So much to unpack, as always. But let me offer this.
Aaron talks about a power deficit. This deficit is a social ecosystem problem that social ecosystem scientists seem well-qualified to address. Specially, the unspoken adjective in all conversations about power in all climate activism today is "political". The unspoken, and therefor unexamined - uncritical, to use Rachel's powerful turn of phrase - assumption is that political power is how we are going to navigate through the climate crisis to a better future. Is that a good assumption?
Later in the interview, Aaron also directs us to the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
He calls it a key task. And it is. But before we can keep fossil fuels in the ground, we first have to replace them with some other energy technologies that will "keep the lights on" (and the podcasts playing), without diminishing the habitats on earth in which we, as humans, can live well, and prosper.
So, the first task is to figure out the how's and the who's of replacing fossil fuels. That's Job 1.
Only not so fast.
Even deeper into the interview, Aaron correctly points out the problem of people with money invested in fossil fuels needing to pay that investment back. Pay it back to whom? The assumptions is "investors". But who are these investors, and what, exactly, do they want "back"? These questions are not being critically examined. At least not yet. When we do examine them, we will discover some powerful insights into why climate action is currently at an impasse.
So, maybe the first question for climate action today is not How?, but Who?
And we are not being true to our own words about a Just Transition if we think that workers and their families and communities can be required to shoulder the costs of keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
There has to be a different plan than Creative Destruction (the default strategy of Neoliberalism), in which the creation of a new energy economy comes only through the destruction of the lives, families and communities of our fellow human beings who currently make their living keeping us suppled with energy extracted from fossilized carbohydrates.
So, this has to be made the vanguard of public discourse (another great Rachelism) about climate action: WHO is going to replace fossil fuels; WHAT are they going to replace them with; and HOW are we going to fairly, equitably and successfully socialize the cost of keeping existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground, as we replace them in our Just Transition?
These are social ecosystem problems that we need to rally social ecosystem scientists to help us think critically about.
Before we "take to the streets" let's take the time to make sure it is the right streets that we are taking to.
Another terrific podcast!
So much to unpack, as always. But let me offer this.
Aaron talks about a power deficit. This deficit is a social ecosystem problem that social ecosystem scientists seem well-qualified to address. Specially, the unspoken adjective in all conversations about power in all climate activism today is "political". The unspoken, and therefor unexamined - uncritical, to use Rachel's powerful turn of phrase - assumption is that political power is how we are going to navigate through the climate crisis to a better future. Is that a good assumption?
Later in the interview, Aaron also directs us to the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
He calls it a key task. And it is. But before we can keep fossil fuels in the ground, we first have to replace them with some other energy technologies that will "keep the lights on" (and the podcasts playing), without diminishing the habitats on earth in which we, as humans, can live well, and prosper.
So, the first task is to figure out the how's and the who's of replacing fossil fuels. That's Job 1.
Only not so fast.
Even deeper into the interview, Aaron correctly points out the problem of people with money invested in fossil fuels needing to pay that investment back. Pay it back to whom? The assumptions is "investors". But who are these investors, and what, exactly, do they want "back"? These questions are not being critically examined. At least not yet. When we do examine them, we will discover some powerful insights into why climate action is currently at an impasse.
So, maybe the first question for climate action today is not How?, but Who?
And we are not being true to our own words about a Just Transition if we think that workers and their families and communities can be required to shoulder the costs of keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
There has to be a different plan than Creative Destruction (the default strategy of Neoliberalism), in which the creation of a new energy economy comes only through the destruction of the lives, families and communities of our fellow human beings who currently make their living keeping us suppled with energy extracted from fossilized carbohydrates.
So, this has to be made the vanguard of public discourse (another great Rachelism) about climate action: WHO is going to replace fossil fuels; WHAT are they going to replace them with; and HOW are we going to fairly, equitably and successfully socialize the cost of keeping existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground, as we replace them in our Just Transition?
These are social ecosystem problems that we need to rally social ecosystem scientists to help us think critically about.
Before we "take to the streets" let's take the time to make sure it is the right streets that we are taking to.