full support for those impacted by the changes, and ideally in alliance with people working in those industries. Fuck having pressurizing the politicians and businesses as an aim, they'll feel the pressure and catch up (or not) either way - and to some extent its the same for the wider population.


I think your point about alliances with people in particular industries is really important here. 

For action to be effective, it needs to go beyond protest or even direct action which aims at stopping something happening, to actions which are or include the active building of alternatives. 

Much of XR's activities seem to be based on the idea that if they protest enough, government will take the necessary action.

But the necessary action of transforming society (and that's what we're talking about, ultimately) needs to be taken by ordinary people working collectively, not by government or even by well intentioned climate activists.

danny la rouge was right when he said that XR are asking for a revolution, even if they don't realise that themselves, and they might be part of that revolution but they and their activities will never be the whole of it.


----------



## LDC (Aug 12, 2021)

A snippet of info from Malm's book that made me laugh was that the book XR has based its strategy on, _Why Civil Resistance Works_ by Chenoweth and Stephan (https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820) was authored and written by Stephan while she worked in the US embassy in Kabul as as officer in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.  

He demolishes the book's premise (and so XR's strategy that came from Hallam etc.) pretty nicely.

So, if XR have based their entire strategy on a flawed study, have they shown any indication of re-thinking that?


----------



## bimble (Aug 12, 2021)

I didn't even know that heat pumps exist ! Which just shows my ignorance obvs, which ignorance i think is a result of my 'we are all doomed anyway' attitude for far too long. Am really glad that i have an option, that i could not have to rely on oil even out here.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 12, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> It's not me being unhelpful though; it's the climate being unhelpful, and it's the people in charge being unhelpful. Don't look at me, I'm just 'little people' like you, with eyes and ears, and the ability to do what I can, which I do. Calling me 'unhelpful' (given my personal unimportance to any of this) is even more pointless than the circular arguments I've (we've all) been hearing for the last 40-odd years about _who should bear the heaviest burden of climate change._ The argument is nearly irrelevant, we know it will be the poorest. It always is (and ftr, 'the poorest' on a global scale isn't us in the UK).
> 
> ...



The tactic we're using here is to takeover and run local governing boards that regulate utilities.   We can only do that because we live in a public power district.  Its one of the many reasons that they're trying to privatize electric utilities.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2021)

andysays said:


> @danny la rouge was right when he said that XR are asking for a revolution, even if they don't realise that themselves, and they might be part of that revolution but they and their activities will never be the whole of it.


I don’t remember saying that, but I sound very sensible. I agree with me.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t remember saying that, but I sound very sensible. I agree with me.


I thought you said something along those lines, but maybe it was someone else, or maybe I just imagined the whole thing. 

Point still stands though, whoever said it first.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I don’t remember saying that, but I sound very sensible. I agree with me.



My mistake, it was LDC who said it



LynnDoyleCooper said:


> ...The root problem is that XR want a revolution (even if they don't say or know that)...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 27, 2021)

Climate Destruction is Systemic – the Response Cannot Be “Individually Blame Ourselves”. - Anarchist Communist Group
					

At the beginning of August 2021, the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change) reported on the latest evidence and announced a “code red for humanity”...




					www.anarchistcommunism.org


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Have been listening to Robert Evans second series of It Could Happen Here which is centered around environmental collapse rather than civil war this time. He's managed to persuade me of more of the merits of anarchism in half a dozen episodes than this place has in nearly twenty years. 

He thinks the main thing we should be doing is improving mutual aid networks to prepare and and in the first five episodes called for a general strike and describes terrorism as a legitimate response to climate change. Would recommend.


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Have been listening to Robert Evans second series of It Could Happen Here which is centered around environmental collapse rather than civil war this time. He's managed to persuade me of more of the merits of anarchism in half a dozen episodes than this place has in nearly twenty years.
> 
> He thinks the main thing we should be doing is improving mutual aid networks to prepare and and in the first five episodes called for a general strike and describes terrorism as a legitimate response to climate change. Would recommend.


Do you have a link?


