johan hari: there won't be a bailout for the earth

[bcbm]

Why are the world’s governments bothering? Why are they jetting to Cancun next week to discuss what to do now about global warming? The vogue has passed. The fad has faded. Global warming is yesterday’s apocalypse. Didn’t somebody leak an email that showed it was all made up? Doesn’t it sometimes snow in the winter? Didn’t Al Gore get fat, or something?

Alas, the biosphere doesn’t read Vogue. Nobody thought to tell it that global warming is so 2007. All it knows is three facts. 2010 is globally the hottest year since records began. 2010 is the year humanity’s emissions of planet-warming gases reached its highest level ever. And exactly as the climate scientists predicted, we are seeing a rapid increase in catastrophic weather events, from the choking of Moscow by gigantic unprecedented forest fires to the drowning of one quarter of Pakistan.

Before the Great Crash of 2008, the people who warned about the injection of huge destabilizing risk into our financial system seemed like arcane, anal bores. Now we all sit in the rubble and wish we had listened. The great ecological crash will be worse, because nature doesn’t do bailouts.

That’s what Cancun should be about – surveying the startling scientific evidence, and developing an urgent plan to change course. The Antarctic – which locks off 90 percent of the world’s ice – has now seen eight of its ice shelves fully or partially collapse. The world’s most distinguished climate scientists, after recording like this, say we will face a three to six feet rise in sea level this century. That means the drowning of London, Bangkok, Venice, Cairo and Shanghai, and entire countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives.

And that’s just one effect of the way we are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Perhaps the most startling news story of the year passed almost unnoticed. Plant plankton are tiny creatures that live in the oceans and carry out a job you and I depend on to stay alive. They produce half the world’s oxygen, and suck up planet-warming carbon dioxide. Yet this year, one of the world’s most distinguished scientific journals, Nature, revealed that 40 per cent of them have been killed by the warming of the oceans since 1950. Professor Boris Worm, who co-authored the study, said in shock: “I’ve been trying to think of a biological change that’s bigger than this and I can’t think of one.” That has been the result of less than one degree of warming. Now we are on course for at least three degrees this century. What will happen?

The scientific debate is not between deniers and those who can prove that releasing massive amounts of warming gases will make the world warmer. Every major scientific academy in the world, and all the peer-reviewed literature, says global warming denialism is a pseudo-science, on a par with Intelligent Design, homeopathy, or the claim that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. One email from one lousy scientist among tens of thousands doesn’t dent that. No: the debate is between the scientists who say the damage we are doing is a disaster, and the scientists who say it is catastrophe.

Yet the world’s governments are gathering in Cancun with no momentum and very little pressure from their own populations to stop the ecological vandalism. The Copenhagen conference last year collapsed after the most powerful people in the world turned up to flush their own scientists’ advice down a very clean Danish toilet. These leaders are sometimes described as “doing nothing about global warming.” No doubt that form of words will fill the reporting from Cancun too. But it’s false. They’re not “doing nothing” – they are allowing their countries’ emissions of climate-trashing gases to massively increase. That’s not failure to act. It’s deciding to act in an incredibly destructive way.

The collapse of Copenhagen has not shocked people into action; it has numbed them into passivity. Last year, we were talking – in theory, at least – about the legally binding cap on the world’s carbon emissions, because the world’s scientists say this is the only thing that can preserve the climate that has created and sustained human civilization. What are we talking about this year? What’s on the table at Cancun, other than sand?

Almost nothing. They will talk about how to help the world’s poor “adapt” to the fact we are drying out much of their land and drowning the rest. But everybody is backing off from one of the few concrete agreements at Copenhagen: to give the worst-affected countries $100bn from 2020. Privately, they say this isn’t the time – they can come back for it, presumably, when they are on rafts. Oh, and they will talk about how to preserve the rainforests. But a Greenpeace report has just revealed that the last big deal to save the rainforests – with Indonesia – was a scam. The country is in fact planning to demolish most of its rainforest to plant commercial crops, and claim it had been “saved.”

Karl Rove – who was George W. Bush’s chief spin-doctor – boasted this year: “Climate is gone.” He meant it is off the political agenda, but in time, this statement will be more true and more cursed than he realizes.

It’s in this context that a new, deeply pessimistic framework for understanding the earth’s ecology – and our place in it – has emerged. Many of us know, in outline, the warm, fuzzy Gaia hypothesis, first outlined by James Lovelock. It claims that the Planet Earth functions, in effect, as a single living organism called Gaia. It regulates its own temperature and chemistry to create a comfortable steady state that can sustain life. So coral reefs produced cloud-seeding chemicals which then protect them from ultraviolet radiation. Rainforests transpire water vapour so generate their own rainfall. This process expands outwards. Life protects life.

