I think we have grown accustomed to calling it a democracy since that is what it was supposed to be. Its current iterations are far more of a technocracy. Being so intimately immersed and enmeshed within it has made it difficult for us to recognize the changes, especially since the end of the second WW, as they have unfolded in service of agendas other than the common good. And while we have, for the most part, been manipulated in to believing and behaving as we do in support of ‘the machine’, that doesn’t relieve us of our complicity, acquiescence, and complacent attitude and will, in all likelihood, make change very difficult to achieve without it being forced in some catastrophic way.
Old habits, as they say, die hard, and our collective favouritism for comfort and convenience, and our willingness to outsource a lot of our decision making to marketing and the technocracy, means that the necessary change will be extremely difficult and lengthy. Lots of the steps to that change are already being co-opted and monetized, sadly, which only exacerbates the problem further.
I am increasingly of the belief that for solidly-rooted change to happen, space must be opened up for it to grow and flourish organically. We must re-establish a deeper and well grounded meaning in our lives that is fully detached from, again, ‘the machine’, and solidifies a new and collective set of values to underpin such a culture.
No civilisation in history ever voluntarily dismantled itself. That goes even more so for the current global, technological one based on fossil fuels. Power structures just don't work like that. It's going to die, alright, but it will die badly, taking most of us with it, unfortunately.
The real question is whether it does so before or after the biosphere is totally destroyed. If it's the former, a small remnant may be able to carry on.
My feeling is a truer democratic system is going to take a long time and will probably start with local democratic changes. The structures of government are a powerful force in maintaining the status quo and even with a party more disposed to devolving power the structures will limit this. There is also the public appetite for major change - or lack of it. Progressives are in the minority in Britain and a hostile press would easily disparage progressive policies amongst the suspicious majority. Most people can only get their heads round a new concept when they are actually a part of it and can experience the benefits. The task is to introduce people in an ultra-local context to the idea of having their views valued and acted on. Once they accept this as a useful device in their street or village it will be a shorter step to understanding how this could work in a wider context. In this country, we should also be persuading mayors to introduce citizens assemblies for specific issues which would help to promote this as democratic tool. It will likely take a while but arguably it will be on a stronger foundation than if it was introduced wholesale by a progressive government.
Do we have time? My reading of human nature is that people will cling as long as possible to a sinking ship but that once they are forced to swim a more visceral form of democracy will take over - there is at least a majority for climate action - which will force those in power to address the issues and both the economic and political structures will significantly weaken making progressive change more likely.
I agree - particularly on people's / citizen's assemblies. Don't wait for the authority to set it up, create the assembly and then invite your local mp / councilor etc. Make noise about it whether they turn up or not! This may not be enough for sure, but I hope that it will build community networks and resilience that will be vital for the turbulent future
There needs to be a significantly strong grassroots movement amongst the people, to demand reforms to the political system, such that power is transferred back to the average citizens, they have more say when it comes to decision-making, and the ruling class become truly accountable to the people, instead of to the corporations.
This will be a long and challenging process, at least for certain countries and societies that are deeply stuck in the current neoliberal and/or neoconservative capitalist systems, but such change has to start somewhere and immediately.
It's worth taking a look at the work of Audrey Tang in Taiwan, for some possible paths for transformation towards democracy. The episode of 'Your undivided attention', where she describes how activists took over government operations, by creating a parallel .g0v domain is truly inspiring. Whether that strategy, or similar, could work elsewhere is debatable, but worth discussion. Maybe a future guest for Planet Critical?
¿Puede la democracia sobrevivir la crisis climática?
¿Y qué democracia?
La propia existencia de la crisis climática implica que la democracia nuca ha existido, y nuestra incapacidad de mitigar sus efectos devastadores nos revela que la ilusión de la democracia solo sirve para apaciguar a una población, manteniendo el poder en manos de una pequeña minoría.
¿Por qué la crisis climática implica la inexistencia de la democracia? Porque la democracia es un sistema de gobierno por y para la mayoría. Pero la mayoría nunca ha votado, perpetuado ni se ha beneficiado del sistema económico al que suscribe -y que a menudo impone- el actual sistema de gobierno. Y es este sistema económico, basado en la explotación y la extracción, lo ha creado la crisis climática.
