Thanks, Rachel, for this excellent article on a very important topic. It requires a much longer response (which I will hopefully deliver soon) but here are some quick thoughts: The best fictional metaphor for oil is the Ring of Power in Tolkien (or Der Ring des Niebelungen by Wagner). It is the magic weapon that bestows enormous power on its owner but will eventually destroy him. Nobody dares to throw away the weapon because it would make him powerless, and there is a risk that somebody else will pick it up. Likewise, as long as nations consider themselves competitors who rely on armies to stay on top, we can forget decarbonization. It is not only about the fossil fuels used by the armies. You need to maintain an industry that can be converted into manufacturing weapons if need be. The BRICS nations, with half the military budget of the US, are challenging the empire. Their only chance to win this gamble is to stay united and stay strong, as any sign of disunity or weakness would be exploited by the Global North. What I like about the Kazan declaration is the conciliatory tone. On its 33 pages, it uses the word military three times, all related to illegal military actions in the Middle East. In contrast, the US National Security Strategy refers to the military 49 times on 47 pages. The latter also contains statements like “Our military remains unmatched—and we will keep it that way.” We need a peaceful world order based on global justice and international collaboration. This will not happen overnight, but it is our only hope. My main worry is the Global North will try to defeat BRICS with military means, rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue. BTW, Global Climate Compensation tries to cut the Gordian knot by destroying the Ring of Power, i.e., to make fossil fuels less valuable. As I pointed out recently, the BRICS nations would agree to this. The Global North would not. (https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/we-have-created-a-monster-and-it)
Yes, the Global North is already trying to militarily defeat BRICS in Ukraine and West Asia and it doesn't look like stopping until the US economy is bust. Which will come first for the rogue Empire: economic or climate collapse?
The most important activity that could move the world towards unity is the one started 60 years ago by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, then partially advanced by Reagan and Gorbachev - nuclear disarmament. There are now nine countries in the nuclear club, including Israel. We are 90 seconds to midnight on the doomsday clock. There are no leaders in the global north or the BRICS country that are currently focused on this. IF they did that, then cooperating on other global issues like GCC, Bioweapons, AI, could be possible.
On spot Henrik, as long as the only empire is exerting military force to maintain its hegemony the global South needs to prevent becoming the next Palestinie, Lebanon or Irak. National sovereignty and survival thus, needs a strong industrial and military base founded on hydrocarbons. As long as the empire prevails, maintaining a livable ecosphere sadly is necessary a secondary goal.
From Planet Critical last episode, future of militaries in this context, I can see how that oldschool approach is not best as you layout brute force might (1980s style). I find that prospect to future especially for west more appealing: use better more advanced (Also tactically) hybrid vehicles for military, offer better torq and silence in some occasions to weed off from fossils (majority of west doesnt simply have them as it is) and use best benefit: knowledge and tech, satellites, training, information processing and humans in such way brute force wasteful production of something (ammo, tanks, men) cant compete and makes those people see how wasteful it would be. This also opens mindset to cooperate, as we cant fight head to head, so gotta be smarter and ahead of these BRICS, which can be appealing to some countries wavering there. Also it promotes allies and cooperation. It asks for economic growth and innovation as that is truly rewarded, appreciated and wanted. North cannot win by muscle. Staling would have ruled 2/3 of world if that alone would work. Spirit is greatest export of west winning hearts and minds, if it is let work its magic.
Keep in mind lot of countries choose to trade with US dollars, country to country, when technically it is free choice. That is symbolic victory. However abusing that freedom makes it go away, oppressed countries start to despise someone trying to do that.
“We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.”5
So, more self-delusion from people who aren't trained to think of anything better. No better than leaders of western nations. Just another recipe for more carbon emissions, more resource depletion, more complexity and more fragility, all signs presented by Tainter. Not a mention of the environment nor ecology I take it?
Was watching another William Rees interview, and he emphasises again the concept of little lifeboats, where round the world pockets of resilience and ecological restoration are happening, little nodes where the survival of the human race MIGHT occur after the imminent collapse of global industrial
civilisation.
