28 December 2015, Climate News network, Markets cannot solve the climate crisis. How did we get to where we are now? “Free range” capitalism could be the explanation for climate change, and needs taming, says one writer. It may not be polite to mention Karl Marx in America, but leading thinkers on the left think that capitalism may be the cause of climate change, and that to save the planet the system needs fundamental reform. According to a new book the profit motive, which drives capitalism above all other considerations, forces it to extract everything from the planet that will generate a surplus, at the expense of real benefits to humans and ecosystems. Fossil Capital: the Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming, by Andreas Malm, out in hardback from Verso in January 2016, analyses capitalism’s role in global warming by delving into its past. The book builds on the work of Naomi Klein’s 2014 This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate. Both ask whether catastrophic climate change can be averted without at least a major makeover – or the outright elimination – of capitalism. Malm, a professor of human ecology at Sweden’s Lund University, starts with James Watt’s patenting of the rotating steam engine in 1784. This was also the first year that rising carbon dioxide and methane levels were observed in polar ice. First Malm attacks the accepted theories of David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus. who developed and reinforced the capitalist notion that markets are the cure for all social ills. He shows that mills adopted coal power instead of water only because it enabled mill owners to move to populated areas to find docile and skilled workers, who were in short supply in the countryside. More biddable Coal enabled this move because, once out of the ground, it is highly portable. The machines, of course, eliminated many jobs and made others both simpler and more difficult. Owners started hiring women and children because they were easier to control than adult men. Read more here
Category Archives: Downsizing Plan B
18 December 2015, Marlborough Express, The human side of the climate debate. OPINION: United Nations global-warming talks have taken place in Paris. The world’s most senior politicians have debated ways to combat accelerated climate change. But it’s voluntary and besides it’s a sticking plaster approach – treat symptoms but ignore the cause. There seemed one very important undebated factor – people. The population factor in global warming is sadly being ignored. Politicians and bureaucrats will use any scapegoat. In 2007 director general of the Department of Conservation Al Morrison, bizarrely tried to incriminate wild deer alleging they were guilty of farting and belching. Animals can’t argue back in defence, people do. Deer and cows don’t vote but people do. Therein lies the cause of the problem – people and politics. Furthermore people drive cars which belch emissions, coal-fired power stations belch and jet planes fart “gases and particles — which contribute to climate change.” Humans demand resources, flush toilets, use chemical insecticides and pesticides and throw away garbage. Deer and cows don’t. Humans or more particularly numbers of people, are the primary cause of environmental degradation and global warming. The more people, the more demand for resources. More people require more meat and milk – more cows. More people means more cars which means more emissions. Gimme more, more and more. Read More here
30 November 2015 The Conversation, We can achieve sustainability – but not without limiting growth. Can Australians be sustainable and enjoy endless economic growth? It’s not likely. In a recent article on The Conversation, Steve Hatfield-Dodds argued that sustainability was possible in Australia without sacrificing economic growth. He also argued the necessary policy changes would not require fundamental changes to Australians’ values. This research was based on a detailed paper in Nature and modelling undertaken for CSIRO’s recent National Outlook Report. Contrary to this pro-growth outlook, I will argue that sustainability would be almost impossible to achieve in practice without ending growth in population and consumption per person. I’ll also argue that the claim that we don’t need to change our values cannot be proven (or disproven) by the method used by Hatfield-Dodds and colleagues. Recent experience suggests we may need to change our values. This debate is important, because the argument that sustainability is compatible with growth is likely to be misused by those who have vested interests in endless economic growth. Growth and sustainability are rarely compatible. Read More here
November 2015, Six Foundations for Building Community Resilience – A concept paper by Post Carbon Institute, Communities across the United States are talking more and more about resilience. They’re spurred by recent natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, weather extremes like the harsh Northeast winter of 2014-15, and long-term drought in the West. Many people think of a community’s resilience as its ability to “bounce back” from disruption, and efforts to build resilience often focus on the impacts of climate change. Climate change is indeed an urgent and existential threat, with untold potential to destroy and disrupt countless lives. But it is not the only crisis we face, nor is preparing for disruption the only way to build resilience.[1] Truly robust community resilience should do more. It should engage and benefit all community members, and consider all the challenges the community faces—from rising sea levels to a lack of living wage jobs. And it should be grounded in resilience science, which tells us how complex systems—like human communities—can adapt and persist through changing circumstances. Six Foundations for Building Community Resilience describes how communities can approach the full scope of the 21st century’s challenges equitably and sustainably. The report draws on some of the most compelling recent thinking about resilience from academia, sustainability advocacy, and grassroots activism, as well as Post Carbon Institute’s prior work.[2] It is intended as an accessible resource for local leaders and activists in the United States, and as a contribution to the larger public conversation about resilience in human communities. It provides a conceptual starting point for community resilience that we will build on in future products focused on practical actions and tools. Read Full Report here