This was an interesting discussion. I liked that you brought up the stories we are telling, Rachel, and I wished that you'd gone into that further with Matt. Part of his explanation for blue-collar workers voting for Trump is that the Democratic party isn't doing anything for them. But neither is the Republican party - not for their material well-being, only possibly for their felt sense of identity and belonging. This seems an even stronger argument that the stories - including how connections are drawn to people's values and morals - are critical. If neither party is offering real material improvements, then the voting is, in fact, based on the stories being told.
I agree with Matt that the Democratic Party needs to offer real material support to the struggles of working people. However, I also think he is lacking in imagination about what that could be, stuck in his early-industrialism marxism. People don't necessarily need jobs - we need food, shelter, community, purpose, a sense of ease and joy. These do not require "good paying jobs" if we can think beyond the capitalist framework. This is where the storytelling is soo important: Can those of us who are working poor and who have a vision of a life of ease that doesn't involve endless daily struggle at meaningingless or actually planet-harming jobs find ways to communicate that vision to those who can only imagine better pay as their only way out?
I listened to this straight after finishing the Nate Hagens / Daniel Schmactenberger one on AI. Leaving aside the more apocalyptic scenarios a crucial aspect of AI development is already assisting fossil fuel companies in making profitable previously unprofitable smaller reserves as well as finding unknown larger ones so peak or no peak there is more to come than we had thought. In addition, AI will generate more efficiency in existing businesses leading to an increase in production there as well as founding new ones, all the while consuming ever greater amount of power and water. Daniel's prescription is we have to cost in the externalities and put a brake on the increase in production by converting the efficiencies into more leisure time rather than more stuff.
This is something that needs to come from below to pressure government into implementing and Matt’s arguments for a stronger TU movement are a good place to start.
The ‘think global, act local’ line probably sums up what you and Matt were aiming at which is where most of us are at although there are a few who have the connections to organisations in other areas and countries which helps to join up the dots.
Local activism has always been a gateway to bringing people on board with an idea or cause and is based on that old fashioned idea of trust. Show them you are prepared to put the effort in to sorting out their problem and they will often become your greatest advocates. This could of course be used cynically but sooner or later people twig if that’s the case.
Unions are a good place to start as they are existing structures and have credibility but with the possibility of reduced working hours to come they may have to develop their role into a more general social force.
Bit of a shotgun comment - sorry! - but my head’s somewhat scrambled from the NH/DS episode. DS tends to have that sort of effect!
I also listened to that episode before this one. I sometimes think DS revels in freaking NH out. That aside, the main point for me was that renewables aren't slowing the continued growth of fossil fuels, and in a perverse way are actually encouraging that growth by adding to the available energy and thereby growing the economy. I found it hard to get past that fact, and that unless you remove the equivalent hydrocarbon source when adding renewables, there will be no energy transition. Scrambled here also!
This made me think about the concept of "Private Sufficiency / Public Luxury".
What would a world look like if, along with providing human rights like healthcare and housing, we provided a minimum income floor?
I am assuming this would increase consumption overall if we didn't also severely limit the top end of consumers with taxes. Curious to know what others think.
Unless we put a lid on wealth (not just income) we won't live according to our environmental needs. Our policy people are paid by governments who are propped up by corporations so of course, there is nobody pointing the finger at capitalism there. But it has to go if we are to have any chance.
The consensus seems to be that increasing the income of the unwaged or low waged would lead to a significant boost to the economy as they would be able to afford more essentials and the odd 'luxury'. They would spend most, if not all, of the uplift in this way. This would not lead to any significant rise in luxury production but would support the producers and retailers of things like food, clothing, energy and communications. The knock on effect is greater taxes for government, a more buoyant retail sector and further employment.
I don't buy going along with a lie, to be blunt. I get what you're saying of course, but why tell the government, that knows they don't need taxes for spending, that they do need it, just to encourage the adoption of UBI? I'd rather encourage its adoption while leaving taxes out of it, or even by saying that UBI can be paid for the way the government pays for its genocide bombs: with keystrokes, not taxes!