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

andysays said:


> Do you have a link?


Um, it's a podcast. I listen on Spotify:



I don't know if it's premium content or not (ie. if you need a paid subscription). There are probably better ways of listening to podcasts, ask someone under forty.

ETA: pretty impressed with myself for embeddng a Spotify link. I'll be on tiktok next.


----------



## LDC (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Have been listening to Robert Evans second series of It Could Happen Here which is centered around environmental collapse rather than civil war this time. He's managed to persuade me of more of the merits of anarchism in half a dozen episodes than this place has in nearly twenty years.
> 
> He thinks the main thing we should be doing is improving mutual aid networks to prepare and and in the first five episodes called for a general strike and describes terrorism as a legitimate response to climate change. Would recommend.



Brilliant! I really liked his civil war one. Bedtime listening tonight, thanks!

Hmmm, that link you posted is only a few minutes, is it a longer thing or series as well?


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Um, it's a podcast. I listen on Spotify:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's premium content or not (ie. if you need a paid subscription). There are probably better ways of listening to podcasts, ask someone under forty.



Thanks - I already have a spotify subscription, but haven't ever used it for podcasts, so I'll give it a go.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Brilliant! I really liked his civil war one. Bedtime listening tonight, thanks!
> 
> Hmmm, that link you posted is only a few minutes, is it a longer thing or series as well?


That's the intro to the new series. First five episodes are very much in the same style as series one and then discussion shows from there on in. There are three weeks worth up already (five a week).He's also got an audio novel up if you just want the future dystopia stuff.


----------



## yield (Sep 2, 2021)

Just listened to the first episode of the second series. Good so far. 









						Vanessa Nakate: ‘I felt like I had wasted time going to Davos’
					

Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate was cut from a photo with Greta Thunberg leaving only white people. It was an event that would hurtle her to global fame. She spoke to Abdi Latif Dahir




					www.independent.co.uk
				












						The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells review – our terrifying future
					

Enough to induce a panic attack ... a brutal portrait of climate change and our future lives on Earth. But we have the tools to avoid it




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2021)

yield said:


> Just listened to the first episode of the second series. Good so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I found that link unusable I am afraid, ads everywhere - article not to be found.  


yield said:


> The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells review – our terrifying future
> 
> 
> Enough to induce a panic attack ... a brutal portrait of climate change and our future lives on Earth. But we have the tools to avoid it
> ...


----------



## yield (Sep 3, 2021)

weltweit said:


> I found that link unusable I am afraid, ads everywhere - article not to be found.


Outline - Read & annotate without distractions worldwide you ought to use ghostery in your browser


----------



## teqniq (Sep 17, 2021)

FFS:


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2021)

WTF

Glasgow is going to be fun


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 21, 2021)

Going to be a fun day in Glasgow when the conference kicks off.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 2, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A snippet of info from Malm's book that made me laugh was that the book XR has based its strategy on, _Why Civil Resistance Works_ by Chenoweth and Stephan (Why Civil Resistance Works | Columbia University Press) was authored and written by Stephan while she worked in the US embassy in Kabul as as officer in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.
> 
> He demolishes the book's premise (and so XR's strategy that came from Hallam etc.) pretty nicely.
> 
> So, if XR have based their entire strategy on a flawed study, have they shown any indication of re-thinking that?


Recent LRB had two reviews of Malm's books by James Butler and Adam Tooze. Both word reading and recognising that whatever one thinks of Malm's proposals they need to be properly engaged with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2022)

weltweit said:


> WTF
> 
> Glasgow is going to be fun


What do you think of it now?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 20, 2022)

It looks like we're going to tip a major point soon.  The gulf stream is showing signs of collapse:



> One of the most crucial ocean current systems for regulating the Northern Hemisphere's climate could be on the verge of total collapse due to climate change, a new study has revealed.
> 
> The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which includes the Gulf Stream and is responsible for moderating large parts of the world's climate, has undergone "an almost complete loss of stability over the last century", according to a new analysis. The currents work like a conveyor belt to transport warm, salty water northward from the tropics and cold water back south along the seafloor. This giant conveyor belt had already been shown to be at its weakest in more than a thousand years, but now it could be veering toward a total breakdown.
> 
> Such a collapse would have a disastrous impact on global weather systems, leading to sea-level rises in the Atlantic; greater cooling and more powerful storms across the Northern Hemisphere; and severe disruption to the rain that billions of people rely upon to grow crops in Africa, South America and India, according to the U.K.'s meteorological office.