This civilisation is over, people should just get over it, stop trying to fix it, amend it, adjust it, improve it. Just do away with it. It's not the end of the world, just the end of a human construct. There will be something else, some other civilisation perhaps, but we don't yet know what that will be. Rather than fear that change the species ought to perhaps embrace that change and see where the chips fall.
The saddest part is the bulk of the 8.7 million or so other species that will go extinct because of what we've done.
The rich elites think that they will have the resilience to survive in little nodes or bunkers, possibly at the poles where it will be the coolest. I don't see how, given the problems with pollinators and the growing of the food to which we're adapted, and with avoiding the unpredicatability of flooding and hurricanes.
Yes, I do find it amusing that some have built bunkers in New Zealand, islands prone to severe earthquakes.
One of the little known effects of planetary energy inbalance known as global warming is that we get more tectonic activity, so the number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions goes up.
It's not just rich elites, every community (not an easy concept for individualistic, personal centered countries like US to grasp) needs self sovereignty in terms of local water, food, shelter, health and protection of the most vulnerable
The "Sovereign Individual" predicted the demise of nation states (a 500 yr cycle of global transformation) from information technology. Is it possible for people en masse to collaborate positively, rather than this just being escape capsules for the super-rich?
I don't know about the sovereign individual- but I'm very fond of my own personal bodily autonomy.
The rights of the individual and the community were brought into sharp focus by the 'covid' debacle. Many thought that the greater good of community 'protection' trumped the rights of the individual. If I wasn't an anti-vaxxer on scientific grounds (there is simply no evidence that they do any good) I don't know what I would think about this.
One thing (of many) that I don't understand is that if, as you say, the BRICS countries are attempting to midwife a new world order and the empire is committed to maintaining the existing one, how long do they expect either to last without a functioning biosphere, or is that not under discussion? There must surely be advisors close to leadership who understand this, or are they crowded out by economists and military hawks?
I think there is some sense that the West can use the climate crisis to control the Global South as the South will be the ones affected first and most severely. The poorest and developing nations will suffer from agricultural failure, economic crashes and millions will be shot at borders as they try to migrate North.
The elites of Blackrock and Amazon think they can somehow sit it out. They are, or course, completely mad.
Pankaj Mishwa would be a good person to platform regarding the issues raised in your last post. He's very smart on the current conjuncture in which the global North, especially the US, is being de-throned by the global South, mainly former beneficiaries of "the white man's burden", otherwise known as imperialist exploitation and oppression. He pulls no punches when pointing out the absolute cluelessness of what passes for "leadership" these days as the old world passes away, and a new one struggles to be born. Although mostly oriented towards the political, he seems to understand how central environmental constraints are in creating the contemporary impasse, with its endemic anger fueled by the failure of modernity to keep its promises of universal betterment. He knows this first hand, in his native India, where he himself was once one of the millions of young people caught between traditional village life, where they no longer fit, and a modern world that has no place for them. He escaped that trap, most don't, and end up subsiding into a reservoir of resentment and rage that often plays out in ways we know all too well (including the BRICS leadership petulant insistence that the developed world has no right to tell them they can't have all the goodies too.) For those of us in the global North the issues addressed in Rachel's post remain abstract. MIshwa would be able to share with the podcast audience a more visceral perspective.
His website has a contact email--info@pankajmishra.com If you don't know his work, he's all over youtube, but his books--especially Age of Anger-- are how I came across him. As his many YouTubes make clear, he's definitely open to speaking engagements and interviews. Please note that I misspelled his name in my comment, oh my....
We need something other... like grass roots citizen assemblies with an indigenous worldview and circle processes..Decolonisation is life necessary. Honouring the much more than human world is life necessary. Love of the flow of Earth life is life necessary
Hi Rachel, Excellent as always - what I would like to see, is to move to policies which reduce demand for energy. Constant developments - technical and aspirational - are rapidly increasing demand for energy . No doubt there are many such policies to reduce demand - the one that here in the UK could be significantly important would be resurrecting 'personal carbon budgets'. This must be in a form where there is a cap and budgets are not transferable. PCB can be designed to be tax/cost neutral, where the charges on exceeding median use would be balanced by rewarding those below median use. (for practical reasons important to keep it for now to just to energy use - electricity/gas/transport/aviation)
Hiya, I think it's mostly irrelevent what we do personally, the 1% responsible for 25% of emissions will still find a way to exempt themselves and will still fly around the world, even on the pretence of trying to save it.