One of the issues with climate policies promoted by the left is that they negatively impact the working class directly and specifically (less so the middle classes, hardly at all the upper classes) in places where those policies are actually implemented. Said differently, socialists who promote climate policies abroad from within rich nations undermine their fellow working class socialists where the policies are implemented in peripheral nations:
Contrast the following theoretical approach:
The International Trade Union Confederation defined a “Just Transition” as follows: “A Just Transition secures the future and livelihoods of workers and their communities in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It is based on social dialogue between workers and their unions, employers, government and communities. A plan for Just Transition provides guarantees of better and decent jobs, social protection, more training opportunities and greater job security for all workers affected by global warming and climate change policies" (What does the Just Transition look like in South Africa).
With the actual implementation results:
"They started to engage us after they shut the power plant down; that’s when they came into the community. Before that, we never had a proper conversation with them. Everything moves without us knowing. We hear things from journalists, and then after that they tell us politicians are coming, etc. But the community is left in the dark. Even myself, I don’t properly understand the just transition,” said Carlos Vilankulu, a community leader in Komati" (Komati Power Station — the cautionary tale of the Just Energy Transition and lessons to be learnt).
Conclusion:
"However, for workers in Komati, talk of a just energy transition is a big ruse. What is actually at play is a neoliberal structural adjustment pacified by rhetoric of a green agenda" (Decommissioning of power stations: Anxiety and confusion over energy transition).
Good discussion, but I wish you had prodded Matt a bit more abt degrowth. He has in other places been very scathing of any attempt to talk about ecological limits, characterising them as "austerity". I would have been interested to hear chat about whether his vision can satisfy people's needs within ecological boundaries. https://jacobin.com/2023/07/degrowth-climate-change-economic-planning-production-austerity
Also thought it was a bit weird of him to denigrate activists who talk about "the global south" in Denmark and then argue we need more internationalism?
This was an excellent talk. Truly, we need to talk more about how to do a better job of getting what we want, because so far, as both Matt and Rachel point out here, we are failing, and the Right-wingers are winning all over the world.
One of the biggest problems with the idea of getting those in power in government and in corporations to change their mindset away from capitalism and profits is that the people who are doing work in climate policy, for example in universities, are against the idea of trying to change that power structure because that power structure is paying their wages. I’ve spoken with climate professors who react to my pleas for an end to the existing system and wealth inequality by saying that they are both unnecessary and impractical. Unnecessary, because they ignorantly buy into the IPCC narrative of what needs to be done, and impractical because it is, of course, difficult to throw out those who hold the power.
Another problem is that the economists who report to the government and the corporations have all painted a picture that says climate change will only reduce global profits and income by a very small percentage, even at very high warming levels. It started with William Nordhaus at the inception of the IPCC with his lousy DICE model, that said with 3 degrees of warming the future global incomes would only be reduced by 0.25%. And what is absolutely crucial to understand here, because it isn’t intuitive and they don’t come right out and say it in so many words, is that economists always talk about reductions to future GDP growth, not that future GDP will be such-and-such percent smaller than it is now, but that after growing much larger than current GDP, say in 50 years when we see 3 degrees of warming, the impact on GDP at that point in time will be less than one percent. And Nordhaus today still talks about tiny numbers like this. His estimate has grown from 0.25% to 3% with 3 degrees of warming, but that is still insanely incorrect and is a primary reason why those in power do not realize that climate change will absolutely wreck our economies, because they trust these economists. Nordhaus won a Nobel prize in 2018 specifically for his climate work, believe it or not. And he is not the only one. Mainstream economists around the world come to similar pitiful, insane conclusions about climate damage because their economic models have no basis in reality. They are completely energy and material blind.
Forgot to mention Rachel's most important comment IMO, that "the people" will not be moved to do the right thing, even when it comes to human extinction (so we need a new message). And this is a telling commentary on capitalism and the Might is Right set we are stuck with: they have created a world whose citizens will not support doing the right thing because they are worried about survival. This is by design, of course. The Power want us this way.
Isn't it hard to offer "privileged" solutions to those on the less favourable side of inequality, whichever way we try, because they're likely already desperate? But if they're somehow lifted out of that inequality, possibly by the usual biospheric-life-destroying methods, and are less desperate, then perhaps they might come onside? The way those on the more favourable side of inequality might?