Hasta los asesores de gobierno son víctimas de esa falsa idea de que nuestra economía está, de alguna manera, divorciada de la realidad biofísica. Pero en verdad, su crecimiento depende de que los recursos naturales sean convertidos en riqueza. Esta organización humana corrupta arranca preciosos minerales de la corteza terrestre, destruye selvas tropicales biodiversas, barre los océanos, enjaula animales e incluso esclaviza personas, y todo ello en nombre del crecimiento económico. Estos recursos (a menudo criaturas vivas) proveen la energía necesaria para el crecimiento de nuestra economía, al igual que la leche materna proporciona al bebé la energía que necesita para crecer. Sin embargo, en este caso el resultado no es un paquetito de alegría, sino montañas de lucro económico. Esta es, en las ciencia de la Física, la mismísima definición de potenciai: es la energía transferida o transformada a lo largo del tiempo. La energía nunca se crea ni se destruye, solo se transforma. Por lo tanto, la riqueza tampoco se crea ni se destruye, solo se transforma. El poder es la capacidad de transformar la abundancia natural -la cual pertenece y forma parte de cada criatura en este planeta- en riquezas personales.
Me pregunto, entonces, ¿cómo es posible que vivamos en democracia cuando una pequeña minoría tiene el poder suficiente para destruir el planeta entero, mientras el resto solo puede quedarse mirando con espanto?
Los combustibles fósiles han engordado enormemente el poder de la minoría, superando todas las limitaciones físicas anteriores para extraer, explotar y transformar. También son responsables del 90% de las emisiones de gas de efecto invernadero, que causan el calentamiento del planeta, la acidificación de los océanos y el colapso de nuestros sistemas alimentarios.
Debemos dejar de quemar combustibles fósiles si queremos que el planeta continúe siendo habitable. Aún así, los poderosos pululan de una conferencia a la otra haciendo promesas que nunca podrán cumplir, dado que el 90% de todos los combustibles fósiles del mundo son producidos por los estados. Si dejaran de hacerlo, sus economías colapsarían, al igual que sus instituciones de poder. El colapso de estas instituciones podría ofrecer verdaderas oportunidades para la democracia, pero mientras los poderosos sigan comprometidos con el crecimiento, la riqueza y el poder, nuestros gobiernos continuarán produciendo y comprando combustibles fósiles.
Incluso si atravesáramos una revolución democrática y eligiéramos una sociedad dirigida por verdaderos movimientos ecologistas y de trabajadores, que detengan todo proyecto de combustibles fósiles y se comprometan a reducir el consumo, la riqueza y el poder, estos nuevos gobiernos enfrentarían un aluvión de demandas judiciales de la corte internacional de "Arbitraje de diferencias inversor-estado", el brazo oculto del banco mundial que permite a las corporaciones demandar a los gobiernos por la pérdida de futuras ganancias, cuando estos últimos hacen uso de su soberano derecho de cambiar de opinión
Más aún, si eliminásemos esa corte, impusiésemos multas a las corporaciones y restringiésemos su capacidad de formar lobbys, el propio sistema reaccionaría dinámicamente, creando nuevos nodos de poder a fin de transformar los diferentes tipos de energía en diferentes tipos de riqueza. Pues el sistema está programado para el crecimiento y el dominio de la minoría.
Una democracia exige una reforma total de nuestras instituciones, nuestros sistemas económicos, nuestras relaciones e incluso de la noción de Estado. ¿Por qué deberían seguir existiendo los estados, si hasta ahora solo han servido para la transformación del trabajo humano y la naturaleza en lucro? ¿Podemos organizar una pequeña nación donde la salud y la educación sean gratuitas, y donde abunde la literatura, el arte, las oportunidades y la imaginación, sin necesidad de un Estado? ¿Podría una sociedad organizada en pequeños consejos basados en procesos democráticos y deliberativos, hacerlo mejor, o de forma más sustentable?