PCBs won't cut it- only complete structural change in how the West operates ie with money and power constantly rising upwards and the gap between the richest, biggest energy users, and everyone else getting bigger and bigger.
This is disappointing, but it's not really surprising that we keep creating the same power structures, over and over again, with different names and terminology. We need organizations truly centering indigenous voices, which are under attack everywhere. But no one wants to dismantle the power structure. They all seem to think they can wield it more "fairly".
you are writing with such clarity and intensity. wherever you are, i bet you'd be fun to share a drink with right now.
your arguments circle around the historically needful - global unilateral degrowth and redesign of our entire productive apparatus, or without any weaseling - eco-stalinism.
while you and I and we all are here to register this absence, I have had to acknowledge to myself that our species lacks the ability to coordinate or organize on this level.
the decentralized nationalities of the BRICS and the tacit approval of their overshoot behavior is a structural prisoners-type dilemma that exists between all extractive economic entities at all times. the human superorganism has no executive function or institutional memory, and maximum power principle dynamics have dictated our historical trajectory.
this is, perhaps, not something you'd like to consider yet, as it does seem to indicate a kind of macro-historical determinism from which we never had much of a chance of escaping.
it is our fault - but it's not our fault that it's our fault. we would have had to plan our societies in an eco-literate way centuries before the science even existed. I don't see how it was ever possible to overcome an epistemological temporal gap like that, in any possible version of our history.
Of course Putin does not care - Russia’s number one resource and source of stability is the money made from selling their dirty oil. Yuck! The leaders of the world are insane with greed and power. We are Doomed unless we the sane majority of people unite and get in the streets like they did during the Civil Right era or the Workers Rights etc. Greta has the right idea!
It strikes me that the BRICS leader may be even more ignorant of the Limits to Growth than Western leaders. Given that we are about to crest those limits, their movement is about 50 years too late.
Also, can we please get this straight: the BRICS countries aren't some freedom-fighters against tyrannical US hegemony. It's a bunch of countries that executes dissidents and opposes free speech, the cornerstone of the West.
Yes these cornerstones of the West- arresting Winstanely, Medhurst and Assange for journalism, human rights violations in Guantanamo bay, election inference all over the world (including trying to use CIA asset Navalny), banning from social media for dissenting from the 'covid' narrative and the most egregious of all - supporting rape, abuse and genocide by white supramacists in Israel is the 'democratic' model that hopefully BRICS can avoid.
The historian Peter Frankopan would be very interesting to talk with on your podcast.
His book, The New Silk Roads goes into BRICS a fair bit, and he obviously understands climate change quite well from his book The Earth Transformed which gives a history of climatic changes in the past and how they influenced ancient human civilizations.
Civilization is dependent on fossil fuels. There is no avoiding that reality. Action to reduce consumption of oil, gas and coal is in direct opposition to the aspirations of the Global South to improve their standard of living.
It’s time for all western governments to ask far more questions about the need for NetZero…..
Although many parts of the population had embraced the new religion of a climate change emergency, a new majority of western citizens are becoming painfully aware via new scientific facts that they are being misled, and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
So, all governments must start asking far more questions about why they are spending so much of their citizens wealth on this non-solution and must undertake a deep review of the NetZero journey.
Many scientists are now organizing into independent groups to expose the truth about climate change and are declaring that: -
Published data from peer reviewed sources show that we DO NOT have a climate emergency, and that Climate change is mostly natural, it’s not an emergency, and it’s not us.
The climate is slightly changing, and we are in a natural warming cycle that has happened at least 5 times before over the last 10,000 years.
In every past warming cycle we flourished with milder winters, and increased growing seasons for most of the world.
It is now estimated that only small amounts of localized adaption will be necessary.