This was an interesting discussion. I liked that you brought up the stories we are telling, Rachel, and I wished that you'd gone into that further with Matt. Part of his explanation for blue-collar workers voting for Trump is that the Democratic party isn't doing anything for them. But neither is the Republican party - not for their material well-being, only possibly for their felt sense of identity and belonging. This seems an even stronger argument that the stories - including how connections are drawn to people's values and morals - are critical. If neither party is offering real material improvements, then the voting is, in fact, based on the stories being told.
I agree with Matt that the Democratic Party needs to offer real material support to the struggles of working people. However, I also think he is lacking in imagination about what that could be, stuck in his early-industrialism marxism. People don't necessarily need jobs - we need food, shelter, community, purpose, a sense of ease and joy. These do not require "good paying jobs" if we can think beyond the capitalist framework. This is where the storytelling is soo important: Can those of us who are working poor and who have a vision of a life of ease that doesn't involve endless daily struggle at meaningingless or actually planet-harming jobs find ways to communicate that vision to those who can only imagine better pay as their only way out?
I listened to this straight after finishing the Nate Hagens / Daniel Schmactenberger one on AI. Leaving aside the more apocalyptic scenarios a crucial aspect of AI development is already assisting fossil fuel companies in making profitable previously unprofitable smaller reserves as well as finding unknown larger ones so peak or no peak there is more to come than we had thought. In addition, AI will generate more efficiency in existing businesses leading to an increase in production there as well as founding new ones, all the while consuming ever greater amount of power and water. Daniel's prescription is we have to cost in the externalities and put a brake on the increase in production by converting the efficiencies into more leisure time rather than more stuff.
This is something that needs to come from below to pressure government into implementing and Matt’s arguments for a stronger TU movement are a good place to start.
The ‘think global, act local’ line probably sums up what you and Matt were aiming at which is where most of us are at although there are a few who have the connections to organisations in other areas and countries which helps to join up the dots.
Local activism has always been a gateway to bringing people on board with an idea or cause and is based on that old fashioned idea of trust. Show them you are prepared to put the effort in to sorting out their problem and they will often become your greatest advocates. This could of course be used cynically but sooner or later people twig if that’s the case.
Unions are a good place to start as they are existing structures and have credibility but with the possibility of reduced working hours to come they may have to develop their role into a more general social force.
Bit of a shotgun comment - sorry! - but my head’s somewhat scrambled from the NH/DS episode. DS tends to have that sort of effect!
I also listened to that episode before this one. I sometimes think DS revels in freaking NH out. That aside, the main point for me was that renewables aren't slowing the continued growth of fossil fuels, and in a perverse way are actually encouraging that growth by adding to the available energy and thereby growing the economy. I found it hard to get past that fact, and that unless you remove the equivalent hydrocarbon source when adding renewables, there will be no energy transition. Scrambled here also!
Ditto re green energy. I almost don’t want the next gen solutions which will just feed the beast.
This made me think about the concept of "Private Sufficiency / Public Luxury".
What would a world look like if, along with providing human rights like healthcare and housing, we provided a minimum income floor?
I am assuming this would increase consumption overall if we didn't also severely limit the top end of consumers with taxes. Curious to know what others think.
Unless we put a lid on wealth (not just income) we won't live according to our environmental needs. Our policy people are paid by governments who are propped up by corporations so of course, there is nobody pointing the finger at capitalism there. But it has to go if we are to have any chance.
The consensus seems to be that increasing the income of the unwaged or low waged would lead to a significant boost to the economy as they would be able to afford more essentials and the odd 'luxury'. They would spend most, if not all, of the uplift in this way. This would not lead to any significant rise in luxury production but would support the producers and retailers of things like food, clothing, energy and communications. The knock on effect is greater taxes for government, a more buoyant retail sector and further employment.
And what does "greater taxes for government" mean? Check out Steve Keen and MMT: governments don't need taxes to pay for their spending.
Yup - I’ve read that too but while we have governments that don’t acknowledge this view you have to argue in terms they understand.
I don't buy going along with a lie, to be blunt. I get what you're saying of course, but why tell the government, that knows they don't need taxes for spending, that they do need it, just to encourage the adoption of UBI? I'd rather encourage its adoption while leaving taxes out of it, or even by saying that UBI can be paid for the way the government pays for its genocide bombs: with keystrokes, not taxes!