Pensar el futuro de la democracia exige imaginar un mundo en el cual los recursos naturales sean aprovechados para permitir una vida satisfactoria y abundante para todas las criaturas vivientes. Siempre que estos recursos se utilicen para concentrar el poder -ya sea por un individuo o una nación- estaremos desencadenando las mismas dinámicas que causan las crisis climáticas, las crisis de biodiversidad, las crisis hídricas, las crisis de sanidad, o en suma, la crisis de la vida. En un mundo sano, nadie jamás alentaría la transformación de la abundancia natural en riqueza y poder. Como parte del ecosistema de este planeta que somos, el mundo no nos pertenece, sino que nosotros pertenecemos a él. Mientras existan ficciones ideológicas que dominen nuestra realidad para crear una otredad arbitraria con la Tierra y nuestros semejantes, como lo son el dinero, las fronteras y los dioses, lo que llamamos "democracia" solo servirá a una minoría.
To the extent that voters are deliberately misinformed by controlled media and they have not been educated to think independently, democracy is already dead.
Climate scientists have outlined a plan as no doubt you know, Degrowth. It's logical, demands equitable wealth distribution, and justice for indigenous people and the Global South. Of course, those in power and swimming in obscene wealth, will never subscribe to it. We are heading to brutal tragedy, millions are already experiencing it, and it WILL grow worse. The technological "solutions" such as CCS and DAC are pure greenwashing, as the oil barons do everything in their power to continue drilling and burning. It appears insane until you conclude they DESIRE a radical population reduction. COP28 of course was a complete show as usual with no teeth to back up the weak language that came out of the conference. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/cop-out28
"A democracy demands a total reform of our institutions, our economic systems, our relationships and even the notion of statehood. Why should states, which have typically existed as institutions of wealth-conversion, continue to exist? Can we organise a small nation with free healthcare, housing, education, literature, art, opportunity and imagination without a state? Could small councils engaged in deliberative democratic processes do it better? More sustainably?"
Let's not forget police, law and order, defence, emergency services, etc.
"total reform" what do you have in mind? I'd rather know what was being proposed before I agree with it. That's democracy in action - right there.
"a total reform of our institutions, our economic systems, our relationships and even the notion of statehood."
Too much at once. I'm very progressive on environmental matters - but in other areas I'm very conservative. Nightmares can be unleashed when we try to fix everything at once. Until someone has a clear model of what the alternative is - I'm not ready to TOTALLY throw out this one. Money is a means of exchange. And why smaller? I'm actually pro- the EU federating into a country called Europe! They're moving in the right direction - step by step - in environmental legislation. But the EU as it is may collapse into smaller, competing nations again. What could possibly go wrong with smaller nations? (Coughs - "20th Century - that's what!") Excuse me!
Again - as I said in the previous post - it took German democracy to give renewables the decades of subsidies they needed to scale up to become the exponentially growing energy source that is about to bankrupt big oil and coal. Then China got involved and accelerated it. Now I'm looking forward to watching greenhouse emissions peak around 2030 as the IEA says. We've got this - at least climate emissions. It's happening - many environmentalists have been fixed on political agreements and ignoring what's actually happening in energy markets. But the real threat? Nuclear war. Engineered Viruses. Biosphere loss. We need hopeful activists out there rewilding nature, conserving what they can, creating Zoological Parks - or is that Arks? By 2050 we should be enjoying clean energy and then the population growth will end and start to decline. What of the biosphere can we save by then? What can we bring through this bottleneck with us?
"Fossil fuels have turbocharged the power of the minority, surpassing all previous physical limitations to extract, exploit and convert."
Of course - but the 'minority' is the 15% of countries that are developed - which is where democracy seems to be. The other countries that are still developing are often engaged in tribal warfare, autocracy, theocracy, or North Korea style dictatorship. We voted with our wallets to buy stuff. Now - I wish we had voted for Ecocities instead of car-dependent suburbia - but at the end of WW2 the builders of suburbia had great intentions. They couldn't forsee what a mess it would be. And it was what people seemed to want. So - I'm not sure democracy is the total dud you think it is? It's given us what we want. It's just we need better education to help us be a bit more discerning about what we want!