Scientific theory and current data explain that increasing CO2 has no significant impact on climate and that it’s mainly beneficial and is currently increasing the food supply.
It’s now becoming clear that the population has been hoaxed by the current power grabbing politicos, the sensation seeking media and scientists too scared to set things straight due to funding subjugation.
The recommendation is that we need to refocus on prosperity through re-industrialization and technological innovation rather than continuing to waste our wealth on NetZero.
Two things come to mind. "Whose science is this / who paid for it" might be one question. The other is - what if we reframed the climate question as "has humanity possibly caused the earth to exceed a carrying capacity that encourages healthy supportive biodiversity?"
First of all science must not be owned… and the more we discuss all versions of it in an open manner the more it becomes everyone’s.
Unfortunately, I would argue that a considerable amount of the so-called peer reviewed science is politically subjugated with not only funding corruption but also political pre-conception. See erroneous climate statements…
This is why we must review all science to get to the truth. The game is up …no more “the science is settled” bullshit. The citizens are on to this ruse, and the new government/s in the west certainly already are asking better questions.
As I describe we now have alternative science groups prepared to pursue the truth. It’s the so called traditional science institutions that have sold their integrity and refuse to discuss in an open manner.. go figure who is to be trusted.
I would respond to the 2nd question on biodiversity by saying that even although we have significantly more population we continue to improve ways to feed them and with the help of modern fossil fuels continue the global journey to flourishing and prosperity. This will improve the ability to achieve sustainability and may even flatline population growth where it naturally occurs and makes sense.
The increase in CO2 is actually assisting that journey by adding to the greening of the planet and the slight increase in temperature is extending the growing seasons.
On just about every environmental impact metric we do not see adverse trends and we are improving our climate adaptability.
There is no climate crisis on this planet.
NetZero will be a huge cost and distraction to human flourishing and prosperity and will cause significant deaths, and so we must be VERY certain that such drastic action is needed…… and so far that is far from clear.
I have provided information on the climate realism sources which are now being reviewed by western governments. … I suggest you study and ask more detailed questions and not waste your time questioning source integrity as we are far past that now.
Nigel, I appreciate the time you took to respond and the feeling I get from you is a sense of urgency. If willing though, perhaps have a read of this alternative perspective to leadership via governments, corporations and science: https://paradoxof.agency/Nora-Bateson-1
it’s waiting for the courage to trust each other and to step carefully into the ‘intentional community’ of the 7 billion people we share the commune of life with. This is our tribe. Just the 7 billion of us… and the animals, plants and micro- organisms. Those who came before, and those who will follow. That’s all.
This is the globalist view.. we are far from ready for this I am not ready to share my western values with a bunch of other cultures that dont respect me but just want what i have..
I don’t support the notion that the west owes the rest anything in terms of wealth transfer. I would argue they owe the west a lot for the free trade, free technology and mostly free defence support. And, I would even say some of the colonization we provided greatly assisted many of them move toward a modern society.
Feels like we're at a critical crossroads between individualism and collectivism at all levels. The US election will be a critical test and if favours the former will set the scene as you describe well with BRICS - no holds barred at an international level. If collectivism does manage to hold on then it needs to quickly come up with a more positive and effective answer than the lowest common dominator of vested interests which have so far thwarted action, including on climate change. We will need to be very brave, fair and humble to drive effective international collaboration?
