George Monbiot has never been a favourite writer, but he's bang on with yesterday's article even if he is stating the exsanguinating obvious, that a economic system that only functions with exponential growth, and the mechanism of capitalism that sustains it, are unsustainable.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction?
I'm certain this dawned on me at least 50 years ago and possibly nearer 60, when I was still at school. Yet I'm not sure I've ever heard anybody in government articulate it.
I suppose I thought then that the grown ups must know something I didn't. We used to fear the oil running out, but we were reassured that there was plenty more to be found, and when there wasn't we would find something else. After all, we had 300 years of coal in the ground! Now we are saying we need to stop burning fossils long before they run out and I for one don't doubt that.
Monbiot says we urgently need to level down, not up. That "if we did all become millionaires, we would cook the planet in no time at all". Surely that is incontrovertible.
Yet nobody will get elected on a ticket of shrinking the economy and outlawing excess disposable wealth. So democracy must be unsustainable too. Perhaps we actually need a Chinese dictatorship to lead the way, but at the moment it looks as if they all want cars and regular foreign holidays too.
This isn't a matter of politics, or ideology. Just Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry/Biology. It seems inescapable that the point at which governments can no longer ensure the basic safety and health of their citizens is not many generations away unless things change soon.
Our own government has in 2 years brought us to the point where I can't reliably find a chicken in Tesco. Chinese and Russian leaders aren't even attending COP26. What chance of dealing with this? Can somebody give me some hope? What have I missed?
A bit dark for a Sunday morning, I know.
|
Everything has a finite life and the human race is no different. Our problem is there are simply too many of us and we've never taken action to limit our numbers, nor are we prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to allow 7.75 billion (And growing at the rate of 275,000 per day) of us to exist at all in the long term.
We live in interesting times.
|
|
Meanwhile Richard Tice standing for Reform, the latest iteration of the Farageist party, in the Bexley byelection is campaigning for a referendum on net zero by 2050.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 31 Oct 21 at 13:15
|
The trivialisation of public life creates a loop: it becomes socially impossible to talk about anything else. I’m not suggesting that we should discuss only the impending catastrophe. I’m not against bants. What I’m against is nothing but bants.
I'm not sure I get this bit, my reading of it is that climate change is something hardly mentioned and is an odd topic that no one talks about. I guessing it hyperbole, seems to me to be on the news all the time.
|
>>my reading of it is that climate change is something hardly mentioned
It's in the news at the moment with COP. But I think he has a point about the "MCB", micro consumerist stuff - and his big point is the direction that capitalism imposes on sustainability. It might be the least bad system to live under but exponential growth is the opposite of sustainable.
|
>> >>my reading of it is that climate change is something hardly mentioned
>>
>> It's in the news at the moment with COP. But I think he has a
>> point about the "MCB", micro consumerist stuff - and his big point is the direction
>> that capitalism imposes on sustainability. It might be the least bad system to live under
>> but exponential growth is the opposite of sustainable.
>
It seems to be in the news a fair bit, more in the last couple of weeks. But even outside that it's not exactly obscure only on at 2 am sort of topic.
What is his solution, if he has one?
|
|
The what is in the last 4 paragraphs.
|
>> The what is in the last 4 paragraphs.
>>
I won't hold my breath. I don't think anyone has managed to limit wealthy* people to xyz.
* No mention of what qualifies as wealthy.
|
>>* No mention of what qualifies as wealthy.
Those for whom the majority of their spending is a matter of 'want' rather than 'need'. Most of us probably qualify.
|
|
Still tricky to define exactly, which is what you'd need if you were to base policy on it. Which I assume the author of the article is suggesting.
|
Indeed.
As soon as one combines trying to apply a single metric to the entire population, and then tell them how to lead their lives depending on it, it always falls apart.
|
>> Still tricky to define exactly, which is what you'd need if you were to base
>> policy on it. Which I assume the author of the article is suggesting.
It would be a bit much to expect a detailed plan. There's no plan at all at the moment, just a few targets, despite the world's governments having had 25 previous COPs. And I'd guess all the participating countries still have plans for economic growth which is incontrovertibly unsustainable.
|
>> >> Still tricky to define exactly, which is what you'd need if you were to
>> base
>> >> policy on it. Which I assume the author of the article is suggesting.
>>
>> It would be a bit much to expect a detailed plan.