						Gulf Stream could be veering toward irreversible collapse, a new analysis warns
					

Although scientists don’t fully understand the varying strengths of the factors contributing to the slowdown, all of them are linked to human-caused climate change.




					www.livescience.com
				




Been nice to know ya boys...


----------



## andysays (Jan 20, 2022)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It looks like we're going to tip a major point pretty sure.  The gulf stream is showing signs of collapse:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 28, 2022)




----------



## yield (Mar 1, 2022)

New IPCC report highlights urgency of climate change impacts
February 28, 2022


> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) second part of its Sixth Assessment Report summarizes the latest scientific research on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilities.
> 
> The new IPCC Working Group II report paints an alarming picture of rapidly growing risks currently being felt around the world, including widespread damages to human and ecological health. It finds nearly half the world population living “in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change.”





> For example, the IPCC says in its report that climate change has exacerbated food and water insecurity, extreme weather disasters, declines in people’s physical and mental health, premature deaths, species loss and extinctions, and vector-borne diseases in regions around the world. Citing the Paris Climate Agreement ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, the authors warn that each additional increment of global warming above that threshold will bring increased risks of new and worsened climate damages.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 4, 2022)

bimble said:


> I didn't even know that heat pumps exist ! Which just shows my ignorance obvs, which ignorance i think is a result of my 'we are all doomed anyway' attitude for far too long. Am really glad that i have an option, that i could not have to rely on oil even out here.



This kind of thing is why I absolutely despise "doomer" rhetoric. It blinds us and renders us passive.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 4, 2022)

Another report out at 4pm today so everyone get reading


----------



## gawkrodger (Apr 4, 2022)

So far my very quick takeaways - need to decrase emissions by 2025 otherwise we're fucked


build massive amounts of solar and wind
electrify everything
Conservation and efficiency implementation on everything
halt deforestation (from a quick skim it seems less hot on halting extractive industries but may tie in with below)
vast increase in research on stuff not figured out (planes, cement, sand etc)

huge simplification, but it. unsurprisingly, reads quite GND in places


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 4, 2022)

> The global wealthiest 10% contribute about 36-45% of global GHG emissions (robust evidence, 10 high agreement). The global 10% wealthiest consumers live in all continents, with two thirds in high-11 income regions and one third in emerging economies (robust evidence, medium agreement). The 12 lifestyle consumption emissions of the middle income and poorest citizens in emerging economies are 13 between 5-50 times below their counterparts in high-income countries (medium evidence, medium 14 agreement). Increasing inequality within a country can exacerbate dilemmas of redistribution and social 15 cohesion, and affect the willingness of rich and poor to accept lifestyle changes for mitigation and 16 policies to protect the environment (medium evidence, medium agreement) {2.6.1, 2.6.2, Figure 2.25



Insane.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 4, 2022)




----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2022)

teqniq said:


> FFS:



Definitely in hock to the fossil fuel lobby:


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 22, 2022)

Might have to fire up the VPN for this series









						‘What we now know … they lied’: how big oil companies betrayed us all
					

In a powerful new three-part docuseries, the oil industry is put on trial as the extent of climate change awareness is revealed




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Flavour (Jun 15, 2022)

Huge methane emission from Russian coal mine
					

The rate of release could have powered hundreds of thousands of homes, if sustained and captured.



					www.bbc.com
				




Wasn't sure where to put this and don't think it warrants a thread but yet more evidence that we are, indeed, quite fucked


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2022)

1750 square miles of forest fire in the sakha Republic/ yakutia  that's an area larger than Greater London


----------