Thanks, Rachel, for this excellent article on a very important topic. It requires a much longer response (which I will hopefully deliver soon) but here are some quick thoughts: The best fictional metaphor for oil is the Ring of Power in Tolkien (or Der Ring des Niebelungen by Wagner). It is the magic weapon that bestows enormous power on its owner but will eventually destroy him. Nobody dares to throw away the weapon because it would make him powerless, and there is a risk that somebody else will pick it up. Likewise, as long as nations consider themselves competitors who rely on armies to stay on top, we can forget decarbonization. It is not only about the fossil fuels used by the armies. You need to maintain an industry that can be converted into manufacturing weapons if need be. The BRICS nations, with half the military budget of the US, are challenging the empire. Their only chance to win this gamble is to stay united and stay strong, as any sign of disunity or weakness would be exploited by the Global North. What I like about the Kazan declaration is the conciliatory tone. On its 33 pages, it uses the word military three times, all related to illegal military actions in the Middle East. In contrast, the US National Security Strategy refers to the military 49 times on 47 pages. The latter also contains statements like “Our military remains unmatched—and we will keep it that way.” We need a peaceful world order based on global justice and international collaboration. This will not happen overnight, but it is our only hope. My main worry is the Global North will try to defeat BRICS with military means, rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue. BTW, Global Climate Compensation tries to cut the Gordian knot by destroying the Ring of Power, i.e., to make fossil fuels less valuable. As I pointed out recently, the BRICS nations would agree to this. The Global North would not. (https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/we-have-created-a-monster-and-it)
Yes, the Global North is already trying to militarily defeat BRICS in Ukraine and West Asia and it doesn't look like stopping until the US economy is bust. Which will come first for the rogue Empire: economic or climate collapse?
The most important activity that could move the world towards unity is the one started 60 years ago by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, then partially advanced by Reagan and Gorbachev - nuclear disarmament. There are now nine countries in the nuclear club, including Israel. We are 90 seconds to midnight on the doomsday clock. There are no leaders in the global north or the BRICS country that are currently focused on this. IF they did that, then cooperating on other global issues like GCC, Bioweapons, AI, could be possible.
On spot Henrik, as long as the only empire is exerting military force to maintain its hegemony the global South needs to prevent becoming the next Palestinie, Lebanon or Irak. National sovereignty and survival thus, needs a strong industrial and military base founded on hydrocarbons. As long as the empire prevails, maintaining a livable ecosphere sadly is necessary a secondary goal.
From Planet Critical last episode, future of militaries in this context, I can see how that oldschool approach is not best as you layout brute force might (1980s style). I find that prospect to future especially for west more appealing: use better more advanced (Also tactically) hybrid vehicles for military, offer better torq and silence in some occasions to weed off from fossils (majority of west doesnt simply have them as it is) and use best benefit: knowledge and tech, satellites, training, information processing and humans in such way brute force wasteful production of something (ammo, tanks, men) cant compete and makes those people see how wasteful it would be. This also opens mindset to cooperate, as we cant fight head to head, so gotta be smarter and ahead of these BRICS, which can be appealing to some countries wavering there. Also it promotes allies and cooperation. It asks for economic growth and innovation as that is truly rewarded, appreciated and wanted. North cannot win by muscle. Staling would have ruled 2/3 of world if that alone would work. Spirit is greatest export of west winning hearts and minds, if it is let work its magic.
Keep in mind lot of countries choose to trade with US dollars, country to country, when technically it is free choice. That is symbolic victory. However abusing that freedom makes it go away, oppressed countries start to despise someone trying to do that.
“We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.”5
So, more self-delusion from people who aren't trained to think of anything better. No better than leaders of western nations. Just another recipe for more carbon emissions, more resource depletion, more complexity and more fragility, all signs presented by Tainter. Not a mention of the environment nor ecology I take it?
Was watching another William Rees interview, and he emphasises again the concept of little lifeboats, where round the world pockets of resilience and ecological restoration are happening, little nodes where the survival of the human race MIGHT occur after the imminent collapse of global industrial
civilisation.
This civilisation is over, people should just get over it, stop trying to fix it, amend it, adjust it, improve it. Just do away with it. It's not the end of the world, just the end of a human construct. There will be something else, some other civilisation perhaps, but we don't yet know what that will be. Rather than fear that change the species ought to perhaps embrace that change and see where the chips fall.
The saddest part is the bulk of the 8.7 million or so other species that will go extinct because of what we've done.
The rich elites think that they will have the resilience to survive in little nodes or bunkers, possibly at the poles where it will be the coolest. I don't see how, given the problems with pollinators and the growing of the food to which we're adapted, and with avoiding the unpredicatability of flooding and hurricanes.
Yes, I do find it amusing that some have built bunkers in New Zealand, islands prone to severe earthquakes.
