Extinction Rebellion

[Hermit]

In normal times I'd agree with you on 'overturning the system'. However, if the science is to be believed one has to presume that Capitalism as we know it today will collapse with the climate for the simple reason that those entities known as societies or nations will break down under environmental pressures like hunger, thirst, exposure, and the anger and frustration that will flow from that. XR are thinking ahead and saying we need a just transition to a new way of doing things and that the ball has to start rolling on that now.

Firstly, if Capitalism collapses...

You missed something, Jim. Brian wrote "Capitalism as we know it today". Please keep in mind that nobody presently posting here supports communism, and since Faulty Two, Mistermack and Seth have ceased posting you are the sole remaining centrist scum.

[Brian Peacock]

In normal times I'd agree with you on 'overturning the system'. However, if the science is to be believed one has to presume that Capitalism as we know it today will collapse with the climate for the simple reason that those entities known as societies or nations will break down under environmental pressures like hunger, thirst, exposure, and the anger and frustration that will flow from that. XR are thinking ahead and saying we need a just transition to a new way of doing things and that the ball has to start rolling on that now.

Firstly, if Capitalism collapses, it will likely involve a total collapse of technological civilisation. Perhaps this will be a solution to global warming in itself, but not one to be wished for, in terms of human suffering.

The alternative, a "just transition to a new way of doing things" needs more detail. My version would simply be a majority of world governments prepared to strongly insist that corporations bend to the necessity of action to combat global warming. Those corporations who have seen the writing on the wall, and who have already started to invest seriously in renewables will prosper, the rest will not...

I talked specifically about 'Capitalism as we know it today' and apocalyptical visions are not not an inevitable consequence of rebalancing economies away from the asset hoarding of Oligarchs and unaccountable trans-national corporate institutions. Most of the people who aren't direct beneficiaries of personal Capital can see that the system isn't working for them, their families, or their communities, or even for their politicians, their economies, or the environment. Capitalism is out of control and only governments acting together can give it the sense of social obligation and responsibility it needs to survive - and this is needed not only to avoid climate chaos but also the kind of lamppost-and-rope solutions that come from mass insecurity and discontent.

[Scot Dutchy]

Ever read about Red Vienna? Should do.

Our education system and many housing schemes are based on it.

[JimC]

JimC wrote:

...My version would simply be a majority of world governments prepared to strongly insist that corporations bend to the necessity of action to combat global warming...

Brian Peacock wrote:

...only governments acting together can give it the sense of social obligation and responsibility it needs to survive...

As I wrote earlier, really not that far apart...

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed, and yet like many you're still kind of resistant to contemplating an alternative to Capitalism - which is quite understandable given that its the system we're all embedded in. It's like the air, it's all around us and so much a feature of our lives that we don't really notice it until, that is, the idea of its continuation is challenged. However, that continuation of Capitalism as we know it today (which is the only Capitalism that counts) stands in direct opposition to the kind of action we collectively need to take on climate and environmental issues.

It's Capitalism which sees armed corporate militias being delegated with the power of arrest and forcefully breaking up the camps of indigenous oil pipeline protestors on their own land; it's Capitalism which sees US and Dutch corporations arming both sides in the civil war in the Congo to secure the Cobalt and Coltan used in all of our computer devices at the lowest price - supplies mined with forced labour, including children; it's Capitalism which sees men and women from the corporate and finance sector parachuted into safe parliamentary seats in exchange for donations while they retain their positions on the boards of multiple companies; and it's Capitalism which subsequently sees the drafting of legislation outsourced to thinktanks and lobbyists to devise laws and regulations which directly effect the sectors they represent and are paid advocates for.

As I've said elsewhere on the board there are many forms of Capital -- are we talking about US/Uk-style neo-liberal Capitalism, German fiscally-responsible Capitalism, Chinese command-Capitalism, etc -- but a feature of global Capitalism which cuts across the board is the massive transfer of resources from the public to the private sector which followed the 2007/8 meltdown.

One can see the problem by comparing the graphs on real-terms GDP growth against those on public spending and wages for any period in the last 50 years. Where global GDP continues on a rising trend, the share of public spending and wages as a proportion of GDP continue to trend in the opposite direction. Given Capital's position in our political lives, where's the incentive for it to reform, let alone the means?

The climate crisis continues to mount along with the levels of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions while the resources and measures that might mitigate its effect are placed ever-further beyond the reach of public influence. We're going to need those resources, and Capitalism isn't going to give them up unless it can be brought to the point where the cognitive dissonances by which Capitalists see themselves and their action as essentially existing beyond the scope of society and, significantly, beyond the influence of the environment can be banished.

XR is a consciousness-raising movement which recognises that, as a social species, we can only secure our individual well-being by securing the well-being of the societies we live in. Unchecked Capitalism will destroy itself along with the societies we all (Capitalists included) rely on for our survival. One way or another Captialism is finished.