Now there is a radically different theory that is gaining adherents, ominously named the Medea hypothesis. The paleontologist Professor Peter Ward is an expert in the great extinctions that have happened in the earth’s past, and he believes there is a common thread between them. With the exception of the meteor strike that happened 65 million years ago, every extinction was caused by living creatures becoming incredibly successful – and then destroying their own habitats. So, for example, 2.3 billion years ago, plant life spread incredibly rapidly, and as it went it inhaled huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This then caused a rapid plunge in temperature that froze the planet and triggered a mass extinction.

Ward believes nature isn’t a nurturing mother like Gaia. No: it is Medea, the figure from Greek mythology who murdered her own children. In this theory, life doesn’t preserve itself. It serially destroys itself. It is a looping doomsday machine. This theory adds a postscript to Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest. There is survival of the fittest, until the fittest trash their own habitat, and do not survive at all.

But the plants 2.3 billion years ago weren’t smart enough to figure out what they were doing. We are. We can see that if we release enough warming gases we will trigger an irreversible change in the climate and make our own survival much harder. Ward argues that it is not inevitable we will destroy ourselves – because human beings are the first and only species that can consciously develop a Gaian approach. Just as Richard Dawkins famously said we are the first species to be able to rebel against our selfish genes and choose to be kind, we are the first species that can rebel against the Medean rhythm of life. We can choose to preserve the habitat on which we depend. We can choose life.

At Cancun, the real question will be carefully ignored by delegates keen to preserve big business as usual. Do we want to ramp up global warming with filthy fossil fuels, or make the leap to a clean planet fuelled by the sun, the wind and the waves? Right now we are making the wrong choice. But we could change the ending of this story, if we act decisively. Long after our own little stories are forgotten, this choice we make now will still be visible – in the composition of the atmosphere, the swelling of the seas, and the crack and creak of the great Antarctic ice. Do we want to be Gaia, or Medea?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-there-wont-be-a-bailout-for-the-earth-2143876.html

[Vanguard1917]

Johann Hari is the man who argued that states should have powers to force the masses into being "green" because, if left to their own devices, the masses will only destroy the environment.

"Just as the government in the Second World War did not ask people to eat less voluntarily, governments today cannot ask us to burn fewer greenhouse gases voluntarily."

http://www.johannhari.com/2008/02/21/we-ll-save-the-planet-only-if-we-re-forced-to

He is one of those environmentalists who is quite open about his nasty and authoritarian eco-desires.



Yet the world’s governments are gathering in Cancun with no momentum and very little pressure from their own populations to stop the ecological vandalism.


Yep, there are the governments trying to "do something" on the one hand, and the inert dumb masses who couldn't care less on the other hand. Which is precisely why, according to Hari, governments need to legislate to force the masses into following eco-policies.

[Amphictyonis]

Johann Hari is the man who argued that states should have powers to force the masses into being "green" because, if left to their own devices, the masses will only destroy the environment.

"Just as the government in the Second World War did not ask people to eat less voluntarily, governments today cannot ask us to burn fewer greenhouse gases voluntarily."

http://www.johannhari.com/2008/02/21/we-ll-save-the-planet-only-if-we-re-forced-to

He is one of those environmentalists who is quite open about his nasty and authoritarian eco-desires.



Yep, there are the governments trying to "do something" on the one hand, and the inert dumb masses who couldn't care less on the other hand. Which is precisely why, according to Hari, governments need to legislate to force the masses into following eco-policies.

Replace "masses" with capitalists. We buy what is advertised 24/7. They create our desires. Material abundance would look quite different under communism/anarchism. I guess we do hold some responsibility when we're 700 lbs diabetic and sweating crisco oil from veins inoculated with butter but in the end there has been a direct psychological campaign to target consumers that started with Freud's nephew Edward Bernays in the 1950's.

Our very idea pf 'freedom' has been warped into thinking freedom is the freedom to buy a bunch of useless shit a capitalist decides to make for us. Useless shit that is keeping us entrpped in a hierchical society of total shit/perpetual war and environmental destruction.

Watch this entire series, it's not from a Marxist perspective but it's very informitive none the less-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614#docid=6718420906413643126

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The UK government at least will stop dragging their feet once London starts getting regularly flooded - nothing like the stench of raw sewage to get an MP motivated!

[MellowViper]

That is very depressing.

[Vanguard1917]

Replace "masses" with capitalists.

No, because "masses" and "capitalists" signify two different things. If someone is laying the blame for environmental problems on the masses, then top-down force is inevitably going to be seen as the solution, as it is for Hari.