Well I didn't say detail plan, but it perhaps might be have useful for him to add even a small bit of detail.
I'm sure he had the space it what was a long article, perhaps if he'd compressed the rest down to; 'don't worry about plastic straws/bags, we need to tax the wealthy'. He would then have had plenty of space for even a small of detail, but alas it wasn't to be.
|
SWMBO read something yesterday (probably in MailOnline) that the single largest benefit to the planet, far outstripping any other by multiples, would be for people to have one less child.
I completely get the logic but it's a tough decision which one will be more useful to me in my old age. (Sorry, that started out as a serious post...)
|
>> I completely get the logic but it's a tough decision which one will be more
>> useful to me in my old age. (Sorry, that started out as a serious post...)
Maybe, but the carbon footprint of one less child in Ethiopia or the Sudan, is insignificant compared to the lifetime carbon footprint of a 1st world child.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 31 Oct 21 at 20:54
|
>> Meanwhile Richard Tice standing for Reform, the latest iteration of the Farageist party, in the
>> Bexley byelection is campaigning for a referendum on net zero by 2050.
Well he cant stand on Brexit now can he. Or uncontrolled immigration. So whats left?
I assume being a farangi, his hope is we will vote not to get to net zero?
|
I'm with Manatee. I too said this 45 years ago.
Thought: Last year I was talking to the head honcho of a small ish ready mixed concrete company.
Apparently they get their cement from spain, have their own dock in Plymouth and receive 7 ships of the stuff per month. I do not know the size of the ships, but that's pretty much irrelevant.
One small company in the West Country. Then there's the aggregate.
Same subject, slight deviation. It is bordering on impossible to buy decent workable inland pit sand for building. There's all sorts of carp out there, from sea sand to waste from English China clay workings. All of it not fit for purpose. Apparently the world is running out of sand/aggregate too.
All joking aside. It is already far too late............................
|
National Governments (the power, control, and whatever strokes politicians plumage) Elected or not, can not or will not relinquish control* to a required global authority who can actually achieve something. Its a world issue, our "net zero by 2050" is as effective as pe££ing in the oceans.
Nothing, zilch, zero, nada, globally will change soon.
so what do you do? You accept that sometime in about 200 years time we will have stabilised the change, and leading up till then you learn and evolve to live with the effects of climate change
* and it only takes one or two big ones - China, India to not play ball and its all a waste of time.
|
I'm watching all the Dr Who episodes from the very first at the moment. I'm now in the early seventies episodes. Last night, the Doctor said, "You know, Brigadier. The problem with your Earth isn't the oil, or the pollution, or the filth in the rivers. It's greed".
Wise words, Doctor.
|
All of it not fit for purpose. Apparently the world
>> is running out of sand/aggregate too.
>>
>
I believe so, I was reading an article on it a couple of months ago. I think the latest idea is to somehow recycle sand from old buildings.
|
COP26 will be full of largely empty promises and targets. Two things need to happen before politicians and public will take the issue sufficiently seriously to sacrifice existing behaviours:
1. Emissions and resource consumption are directly related to population. Action on unsustainable population growth is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and depletion of scarce resources.
2. Very obvious climate impacts in major economies - eg: London, New York, Beijing and Bangladesh below water through seea level rise - would "shock" the system.
The future looks grim for our grandchildren - they will pay the price for our profligacy.
Question - should the UK continue with the costs of greenhouse gas reductions if the global outlook is so poor.
Doing nothing will consign the UK to suffering with the rest of the world. Embracing zero carbon means that we may mitigate some of the risks and consequences but comes at a cost. Who pays is a secondary question!
|
>>Question - should the UK continue with the costs of greenhouse gas reductions if the global outlook is so poor.
One should do the right thing. The bad behaviours of others do not justify ones own.
|
>Who pays is a secondary question!
Who pays is the only question that's preventing progress.
|
>> 2. Very obvious climate impacts in major economies - eg: London, New York, Beijing and
>> Bangladesh below water through seea level rise - would "shock" the system.
No-one in the major economies will be in the least bit moved by Bangladesh under water,
The Chinese suffer now from climate change issues, yet still build new coal fired power plants. Australia is getting hotter and spontaneously ignites, but is expanding coal production,
many other examples exist effect but no attempt to fix cause.
|
Meanwhile a certain French guy is still a little upset - with the Aussies.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59113710
See the tweet.
|
|
Still flailing about, mind you it's meat and drink to the reporters hanging about at this conference, so he was always going to get loads of questions.
|
Well I got to watch from an over bridge over the M8 yesterday as Bidens motorcade passed underneath.