"And so the powerful trot off to conferences to make promises they can never keep"
I don't think that's accurate. Forget the Paris agreements - the market is about to overtake them!
"The existence of the climate crisis implies that democracy has never existed, and our inability to mitigate its devastating effects only revealing that the illusion of democracy serves to appease a populace whilst maintaining power in the palms of a small minority."
Why the delay in dealing with climate change? Well, first big fossil fuel multinationals have a LOT of lobbying power and have been corrupting our democratic processes - weaponizing social media against us, etc. But there’s an even larger and more mundane factor involved. Climatologist Johan Rockstrom explains. Remember him? He’s not just a climatologist but also a Planetary Boundaries expert featuring on David Attenborough’s “Breaking Boundaries” series. He writes for “Earth4All” - a sister organisation to the Club of Rome.
He explains that back when the world banned CFC’s because of the threat to the Ozone layer, there was an affordable alternative propellant for spray cans. But when we started to understand the urgency of climate change - no one knew what to do because there simply was no alternative. EV’s were expensive toys, not the industrially produced and ever cheaper alternatives to oil they are today. And nuclear was incredibly unpopular - but it only becomes economical when a whole nation decides to build 30 or more standardized reactors.
Wind and solar were several orders of magnitude more expensive than they are now. How time changes things! Germany started to subsidise wind and solar which increased demand which sped up R&D and learning rates - and the costs started to come down. Then China got involved - and now wind and solar are about 1/4 the cost of nuclear! (Lazard 2023). They’re doubling every 4 or 5 years! Johan says we are close to our “Montreal Moment” - where just as they banned CFC’s - we are about to start really dumping fossil fuels. https://youtu.be/7KfWGAjJAsM?t=1191
So rather than writing off democracy for not dealing with it yet, I think it’s more accurate to say democracy helped Germany subsidise wind and solar - and now we’re all going to benefit from it. It’s just one of those things that took a few decades to cook up the right tech and bring it to scale. Now the energy transition is unstoppable!
Policy reforms are urgently needed to meet crucial 21st century realities.
We have become vulnerable to entrenched assumptions and practices that are not only failing to serve humanity’s interests, but which are, collectively, an escalating threat to our future on earth. As one of hundreds of factual analyses and reports substantiating this assertion, consider the recently issued National Climate Assessment, the fifth in a series of such evaluations mandated by Congress.
The report documents numerous threats to property, health, and environment. Among them are the increasing extreme-weather events caused by human activities emitting heat-trapping gases – primarily carbon dioxide and methane from using fossil fuels – costing U.S. citizens over $150 billion annually in recent years. These destructive effects include:
• Wildfires – Destroying carbon-storing capacity, amplifying heat-trapping gas emissions.
• Drought – Killing crops, endangering millions of people.
• Extinctions – Entire species are being lost at disastrous rates.
Cumulatively, these costly worldwide effects are accelerating. Aside from tragically inequitable financial penalties, they’re creating worsening living conditions that will become intolerable unless pivotal changes are quickly made in how humans use natural resources. This will mean adopting viable methods to curtail the destructive assaults of reckless industrialization.
How does “The existence of the climate crisis implies that democracy has never existed”? Don't get me wrong, democracy today is very flawed, if indeed non-existent. But climate crisis could occur even if there was a perfect democracy. Can you elaborate on your reasoning?
For an exploration of the difficulties and benefits of establishing new systems of fair(er) governance/ organisation/ capital/ work I highly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson’s mars trilogy. It’s a bit of an endless epic to read slowly over a long while but worth the time eventually and an enjoyable fantasy besides.
I think we have grown accustomed to calling it a democracy since that is what it was supposed to be. Its current iterations are far more of a technocracy. Being so intimately immersed and enmeshed within it has made it difficult for us to recognize the changes, especially since the end of the second WW, as they have unfolded in service of agendas other than the common good. And while we have, for the most part, been manipulated in to believing and behaving as we do in support of ‘the machine’, that doesn’t relieve us of our complicity, acquiescence, and complacent attitude and will, in all likelihood, make change very difficult to achieve without it being forced in some catastrophic way.
