6581

Conservatism is rife within the left as well. It’s just expressed differently. Resistance against nuclear power is a good example. Because environmentalist groups have always opposed nuclear power, they’ll continue to do so even it makes no rational sense whatsoever.

6582

A couple of thoughts…

In the Davos panel clip Gordon posted above Thunberg lays out the basic challenge we’re facing. According to the IPCC, As of January 2018, to give ourselves a 67% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees if warming we only have 450 gigatons of carbon left to burn. The figure is obviously less now and, at our current rate of consumption, we’ll exhaust the budget in 8 years. But our carbon consumption is not going down, the rate is still increasing.

It’s increasing not because people are intentionally trying to make things worse but because our economy drives that consumption. The world is developing and most of our current economy is dependent, directly or indirectly on petroleum.

The other thing about the. World economy is that all economics are based on the idea that tomorrow will be better than today. Without the possibility of growth their is no return on investment and no reason to lend money. Indeed, investing and lending is foolish if you believe things will be worse tomorrow than they are today.

To drive home the point, here’s what Mnuchin had to say at Davis yesterday:

‘Asked whether calls for public and private-sector divestment from fossil fuel companies would threaten US growth, Mnuchin jibed: “Is she the chief economist? Who is she, I’m confused” – before clarifying that he was joking.

‘“After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us,” Mnuchin added, at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos.’

Fatalism is dangerous, I agree, but false hope is equally dangerous. Our current economic models are fundamentally incapable of hitting our carbon targets. To stay within the carbon budget, the entire world economy has less than 8 years to completely change course and find a viable economic path away from carbon. Maybe there’s a model that allows for growth but it will take immediate and coordinated brilliance to find that path. More likely we’re looking at having to accept paying a heavy price economically to save ourselves and that concept Is alien to the people and forces that shape our economy.

People don’t want to hear what Thunberg has to say because she is stating a fundamental truth — The political and economic status quo is not capable of addressing the crisis. Everything must change and it must change on a very accelerated time scale. That’s a brutal truth to accept and more than a likely, it won’t be accepted. Unfortunately, if we don’t choose to change, circumstances will impose change on us and it will not be the change we desire

6583

Growth, which means GDP growth, doesn’t have to come from consumerism, at least not entirely. Hell, shifting everything off coal and oil would boost growth (assuming a just transition, whatever that is) and be green.

6584

This is why we need to ensure that non-carbon energy sources are the better economic option, both through governments putting a thumb on the scales or making the non-carbon technologies more effective per dollar.

Certainly the economics of a growing world is a bit different than a stable or shrinking world, but I’m not sure this all follows. If you expect to get more money out of a loan than you put in, that’s a better use of the money than stuffing it under your mattress. Loans still existed even in ancient times when global economic growth was glacial compared to today.

In an economy that isn’t growing as a whole, you don’t need more of everything, but you still need more of some things (what is needed changes as the world changes), so investments of some form still make sense.

Also, the economy can still grow even if our environmental footprint shrinks. Better stuff, less waste, etc.

6585

I agree, the radical changes we should make would be investment in green alternatives and if everyone committed whole heartedly to that vision, the shift away from petroleum could be an economic opportunity rather than a liability.

But half measures are not going to get us there. Symbolic gestures and hopes for a green future some indeterminate ways off are not going to get us there. We are out of time for picking around the edges and gently trending towards carbon alternatives and hoping the market will accelerate the change. The change needs to happen immediately and the consensus needs to be unanimous.

The invisible hand might steer us there eventually but by then it will be too late. There’s a path forward but it’s narrowing rapidly. Taking advantage of that window of opportunity requires radical change and so the people advocating for that are accurately perceived as radical. But the lowercase c conservative approach is suicide. Business as usual is suicide. Our current political and economic models are not well suited to radical, rapid change.

That what the Cassandras are saying. Not “burn it all down” or “we’re all doomed,” but “wake up and accept these hard truths now — The status quo must be cast aside, only radical change will save us;!make the bold choices now before choice is no longer an option.”

6586

To this it must, of course, be appended that I personally am less optimistic than Thunberg. I would make a terrible advocate because when I look at our politics, I don’t believe that we are capable of making these changes. I believe that these changes are theoretically possible and I dearly hope to be proven wrong but I don’t think the political will exists to get there.

I am an optimist in all areas of my life save the environment and politics. I believe that there are some fatal flaws built into human nature and that a large percentage of people, when feeling threatened or anxious, will turn towards authoritarianism, seeking comfort from strong leaders willing to tell them soothing lies and offering empty promises that only they can save us. The Trump’s and Bolsonaro’s and Boris Johnson’s of the world will not usher in the green economy we need to survive. Quite the opposite.

I really, really hope to be proven wrong. One of the reasons I support Buttigieg even if his politics don’t align perfectly with mine is that he represents hope in the face of cynicism. He offers an alternative to the authoritarian world view and has the vision and charisma to sell that vision to the world.

6587

The invisible hand will only ever steer us there when petroleum and other fossil fuels become too expensive to extract, which will be far far far far far too late. Even heavy-handed government interference won’t work because petroleum is just too useful and our global economy is too heavily based on its use. Even if, say, the US committed to impose excise taxes on petroleum sales of, I don’t know $200/barrel (approximately 400% of current prices), that would just throw the US economy into a tailspin and give significant military and economic advantage to any country that didn’t raise excise taxes. There’s no real alternative to petroleum for military and transport fuel. There’s no energy source that’s as abundant, as easily portable, and has the scale of global infrastructure that petroleum does.