One of the little known effects of planetary energy inbalance known as global warming is that we get more tectonic activity, so the number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions goes up.
For a little art, here is the fate of the elites:
https://vimeo.com/319602435
Exactly!
It's not just rich elites, every community (not an easy concept for individualistic, personal centered countries like US to grasp) needs self sovereignty in terms of local water, food, shelter, health and protection of the most vulnerable
Though a problem like the climate crisis is only solvable by not only global co-operation but also multilateral degrowth
The "Sovereign Individual" predicted the demise of nation states (a 500 yr cycle of global transformation) from information technology. Is it possible for people en masse to collaborate positively, rather than this just being escape capsules for the super-rich?
I don't know about the sovereign individual- but I'm very fond of my own personal bodily autonomy.
The rights of the individual and the community were brought into sharp focus by the 'covid' debacle. Many thought that the greater good of community 'protection' trumped the rights of the individual. If I wasn't an anti-vaxxer on scientific grounds (there is simply no evidence that they do any good) I don't know what I would think about this.
One thing (of many) that I don't understand is that if, as you say, the BRICS countries are attempting to midwife a new world order and the empire is committed to maintaining the existing one, how long do they expect either to last without a functioning biosphere, or is that not under discussion? There must surely be advisors close to leadership who understand this, or are they crowded out by economists and military hawks?
I think there is some sense that the West can use the climate crisis to control the Global South as the South will be the ones affected first and most severely. The poorest and developing nations will suffer from agricultural failure, economic crashes and millions will be shot at borders as they try to migrate North.
The elites of Blackrock and Amazon think they can somehow sit it out. They are, or course, completely mad.
Pankaj Mishwa would be a good person to platform regarding the issues raised in your last post. He's very smart on the current conjuncture in which the global North, especially the US, is being de-throned by the global South, mainly former beneficiaries of "the white man's burden", otherwise known as imperialist exploitation and oppression. He pulls no punches when pointing out the absolute cluelessness of what passes for "leadership" these days as the old world passes away, and a new one struggles to be born. Although mostly oriented towards the political, he seems to understand how central environmental constraints are in creating the contemporary impasse, with its endemic anger fueled by the failure of modernity to keep its promises of universal betterment. He knows this first hand, in his native India, where he himself was once one of the millions of young people caught between traditional village life, where they no longer fit, and a modern world that has no place for them. He escaped that trap, most don't, and end up subsiding into a reservoir of resentment and rage that often plays out in ways we know all too well (including the BRICS leadership petulant insistence that the developed world has no right to tell them they can't have all the goodies too.) For those of us in the global North the issues addressed in Rachel's post remain abstract. MIshwa would be able to share with the podcast audience a more visceral perspective.
Brilliant—do you have an email address?
His website has a contact email--info@pankajmishra.com If you don't know his work, he's all over youtube, but his books--especially Age of Anger-- are how I came across him. As his many YouTubes make clear, he's definitely open to speaking engagements and interviews. Please note that I misspelled his name in my comment, oh my....
If you act against another's stance, that stance still defines you!!!!
We need something other... like grass roots citizen assemblies with an indigenous worldview and circle processes..Decolonisation is life necessary. Honouring the much more than human world is life necessary. Love of the flow of Earth life is life necessary
Yep, it's a real kicker now that it's BRICS turn to shine- that they can't enjoy it. 'Petulant' maybe, but totally understandable.
Hi Rachel, Excellent as always - what I would like to see, is to move to policies which reduce demand for energy. Constant developments - technical and aspirational - are rapidly increasing demand for energy . No doubt there are many such policies to reduce demand - the one that here in the UK could be significantly important would be resurrecting 'personal carbon budgets'. This must be in a form where there is a cap and budgets are not transferable. PCB can be designed to be tax/cost neutral, where the charges on exceeding median use would be balanced by rewarding those below median use. (for practical reasons important to keep it for now to just to energy use - electricity/gas/transport/aviation)
Me too!
These sound like 'social credits'. Trust me, they are not going to go down well! The public has already been prepped to reject them.