Old habits, as they say, die hard, and our collective favouritism for comfort and convenience, and our willingness to outsource a lot of our decision making to marketing and the technocracy, means that the necessary change will be extremely difficult and lengthy. Lots of the steps to that change are already being co-opted and monetized, sadly, which only exacerbates the problem further.
I am increasingly of the belief that for solidly-rooted change to happen, space must be opened up for it to grow and flourish organically. We must re-establish a deeper and well grounded meaning in our lives that is fully detached from, again, ‘the machine’, and solidifies a new and collective set of values to underpin such a culture.
If you have not already, I do strongly recommend watching this from the Consilience Project ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6V0qmDZ2gg ) Yes, it is 3 + hours long, but it is filled with insight and thought provocation and, I feel, some rough mapping of how we can begin the necessary process of change. I’m on my third pass through it. There is a transcript as well ( https://consilienceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/TRANSCRIPT_-The-Psychological-Drivers-of-the-Metacrisis.pdf ).
No civilisation in history ever voluntarily dismantled itself. That goes even more so for the current global, technological one based on fossil fuels. Power structures just don't work like that. It's going to die, alright, but it will die badly, taking most of us with it, unfortunately.
The real question is whether it does so before or after the biosphere is totally destroyed. If it's the former, a small remnant may be able to carry on.
My feeling is a truer democratic system is going to take a long time and will probably start with local democratic changes. The structures of government are a powerful force in maintaining the status quo and even with a party more disposed to devolving power the structures will limit this. There is also the public appetite for major change - or lack of it. Progressives are in the minority in Britain and a hostile press would easily disparage progressive policies amongst the suspicious majority. Most people can only get their heads round a new concept when they are actually a part of it and can experience the benefits. The task is to introduce people in an ultra-local context to the idea of having their views valued and acted on. Once they accept this as a useful device in their street or village it will be a shorter step to understanding how this could work in a wider context. In this country, we should also be persuading mayors to introduce citizens assemblies for specific issues which would help to promote this as democratic tool. It will likely take a while but arguably it will be on a stronger foundation than if it was introduced wholesale by a progressive government.
Do we have time? My reading of human nature is that people will cling as long as possible to a sinking ship but that once they are forced to swim a more visceral form of democracy will take over - there is at least a majority for climate action - which will force those in power to address the issues and both the economic and political structures will significantly weaken making progressive change more likely.
On the other hand - what do I know?
I agree - particularly on people's / citizen's assemblies. Don't wait for the authority to set it up, create the assembly and then invite your local mp / councilor etc. Make noise about it whether they turn up or not! This may not be enough for sure, but I hope that it will build community networks and resilience that will be vital for the turbulent future
Well said. Agreed.
There needs to be a significantly strong grassroots movement amongst the people, to demand reforms to the political system, such that power is transferred back to the average citizens, they have more say when it comes to decision-making, and the ruling class become truly accountable to the people, instead of to the corporations.
This will be a long and challenging process, at least for certain countries and societies that are deeply stuck in the current neoliberal and/or neoconservative capitalist systems, but such change has to start somewhere and immediately.
It's worth taking a look at the work of Audrey Tang in Taiwan, for some possible paths for transformation towards democracy. The episode of 'Your undivided attention', where she describes how activists took over government operations, by creating a parallel .g0v domain is truly inspiring. Whether that strategy, or similar, could work elsewhere is debatable, but worth discussion. Maybe a future guest for Planet Critical?
You're the second person to recommend Audrey in the past few days—I just need to find the right email address :)
Here's the Spanish version of the essay:
¿Puede la democracia sobrevivir la crisis climática?
¿Y qué democracia?
La propia existencia de la crisis climática implica que la democracia nuca ha existido, y nuestra incapacidad de mitigar sus efectos devastadores nos revela que la ilusión de la democracia solo sirve para apaciguar a una población, manteniendo el poder en manos de una pequeña minoría.
¿Por qué la crisis climática implica la inexistencia de la democracia? Porque la democracia es un sistema de gobierno por y para la mayoría. Pero la mayoría nunca ha votado, perpetuado ni se ha beneficiado del sistema económico al que suscribe -y que a menudo impone- el actual sistema de gobierno. Y es este sistema económico, basado en la explotación y la extracción, lo ha creado la crisis climática.