One of the issues with climate policies promoted by the left is that they negatively impact the working class directly and specifically (less so the middle classes, hardly at all the upper classes) in places where those policies are actually implemented. Said differently, socialists who promote climate policies abroad from within rich nations undermine their fellow working class socialists where the policies are implemented in peripheral nations:
Contrast the following theoretical approach:
The International Trade Union Confederation defined a “Just Transition” as follows: “A Just Transition secures the future and livelihoods of workers and their communities in the transition to a low-carbon economy. It is based on social dialogue between workers and their unions, employers, government and communities. A plan for Just Transition provides guarantees of better and decent jobs, social protection, more training opportunities and greater job security for all workers affected by global warming and climate change policies" (What does the Just Transition look like in South Africa).
With the actual implementation results:
"They started to engage us after they shut the power plant down; that’s when they came into the community. Before that, we never had a proper conversation with them. Everything moves without us knowing. We hear things from journalists, and then after that they tell us politicians are coming, etc. But the community is left in the dark. Even myself, I don’t properly understand the just transition,” said Carlos Vilankulu, a community leader in Komati" (Komati Power Station — the cautionary tale of the Just Energy Transition and lessons to be learnt).
Conclusion:
"However, for workers in Komati, talk of a just energy transition is a big ruse. What is actually at play is a neoliberal structural adjustment pacified by rhetoric of a green agenda" (Decommissioning of power stations: Anxiety and confusion over energy transition).
https://archive.ph/HRkmB
Good discussion, but I wish you had prodded Matt a bit more abt degrowth. He has in other places been very scathing of any attempt to talk about ecological limits, characterising them as "austerity". I would have been interested to hear chat about whether his vision can satisfy people's needs within ecological boundaries. https://jacobin.com/2023/07/degrowth-climate-change-economic-planning-production-austerity
Also thought it was a bit weird of him to denigrate activists who talk about "the global south" in Denmark and then argue we need more internationalism?
This was an excellent talk. Truly, we need to talk more about how to do a better job of getting what we want, because so far, as both Matt and Rachel point out here, we are failing, and the Right-wingers are winning all over the world.
One of the biggest problems with the idea of getting those in power in government and in corporations to change their mindset away from capitalism and profits is that the people who are doing work in climate policy, for example in universities, are against the idea of trying to change that power structure because that power structure is paying their wages. I’ve spoken with climate professors who react to my pleas for an end to the existing system and wealth inequality by saying that they are both unnecessary and impractical. Unnecessary, because they ignorantly buy into the IPCC narrative of what needs to be done, and impractical because it is, of course, difficult to throw out those who hold the power.
Another problem is that the economists who report to the government and the corporations have all painted a picture that says climate change will only reduce global profits and income by a very small percentage, even at very high warming levels. It started with William Nordhaus at the inception of the IPCC with his lousy DICE model, that said with 3 degrees of warming the future global incomes would only be reduced by 0.25%. And what is absolutely crucial to understand here, because it isn’t intuitive and they don’t come right out and say it in so many words, is that economists always talk about reductions to future GDP growth, not that future GDP will be such-and-such percent smaller than it is now, but that after growing much larger than current GDP, say in 50 years when we see 3 degrees of warming, the impact on GDP at that point in time will be less than one percent. And Nordhaus today still talks about tiny numbers like this. His estimate has grown from 0.25% to 3% with 3 degrees of warming, but that is still insanely incorrect and is a primary reason why those in power do not realize that climate change will absolutely wreck our economies, because they trust these economists. Nordhaus won a Nobel prize in 2018 specifically for his climate work, believe it or not. And he is not the only one. Mainstream economists around the world come to similar pitiful, insane conclusions about climate damage because their economic models have no basis in reality. They are completely energy and material blind.
Forgot to mention Rachel's most important comment IMO, that "the people" will not be moved to do the right thing, even when it comes to human extinction (so we need a new message). And this is a telling commentary on capitalism and the Might is Right set we are stuck with: they have created a world whose citizens will not support doing the right thing because they are worried about survival. This is by design, of course. The Power want us this way.
Isn't it hard to offer "privileged" solutions to those on the less favourable side of inequality, whichever way we try, because they're likely already desperate? But if they're somehow lifted out of that inequality, possibly by the usual biospheric-life-destroying methods, and are less desperate, then perhaps they might come onside? The way those on the more favourable side of inequality might?