Hiya, I think it's mostly irrelevent what we do personally, the 1% responsible for 25% of emissions will still find a way to exempt themselves and will still fly around the world, even on the pretence of trying to save it.
PCBs won't cut it- only complete structural change in how the West operates ie with money and power constantly rising upwards and the gap between the richest, biggest energy users, and everyone else getting bigger and bigger.
Hi Rachel, would you please cover the ANT-COP24 summit in Oaxaca Mexico, this November?
Maybe by interview participant organizations after the event. https://mirrorssouthglobal.org/programa-completo-anticop-2024/
There's no way to contact them—do you know anyone there?
Oaxaca.nov24@gmail.vom
This is disappointing, but it's not really surprising that we keep creating the same power structures, over and over again, with different names and terminology. We need organizations truly centering indigenous voices, which are under attack everywhere. But no one wants to dismantle the power structure. They all seem to think they can wield it more "fairly".
you are writing with such clarity and intensity. wherever you are, i bet you'd be fun to share a drink with right now.
your arguments circle around the historically needful - global unilateral degrowth and redesign of our entire productive apparatus, or without any weaseling - eco-stalinism.
while you and I and we all are here to register this absence, I have had to acknowledge to myself that our species lacks the ability to coordinate or organize on this level.
the decentralized nationalities of the BRICS and the tacit approval of their overshoot behavior is a structural prisoners-type dilemma that exists between all extractive economic entities at all times. the human superorganism has no executive function or institutional memory, and maximum power principle dynamics have dictated our historical trajectory.
this is, perhaps, not something you'd like to consider yet, as it does seem to indicate a kind of macro-historical determinism from which we never had much of a chance of escaping.
it is our fault - but it's not our fault that it's our fault. we would have had to plan our societies in an eco-literate way centuries before the science even existed. I don't see how it was ever possible to overcome an epistemological temporal gap like that, in any possible version of our history.
Of course many indigenous societies WERE eco-literate, and they were overwhelmed by the eco illiterate colonising powers.
Of course Putin does not care - Russia’s number one resource and source of stability is the money made from selling their dirty oil. Yuck! The leaders of the world are insane with greed and power. We are Doomed unless we the sane majority of people unite and get in the streets like they did during the Civil Right era or the Workers Rights etc. Greta has the right idea!
It strikes me that the BRICS leader may be even more ignorant of the Limits to Growth than Western leaders. Given that we are about to crest those limits, their movement is about 50 years too late.
Also, can we please get this straight: the BRICS countries aren't some freedom-fighters against tyrannical US hegemony. It's a bunch of countries that executes dissidents and opposes free speech, the cornerstone of the West.
Yes these cornerstones of the West- arresting Winstanely, Medhurst and Assange for journalism, human rights violations in Guantanamo bay, election inference all over the world (including trying to use CIA asset Navalny), banning from social media for dissenting from the 'covid' narrative and the most egregious of all - supporting rape, abuse and genocide by white supramacists in Israel is the 'democratic' model that hopefully BRICS can avoid.
Remember, there are NO winners, in the race to the bottom.......
The historian Peter Frankopan would be very interesting to talk with on your podcast.
His book, The New Silk Roads goes into BRICS a fair bit, and he obviously understands climate change quite well from his book The Earth Transformed which gives a history of climatic changes in the past and how they influenced ancient human civilizations.
Civilization is dependent on fossil fuels. There is no avoiding that reality. Action to reduce consumption of oil, gas and coal is in direct opposition to the aspirations of the Global South to improve their standard of living.
The BRICS have got it right … Shame we have not!
It’s time for all western governments to ask far more questions about the need for NetZero…..
Although many parts of the population had embraced the new religion of a climate change emergency, a new majority of western citizens are becoming painfully aware via new scientific facts that they are being misled, and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
So, all governments must start asking far more questions about why they are spending so much of their citizens wealth on this non-solution and must undertake a deep review of the NetZero journey.
Many scientists are now organizing into independent groups to expose the truth about climate change and are declaring that: -
Published data from peer reviewed sources show that we DO NOT have a climate emergency, and that Climate change is mostly natural, it’s not an emergency, and it’s not us.