Hasta los asesores de gobierno son víctimas de esa falsa idea de que nuestra economía está, de alguna manera, divorciada de la realidad biofísica. Pero en verdad, su crecimiento depende de que los recursos naturales sean convertidos en riqueza. Esta organización humana corrupta arranca preciosos minerales de la corteza terrestre, destruye selvas tropicales biodiversas, barre los océanos, enjaula animales e incluso esclaviza personas, y todo ello en nombre del crecimiento económico. Estos recursos (a menudo criaturas vivas) proveen la energía necesaria para el crecimiento de nuestra economía, al igual que la leche materna proporciona al bebé la energía que necesita para crecer. Sin embargo, en este caso el resultado no es un paquetito de alegría, sino montañas de lucro económico. Esta es, en las ciencia de la Física, la mismísima definición de potenciai: es la energía transferida o transformada a lo largo del tiempo. La energía nunca se crea ni se destruye, solo se transforma. Por lo tanto, la riqueza tampoco se crea ni se destruye, solo se transforma. El poder es la capacidad de transformar la abundancia natural -la cual pertenece y forma parte de cada criatura en este planeta- en riquezas personales.
Me pregunto, entonces, ¿cómo es posible que vivamos en democracia cuando una pequeña minoría tiene el poder suficiente para destruir el planeta entero, mientras el resto solo puede quedarse mirando con espanto?
Los combustibles fósiles han engordado enormemente el poder de la minoría, superando todas las limitaciones físicas anteriores para extraer, explotar y transformar. También son responsables del 90% de las emisiones de gas de efecto invernadero, que causan el calentamiento del planeta, la acidificación de los océanos y el colapso de nuestros sistemas alimentarios.
Debemos dejar de quemar combustibles fósiles si queremos que el planeta continúe siendo habitable. Aún así, los poderosos pululan de una conferencia a la otra haciendo promesas que nunca podrán cumplir, dado que el 90% de todos los combustibles fósiles del mundo son producidos por los estados. Si dejaran de hacerlo, sus economías colapsarían, al igual que sus instituciones de poder. El colapso de estas instituciones podría ofrecer verdaderas oportunidades para la democracia, pero mientras los poderosos sigan comprometidos con el crecimiento, la riqueza y el poder, nuestros gobiernos continuarán produciendo y comprando combustibles fósiles.
Incluso si atravesáramos una revolución democrática y eligiéramos una sociedad dirigida por verdaderos movimientos ecologistas y de trabajadores, que detengan todo proyecto de combustibles fósiles y se comprometan a reducir el consumo, la riqueza y el poder, estos nuevos gobiernos enfrentarían un aluvión de demandas judiciales de la corte internacional de "Arbitraje de diferencias inversor-estado", el brazo oculto del banco mundial que permite a las corporaciones demandar a los gobiernos por la pérdida de futuras ganancias, cuando estos últimos hacen uso de su soberano derecho de cambiar de opinión
Más aún, si eliminásemos esa corte, impusiésemos multas a las corporaciones y restringiésemos su capacidad de formar lobbys, el propio sistema reaccionaría dinámicamente, creando nuevos nodos de poder a fin de transformar los diferentes tipos de energía en diferentes tipos de riqueza. Pues el sistema está programado para el crecimiento y el dominio de la minoría.
Una democracia exige una reforma total de nuestras instituciones, nuestros sistemas económicos, nuestras relaciones e incluso de la noción de Estado. ¿Por qué deberían seguir existiendo los estados, si hasta ahora solo han servido para la transformación del trabajo humano y la naturaleza en lucro? ¿Podemos organizar una pequeña nación donde la salud y la educación sean gratuitas, y donde abunde la literatura, el arte, las oportunidades y la imaginación, sin necesidad de un Estado? ¿Podría una sociedad organizada en pequeños consejos basados en procesos democráticos y deliberativos, hacerlo mejor, o de forma más sustentable?