Quite impressive.
|
|
I saw the Pope in the Popemobile many years ago when I worked in Victoria., Used to see Her Maj regularly too.
|
>>We used to fear the oil running out, but we were reassured that there was plenty more to be found,
>> and when there wasn't we would find something else.
>> After all, we had 300 years of coal in the ground!
>> Now we are saying we need to stop burning fossils long before they run out
>>
Some delegation numbers.
Guess the four at the top of the table ?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484
|
|
If the oil left in the ground is valueless there will be 'interesting' consequences for political stability in the Mid East and Elsewhere.
|
|
When the authorities realise that you can’t fight a war if your tanks and planes need 12 hours to recharge, oil will become popular again.
|
The idea that EVs and zero carbon will eliminate the need for oil wells and coal mines is nonsense.
We will just use the output rather more intelligently on those things which cannot so easiliy be re-engineered - eg: electrical insulation, pipework (rather than copper or ceramic), chemicals (paint, coatings, fertiliser), packaging, lubrication etc etc.
Over time alternatives will be developed for many applications - but it may take a little longer.
|
Using less is better.
Sure it would be nice to use nothing, but that is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.
But less is still better.
|
>> The idea that EVs and zero carbon will eliminate the need for oil wells and
>> coal mines is nonsense.
Demand will not be eliminated but if we're not burning oil hand over fist then demand, and the income of OPEC, will drop dramatically.
I agree that particular coals, for example the stuff needed for steel making, might still be in demand. That's why it was daft to let CO2 related arguments delay the mine in Cumbria that's fulfilling exactly that market.
|
>> When the authorities realise that you can’t fight a war if your tanks and planes
>> need 12 hours to recharge, oil will become popular again.
The idea of a future tank war is disappearing down the pan faster than tank destroying drones can fly.
|
>> Some delegation numbers.
>> Guess the four at the top of the table ?
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484
>>
And why not, they are the ones most affected, and the ones required to change the most.
|
I think the thing that people need to take away is that despite their media presence and military power, China is still a third-world country and lacks the resources and technical expertise to diverge away from coal.
On top of that Western countries have effectively shipped their coal use abroad by shifting manufacturing to China in the first place.
|
China is absolutely no longer a third world country.
They are able to conduct space exploration, build nuclear power stations and warheads, makes military and commercial jets, export cars, electronics and machine tools to the rest of the world.
Quality of some items is still catching up with the best of the advanced developed economies - in many areas Chnia is now the world "go to source".
The capacity of the leadership to enforce policies is the reason for the huge growth rates over the last 2-3 decades. They have a clear strategy for world leadership - if not domination. It would be both complacent and naive to ignore or trivialise the threat.
|
>>China is still a third-world country and lacks the resources and technical expertise to diverge away from coal.
Very no.
www.irena.org/Statistics/View-Data-by-Topic/Capacity-and-Generation/Country-Rankings
|
China lacks the mindset. And also in many ways the will, political or social.
Much of it's country is in the past, in particular its attitudes.
But lacking the technology and the resource? No.
|
They have a fair bit of wind, solar power etc but it's underused from what I understand. Mainly due to, from what I've read from a few people, local corruption. There's more back handers from buying energy from coal power stations near by the big city centres rather than wind and solar which is from the far west where there's little demand for electricity.
I'm surprised they don't have lots of tidal and offshore energy off the coast of China. Perhaps they have low winds and low tides. They seem quite capable of building off shore islands in other parts of the Pacific, so it's not a lack of knowledge.
I see Denmark is doing something similar, some of sort of island with solar panels and wind turbines on it being built in the North Sea.
|
For China coal is abundant and cheap - low labour costs, limited H&S, few environmental controls.
Using coal for power generation is completely proven technology which can be quickly rolled out to increase capacity - low labour costs make construction cheap.
They fnd it difficult to export coal as the other main users - India and Russia also have abundant reserves. So they build coal power plants and export photovoltaics which are in demand.
Personal opinion - they are driven to challenge for world leadership - miltary, political and economic. They have the command structure to achieve this, Coal (= cheap reliable energy) is just one element in the grand plan.
|
COP is a cop out. Who knew? - Robin O'Reliant