In order to mitigate the coming climate apocalypse, we absolutely have to, right this instant, change how we all live. Stop driving. Stop buying goods shipped from distant regions. Stop eating meat. Abandon geographic areas that rely on long-range trade networks. Reduce the number of children we have. Etc. And we absolutely cannot do those things without catastrophic consequences–including mass starvation and deprivation–that rival those of climate change itself. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. We need time to downscale/change our global economy, develop new technologies, change our global geopolitical culture, and we don’t have it. It’s already too late. We can prepare for the changes that we’ll be forced to make and try to mitigate the coming damage to global ecosystems in the hope that there will be something left to recover on the other side.

6588

I agree that radical action is needed. However, sometimes these calls for change sound like we must have a literal global revolution in the next couple of years. I think the current machinery of government is actually capable of making changes on the needed scale (see American mobilisation during WW2), but somehow the body politic, the will that is supposed to drive the machine, is comatose, or having a psychotic break or something.

It’s so frustrating, because I believe if the people could just think about the future and the evidence with clear eyes, that would be enough. It’s like a horror movie when most of the town is under the sway of the evil hypnotist, and you are hoping for some magic trick to break the spell.

6589

Like this?

6590

To me, the fact that no one can even articulate an executable plan that will make a difference without (as @Matt_W says above) destroying the economies and social order of most countries convinces me that governments can’t deal with the problem. The consequences of serious, sufficient action now are in the near term far worse than the consequences of inaction. So inaction is what we will get, until that situation reverses itself; which will be too late.

6591

It’s entirely possible that this is indeed the case and no one is really eager to see that happen. I know I am not eager to see that happen. And you, who clearly understands the need for change, do not appear eager to see that happen. And yet, that may be what’s necessary. So what does it say that even people who understand the need for radical change are not eager to see radical change.

That is a tension that is starting to manifest and will only grow worse — Folks who feel that revolution is the only way to achieve the radical change required vs folks not eager for the chaos that would accompany such a revolution.

Anyway, that’s why I’m voting Pete ;). Maybe the revolution will be bloodless. Maybe we’ll see the emergence of benevolent authoritarianism. “We choose to [address climate change] in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills. Oh, and by the way, your willingness to accept this challenge and your unwillingness to postpone are now mandatory. You are getting sleepy. You are no longer afraid. Trust us, we’ve got this.”

6592

This feels like an accurate assessment. My fear, (again, I hope I’m wrong), is that the reversal will happen much sooner than folks expect. Exponential change is exponential.

6593

And to think, humans might well be the only sentient (where sentient = technological) species in the entire galaxy. Seems preposterous considering there are upwards of a trillion planets, and that’s not counting moons. Either intelligent life is exceedingly rare - or intelligent life is like us and evolve from apex predators (protein leads to larger brains relative to body weight) and one way or another obliterates itself.

To put it simply, predators are mean.

While there are some truly frightening insects, no species comes close to the viciousness of human beings - not only the horrors we inflict on all other life on this planet, but even what we do to ourselves. We (so far) managed to avoid self-annihilation by nuclear weapons, but climate change is far more insidious (and we don’t even know what’s going to happen once methane from thawed permafrost and the ocean floor enters the atmosphere, or the impact of ocean currents from melting ice caps, etc. etc.)
But it certainly appears human beings cannot escape our fundamental, predatory biology.

It took evolution 4 billion years to produce us*. And our crowning achievement is turning the one planet that can support us to shit.

gg.

(*Edit before the lecture: I know evolution doesn’t work that way.)

6594

Maybe we’re just setting the table for a glorious race of intelligent CO2-breathing, plastic-eating super-intelligent beings.

6595

Bacteria.
With thumbs!

Imagine the possibilities.

6596

It’s because the crisis does not take a form that our psychology is designed to deal with. It moves too slowly and when it moves faster (e.g. fires) it’s possible to wave such incidents off as freak events.

Heck, the issue was first bluntly stated before Congress 32 years ago (and well known to scientists before then). 32 years ago. World War II came and went in 6 (4 for Americans).

And there is a horrible paradox of how we model and define the crisis to ourselves. If you say it’s a moderate problem that requires moderate adjustments to behavior, everybody parses that as “so do nothing till next year, right?” If you say it’s an existential threat to humanity and that it’s of the utmost urgency, every year that the world doesn’t end gives denialists more ammo to complain about the inaccuracy of scientific predictions, and everyone else more reason to shrug.

Fuck, I’m a true believer, and I still drive a car. Every day I put more death fumes into the air. A combination of still wanting to live a normal life, and knowing my idiosyncratic abstinence will count for fuck-all absent a massive collective effort, reinforces that behavior.

6597

I mean, just being blunt, we’re just advanced bacteria. We consume all the food we can get in the petri dish, and expand until we choke in our own shit.

6598

You should read the book The Sea Wolf.

6599

This sums up so much of the world right now. I feel the same way. Heck, even my older relatives that voted for Trump feel the same way. We do little things - less meat, electric cars, and so on but we also see our individual changes as the less then rounding errors that they are unless everyone unites in change.

6600

If only we had a social contract with an institution that is designed to overcome the problem…

All of this is principally the government’s fault, remember that peeps whenever the guilt seems really strong. It’s good to get out there and be more activist whenever possible.