Pensar el futuro de la democracia exige imaginar un mundo en el cual los recursos naturales sean aprovechados para permitir una vida satisfactoria y abundante para todas las criaturas vivientes. Siempre que estos recursos se utilicen para concentrar el poder -ya sea por un individuo o una nación- estaremos desencadenando las mismas dinámicas que causan las crisis climáticas, las crisis de biodiversidad, las crisis hídricas, las crisis de sanidad, o en suma, la crisis de la vida. En un mundo sano, nadie jamás alentaría la transformación de la abundancia natural en riqueza y poder. Como parte del ecosistema de este planeta que somos, el mundo no nos pertenece, sino que nosotros pertenecemos a él. Mientras existan ficciones ideológicas que dominen nuestra realidad para crear una otredad arbitraria con la Tierra y nuestros semejantes, como lo son el dinero, las fronteras y los dioses, lo que llamamos "democracia" solo servirá a una minoría.
To the extent that voters are deliberately misinformed by controlled media and they have not been educated to think independently, democracy is already dead.
Climate scientists have outlined a plan as no doubt you know, Degrowth. It's logical, demands equitable wealth distribution, and justice for indigenous people and the Global South. Of course, those in power and swimming in obscene wealth, will never subscribe to it. We are heading to brutal tragedy, millions are already experiencing it, and it WILL grow worse. The technological "solutions" such as CCS and DAC are pure greenwashing, as the oil barons do everything in their power to continue drilling and burning. It appears insane until you conclude they DESIRE a radical population reduction. COP28 of course was a complete show as usual with no teeth to back up the weak language that came out of the conference. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/cop-out28
"A democracy demands a total reform of our institutions, our economic systems, our relationships and even the notion of statehood. Why should states, which have typically existed as institutions of wealth-conversion, continue to exist? Can we organise a small nation with free healthcare, housing, education, literature, art, opportunity and imagination without a state? Could small councils engaged in deliberative democratic processes do it better? More sustainably?"
Let's not forget police, law and order, defence, emergency services, etc.
"total reform" what do you have in mind? I'd rather know what was being proposed before I agree with it. That's democracy in action - right there.
"a total reform of our institutions, our economic systems, our relationships and even the notion of statehood."
Too much at once. I'm very progressive on environmental matters - but in other areas I'm very conservative. Nightmares can be unleashed when we try to fix everything at once. Until someone has a clear model of what the alternative is - I'm not ready to TOTALLY throw out this one. Money is a means of exchange. And why smaller? I'm actually pro- the EU federating into a country called Europe! They're moving in the right direction - step by step - in environmental legislation. But the EU as it is may collapse into smaller, competing nations again. What could possibly go wrong with smaller nations? (Coughs - "20th Century - that's what!") Excuse me!
Again - as I said in the previous post - it took German democracy to give renewables the decades of subsidies they needed to scale up to become the exponentially growing energy source that is about to bankrupt big oil and coal. Then China got involved and accelerated it. Now I'm looking forward to watching greenhouse emissions peak around 2030 as the IEA says. We've got this - at least climate emissions. It's happening - many environmentalists have been fixed on political agreements and ignoring what's actually happening in energy markets. But the real threat? Nuclear war. Engineered Viruses. Biosphere loss. We need hopeful activists out there rewilding nature, conserving what they can, creating Zoological Parks - or is that Arks? By 2050 we should be enjoying clean energy and then the population growth will end and start to decline. What of the biosphere can we save by then? What can we bring through this bottleneck with us?
"Fossil fuels have turbocharged the power of the minority, surpassing all previous physical limitations to extract, exploit and convert."
Of course - but the 'minority' is the 15% of countries that are developed - which is where democracy seems to be. The other countries that are still developing are often engaged in tribal warfare, autocracy, theocracy, or North Korea style dictatorship. We voted with our wallets to buy stuff. Now - I wish we had voted for Ecocities instead of car-dependent suburbia - but at the end of WW2 the builders of suburbia had great intentions. They couldn't forsee what a mess it would be. And it was what people seemed to want. So - I'm not sure democracy is the total dud you think it is? It's given us what we want. It's just we need better education to help us be a bit more discerning about what we want!
"And so the powerful trot off to conferences to make promises they can never keep"
I don't think that's accurate. Forget the Paris agreements - the market is about to overtake them!