The climate is slightly changing, and we are in a natural warming cycle that has happened at least 5 times before over the last 10,000 years.
In every past warming cycle we flourished with milder winters, and increased growing seasons for most of the world.
It is now estimated that only small amounts of localized adaption will be necessary.
Scientific theory and current data explain that increasing CO2 has no significant impact on climate and that it’s mainly beneficial and is currently increasing the food supply.
It’s now becoming clear that the population has been hoaxed by the current power grabbing politicos, the sensation seeking media and scientists too scared to set things straight due to funding subjugation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&t=1471s
The recommendation is that we need to refocus on prosperity through re-industrialization and technological innovation rather than continuing to waste our wealth on NetZero.
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/netzero-versus-prosperity
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://clintel.org/
https://co2coalition.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraXQCWQZhs&t=1233s
Two things come to mind. "Whose science is this / who paid for it" might be one question. The other is - what if we reframed the climate question as "has humanity possibly caused the earth to exceed a carrying capacity that encourages healthy supportive biodiversity?"
First of all science must not be owned… and the more we discuss all versions of it in an open manner the more it becomes everyone’s.
Unfortunately, I would argue that a considerable amount of the so-called peer reviewed science is politically subjugated with not only funding corruption but also political pre-conception. See erroneous climate statements…
Wallace Manheimer: “Science Societies’ Climate Statements: Some Concerns” | Tom Nelson Pod #243 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraXQCWQZhs&t=3s
This is why we must review all science to get to the truth. The game is up …no more “the science is settled” bullshit. The citizens are on to this ruse, and the new government/s in the west certainly already are asking better questions.
As I describe we now have alternative science groups prepared to pursue the truth. It’s the so called traditional science institutions that have sold their integrity and refuse to discuss in an open manner.. go figure who is to be trusted.
I would respond to the 2nd question on biodiversity by saying that even although we have significantly more population we continue to improve ways to feed them and with the help of modern fossil fuels continue the global journey to flourishing and prosperity. This will improve the ability to achieve sustainability and may even flatline population growth where it naturally occurs and makes sense.
The increase in CO2 is actually assisting that journey by adding to the greening of the planet and the slight increase in temperature is extending the growing seasons.
On just about every environmental impact metric we do not see adverse trends and we are improving our climate adaptability.
There is no climate crisis on this planet.
NetZero will be a huge cost and distraction to human flourishing and prosperity and will cause significant deaths, and so we must be VERY certain that such drastic action is needed…… and so far that is far from clear.
I have provided information on the climate realism sources which are now being reviewed by western governments. … I suggest you study and ask more detailed questions and not waste your time questioning source integrity as we are far past that now.
Nigel, I appreciate the time you took to respond and the feeling I get from you is a sense of urgency. If willing though, perhaps have a read of this alternative perspective to leadership via governments, corporations and science: https://paradoxof.agency/Nora-Bateson-1
it’s waiting for the courage to trust each other and to step carefully into the ‘intentional community’ of the 7 billion people we share the commune of life with. This is our tribe. Just the 7 billion of us… and the animals, plants and micro- organisms. Those who came before, and those who will follow. That’s all.
This is the globalist view.. we are far from ready for this I am not ready to share my western values with a bunch of other cultures that dont respect me but just want what i have..
Mightn't those other cultures feel that one of the reasons you have what you have is because it was taken from them in the first place? 🙂
I don’t support the notion that the west owes the rest anything in terms of wealth transfer. I would argue they owe the west a lot for the free trade, free technology and mostly free defence support. And, I would even say some of the colonization we provided greatly assisted many of them move toward a modern society.
They may reject climate action, but i will accept it.
Feels like we're at a critical crossroads between individualism and collectivism at all levels. The US election will be a critical test and if favours the former will set the scene as you describe well with BRICS - no holds barred at an international level. If collectivism does manage to hold on then it needs to quickly come up with a more positive and effective answer than the lowest common dominator of vested interests which have so far thwarted action, including on climate change. We will need to be very brave, fair and humble to drive effective international collaboration?
or maybe its attractive, simplistic ideology vs messy pragmatism.........