We buy what is advertised 24/7. They create our desires.


This displays a contemptuous view of working class people. In reality, on the whole, working class people, with their limited means, purchase things that they need and justly desire -- not because they're impressionable children being led astray by the colourful adverts of the evil corprayshuns.

After all, if working class people can't even be trusted to decide for themselves what they put into their shopping baskets, they can hardly be relied upon to revolutionise society.

[bcbm]

Yep, there are the governments trying to "do something" on the one hand

the rest of the paragraph shows this "interpretation" is your own fantasy


The Copenhagen conference last year collapsed after the most powerful people in the world turned up to flush their own scientists’ advice down a very clean Danish toilet. These leaders are sometimes described as “doing nothing about global warming.” No doubt that form of words will fill the reporting from Cancun too. But it’s false. They’re not “doing nothing” – they are allowing their countries’ emissions of climate-trashing gases to massively increase. That’s not failure to act. It’s deciding to act in an incredibly destructive way.

he is saying exactly the opposite of what you're trying to suggest with your cherry-picking.

and your entire post is just an attack on the man, not what he is saying in this article.


This displays a contemptuous view of working class people. In reality, on the whole, working class people, with their limited means, purchase things that they need and justly desire -- not because they're impressionable children being led astray by the colourful adverts of the evil corprayshuns.


yes there are no problems at all with our extremely disposable consumer culture and clearly advertising has no influence on people at all, the billions upon billions of dollars put into it are just for a laugh.



The UK government at least will stop dragging their feet once London starts getting regularly flooded - nothing like the stench of raw sewage to get an MP motivated!

by that point it will be too late.

[Vanguard1917]

he is saying exactly the opposite of what you're trying to suggest with your cherry-picking.

and your entire post is just an attack on the man, not what he is saying in this article.



If you read the article i linked, you'll see that he calls for authoritarian state legislation to force the population to be "green" (eat less meat, travel less by plane, etc.) -- just like the British government forced the population to ration and eat less during WW2, he says.

That's a position which leftists should be sympathetic towards, is it?

[bcbm]

you keep pointing out that he has some fucked up ideas while completely ignoring the larger, more important point he is making in the article i posted to discuss- we are facing an extremely serious crisis and nothing is being done about it, in fact, less than nothing because all of the things that got us into this mess in the first place are still happening, even increasing.

you are always more than happy to rag on and on about the horrible, horrible environmentalists and the nasty, authoritarian measures they want to subject us to but i can't recall ever hearing a peep about the motherfuckers who are driving us headlong into catastrophe.

curious.

[Ovi]

If you read the article i linked, you'll see that he calls for authoritarian state legislation to force the population to be "green" (eat less meat, travel less by plane, etc.) -- just like the British government forced the population to ration and eat less during WW2, he says.

That's a position which leftists should be sympathetic towards, is it?
That's irrelevant. It doesn't discredit the article in any way. Since capitalism can never be green and it heads towards our own destruction, something needs to be done. For a libertarian socialist, it's abolishing capitalism and the narrow minded profit motive. For the rest of the people, it's state regulation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

by that point it will be too late.

As long as people are breathing it's never too late. Only extinction is forever.

[bcbm]

As long as people are breathing it's never too late. Only extinction is forever.

not "too late for humanity full stop," but "too late to do anything about global warming," because it takes decades for the full effects to be felt. humanity will carry on, no doubt, but i wouldn't be terribly optimistic about what that will mean.

[Vanguard1917]

you keep pointing out that he has some fucked up ideas while completely ignoring the larger, more important point he is making in the article i posted to discuss- we are facing an extremely serious crisis and nothing is being done about it, in fact, less than nothing because all of the things that got us into this mess in the first place are still happening, even increasing.

And, as we've seen, and as you have yourself have admitted, the measures (i.e. state force against the public) which he wants in order to deal with environmental problems are "fucked up" (to quote you).

Of course there are problems which need solutions. But the central question is how we deal with these problems. As with many problems, there are good solutions and terrible "solutions". The proposals of this journalist fall securely into the latter category. As long as environmentalists put forward backward and conservative proposals which would do more harm than good -- and the bulk of them, IMO, currently do this -- they need to be criticised.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

not "too late for humanity full stop," but "too late to do anything about global warming," because it takes decades for the full effects to be felt. humanity will carry on, no doubt, but i wouldn't be terribly optimistic about what that will mean.

Just because you've wet the bed doesn't mean you should then shit yourself because it's messed up anyway. I know that's not what you advocate, but I think words like "too late" can foster a kind of defeatist mentality.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalism can never be 'green', but it can certainly do a better job, even within it's own bizarre economic laws, of preventing ecological disaster, the path which we are currently on.