Paris wanted 615 GW solar annually by 2030 - but that could happen in the next year or so and it's still doubling. This article wonders if we're going to see 3 TERAWATTS annually by 2030! https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/
"The existence of the climate crisis implies that democracy has never existed, and our inability to mitigate its devastating effects only revealing that the illusion of democracy serves to appease a populace whilst maintaining power in the palms of a small minority."
Why the delay in dealing with climate change? Well, first big fossil fuel multinationals have a LOT of lobbying power and have been corrupting our democratic processes - weaponizing social media against us, etc. But there’s an even larger and more mundane factor involved. Climatologist Johan Rockstrom explains. Remember him? He’s not just a climatologist but also a Planetary Boundaries expert featuring on David Attenborough’s “Breaking Boundaries” series. He writes for “Earth4All” - a sister organisation to the Club of Rome.
He explains that back when the world banned CFC’s because of the threat to the Ozone layer, there was an affordable alternative propellant for spray cans. But when we started to understand the urgency of climate change - no one knew what to do because there simply was no alternative. EV’s were expensive toys, not the industrially produced and ever cheaper alternatives to oil they are today. And nuclear was incredibly unpopular - but it only becomes economical when a whole nation decides to build 30 or more standardized reactors.
Wind and solar were several orders of magnitude more expensive than they are now. How time changes things! Germany started to subsidise wind and solar which increased demand which sped up R&D and learning rates - and the costs started to come down. Then China got involved - and now wind and solar are about 1/4 the cost of nuclear! (Lazard 2023). They’re doubling every 4 or 5 years! Johan says we are close to our “Montreal Moment” - where just as they banned CFC’s - we are about to start really dumping fossil fuels. https://youtu.be/7KfWGAjJAsM?t=1191
So rather than writing off democracy for not dealing with it yet, I think it’s more accurate to say democracy helped Germany subsidise wind and solar - and now we’re all going to benefit from it. It’s just one of those things that took a few decades to cook up the right tech and bring it to scale. Now the energy transition is unstoppable!
Yep, the crisis arises from humans seeing themselves as separate from nature https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-tiny-water-flea-has-31000-genes
Policy reforms are urgently needed to meet crucial 21st century realities.
We have become vulnerable to entrenched assumptions and practices that are not only failing to serve humanity’s interests, but which are, collectively, an escalating threat to our future on earth. As one of hundreds of factual analyses and reports substantiating this assertion, consider the recently issued National Climate Assessment, the fifth in a series of such evaluations mandated by Congress.
The report documents numerous threats to property, health, and environment. Among them are the increasing extreme-weather events caused by human activities emitting heat-trapping gases – primarily carbon dioxide and methane from using fossil fuels – costing U.S. citizens over $150 billion annually in recent years. These destructive effects include:
• Wildfires – Destroying carbon-storing capacity, amplifying heat-trapping gas emissions.
• Drought – Killing crops, endangering millions of people.
• Hurricanes & floods – Destroying property, endangering lives.
• Extreme heat – Causing premature deaths and degenerative heat-related diseases.
• Extinctions – Entire species are being lost at disastrous rates.
Cumulatively, these costly worldwide effects are accelerating. Aside from tragically inequitable financial penalties, they’re creating worsening living conditions that will become intolerable unless pivotal changes are quickly made in how humans use natural resources. This will mean adopting viable methods to curtail the destructive assaults of reckless industrialization.
See more at https://southatlanticbytes.blog/guidelines-for-21st-century-realities/
How does “The existence of the climate crisis implies that democracy has never existed”? Don't get me wrong, democracy today is very flawed, if indeed non-existent. But climate crisis could occur even if there was a perfect democracy. Can you elaborate on your reasoning?
For an exploration of the difficulties and benefits of establishing new systems of fair(er) governance/ organisation/ capital/ work I highly recommend Kim Stanley Robinson’s mars trilogy. It’s a bit of an endless epic to read slowly over a long while but worth the time eventually and an enjoyable fantasy besides.
Oh such a superb piece! This is much welcome gold dust to scatter around 🙏