[Brian Peacock]

Look Jim. I know I sound really preachy, but the real point is not about how we change but that we do - and that we act today for a better day after tomorrow.

[JimC]

Absolutely, but I guess my point is that the most realistic option for concrete action is via strong governments of the social democrat variety, who are given a mandate by an informed populace to push corporations, using both carrot and stick, in the renewables direction. Done well, this could greatly accelerate a process which is already happening, albeit too slowly.

[Brian Peacock]

An informed populace requires that the current government start telling the unvarnished truth about the climate, so that people can make those informed choices. That doesn't mean governments just responding to questions truthfully, it means telling it like it is and putting the facts and the analysis about climate 'out there' like an good old-fashioned public information campaign.

Governments telling the people the truth is XRs first and most important demand.

As for the shift to renewables: Climate change is basically an infrastructure problem. It's a big problem, massive even, but that encompasses both how we need to think about it as well as everything we can actually do about it. Markets don't do infrastructure, only governments do that. So what are the government actually doing, and is it enough given that global CO2 emission went up 2.5% last year? Is anybody in government actually talking publicly about the thermal properties of Carbon and what certain levels of atmospheric CO2 actually means, and how this makes securing as much energy as possible from renewables a national imperative? No? And why not? Because they don't want to destabilise the market and threaten supply? So are the government effectively committed to continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere for some unspecified amount of time to come in the name of market stability and ensuring that corporate profits continue to rise as God intended, or are they preparing to take energy production and distribution into public ownership as a matter of national security and start heavily investing in the infrastructure needed to secure energy generation and supply at all costs? What are they actually doing which doesn't look exactly like business as usual?

[JimC]

What might be useful is to look at the actual companies who are building large scale wind or solar farms around the world, and to analyse what are the economic factors that are driving those developments, and what government actions could encourage and accelerate those developments.

A rag-tag of protestors, however sound their hearts, will not actually do the engineering and construction work required. There are people who can do this - how can we best help them?

[Brian Peacock]

I guess by voting in governments that will develop and support the kind of market conditions where they can thrive, along with reducing air travel and internal combustion engines, regulating for energy efficiency and recyclability, ensuring food and water security in the short to medium term, investing in public transport, science and technology, and all the other things needed to make a sustainable economy work. It's a complete package - swapping fossil fuels for renewables on its isn't going to address the environmental or social costs of such economic practices that children trafficed into Congolese Cobalt mines to make our laptops a little bit cheaper. "When the rain falls, it don't fall on one man's house," as the old saying goes.

A "rag-tag of protestors" are just an annoyance to politicians and business - ignorable, dismissible, demonisible. But people whose futures are being made increasing insecure by irresponsible global practices can quickly become a movement.

[Brian Peacock]

Latest XR promo.

[Brian Peacock]

So was thinking right. We all know the plain facts about the climate and the extinction rate etc etc, we know that global temperatures are going to rise for the next 50 years and that what the various inter-governmental initiatives are hoping for are ways to limit that rise, we know about how the little bit of carbon emitted from a car's exhaust, or a plane's engine, a super-tanker, or a power station goes into the atmosphere where it hangs around for decades trapping 1000s of times more heat over time than was involved in its creation, we know that methane levels are rising faster than CO2 levels and that methane is 20x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, blah blah blah etc etc. We know this, but we don't seem to have a relationship with these kinds of facts. The remain kind of abstract. At one level we know these things are facts, but at another level we haven't really converted those facts into real truths which we accept as a feature in our everyday lives.

I remember acid rain in the late 70s early 80s. I remember the hole in the ozone layer and the ban on CFCs. We took action on these things collectively, but we're not taking action in the same way with Carbon or methane - and now even atmospheric CFC levels are rising again. My interest in this came about 12 years ago when, as an enthusiastic supporter of the scientific method, I encountered science deniers on the internet. Science deniers are a particular breed of troll of course - they're mostly not concerned with truth and facts but in winning arguments and making other people feel bad about themselves - and in those days we called them 'chew toys' and mostly argued with them in order to win the internet and make them feel bad. But at least we did the research eh? We found stuff out, and if we didn't understand it we talked about it with people who did. Seems to me that we're (all of us, humanity, the planet etc) completely fucked if we don't reacquaint ourselves with the facts of the matter again and start integrating those truths into our thinking and our ways of living. The troll we have to defeat now is our own lassitude.

[PsychoSerenity]

Not sure if this has been posted here already, but Monbiot has an idea that what we're missing to be able to take collective action to tackle the current problems is a new political story.

[Brian Peacock]

I entirely agree with George there.

XR Promo ahead of the Climate Strike on 20 Sept.

[pErvinalia]

I'll be taking the kids to that one.