This really is something that political ideologues of all creeds, including us, have been slow (or non-existent) to act upon. We won't regret it, but our grand-children will.

As Socialists, we need to realise that environmental catastrophe could very well spell the end of materialism. If this were to happen under the reins of Capitalism, it would be the end for the working class.

[bcbm]

And, as we've seen, and as you have yourself have admitted, the measures (i.e. state force against the public) which he wants in order to deal with environmental problems are "fucked up" (to quote you).

Of course there are problems which need solutions. But the central question is how we deal with these problems. As with many problems, there are good solutions and terrible "solutions". The proposals of this journalist fall securely into the latter category. As long as environmentalists put forward backward and conservative proposals which would do more harm than good -- and the bulk of them, IMO, currently do this -- they need to be criticised.

you never miss an opportunity to rant about environmentalists of all sorts, while i can't recall seeing you propose anything resembling solutions. your first post, even, might have been good if you pointed out that this guy's solutions were not helpful and then offered some better ones- but no, it seems to be good enough to just attack environmentalism and ignore global warming. at least you have your priorities straight.


Just because you've wet the bed doesn't mean you should then shit yourself because it's messed up anyway. I know that's not what you advocate, but I think words like "too late" can foster a kind of defeatist mentality.

no the point is that we need to fix things before the coasts are flooding (ie, now or sooner) instead of waiting until things get much, much worse because once the coasts are flooding i think we will certainly be shitting ourselves.


We won't regret it, but our grand-children will.

oh, i think we will live long enough to regret it.

[La Comédie Noire]

I wouldn't describe Hari's suggestions as draconian , in fact I don't think it is asking much at all to put tax disincentives on things like SUVs or discontinuing the production of energy inefficient light bulbs. Eating less meat would probably have great benefits for our health and the environment in the long run too. Unless there's more, admittedly I only read the article that was posted.

You can't take more than you give without being destructive and exploitative. This simple observation is anathema to Capitalism.

[bailey_187]

no the point is that we need to fix things before the coasts are flooding (ie, now or sooner) instead of waiting until things get much, much worse because once the coasts are flooding i think we will certainly be shitting ourselves..

Or...we could build floodwalls.

[bcbm]

finally read the hari article linked earlier by vg1917, as i understand it he is basically saying the government needs to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. that's not exactly "nasty and authoritarian." less nasty and authoritarian than saying fuck it and continuing down the path we're on, surely?


Or...we could build floodwalls.

we're still at the point where we can do something about the worst aspects of global warming if we act quickly enough. i think it would make sense to try that approach first. i'm sure some major cities will try to salvage themselves but they're fighting a rising tide and millions of people on the coasts won't have such an easy option- they'll have to move. and of course the problem is going to be bigger than just rising water levels.

[Vanguard1917]

finally read the hari article linked earlier by vg1917, as i understand it he is basically saying the government needs to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.


No, he's saying the government should force the public to reduce its "carbon consumption" through state legislation.

"In reality, dispersed consumer choices are not going to keep the climate this side of a disastrous temperature rise. The only way that can ever happen is by governments legislating to force us all – green and anti-green – to shift towards cleaner behaviour. Just as the government in the Second World War did not ask people to eat less voluntarily, governments today cannot ask us to burn fewer greenhouse gases voluntarily.

"It is not enough for you to change your bulbs. Everyone has to change their bulbs. It is not enough for you to eat less meat. Everyone has to eat less meat. It is not enough for you to fly less. Everyone has to fly less. (And yes, I hate these facts as much as you do. But I will hate the reality of runaway global warming even more.)"

In other words: yes, wartime-style state force against the public is undesirable, but it's necessary if we are to stop "runaway global warming".

In other words: placing the blame for environmental problems on ordinary people and using the language of environmentalism to justify increased state powers in the everyday lives of the masses.

[bcbm]

i don't think banning light bulbs of a certain type will be bringing the state more into people's homes, it will be done on the supply side. same with meat, if such a thing could ever be passed (more than a bit unlikely). i would prefer solutions that attack the biggest industrial polluters while working to encourage things like rail travel instead of car and plane or better, grassroots solutions but i can understand the desperation hari speaks from. i think global warming is a serious crisis and we need to be acting now to do something on it.

and, again, still just attacks and no solutions from you, although i'm guessing from the quotes around runaway global warming you don't see this as a big problem, at least not compared to your desire of "hummers for all" or whatever it used to be?

[Vanguard1917]

same with meat, if such a thing could ever be passed (more than a bit unlikely).


So the capitalist state should be able to dictate to people what they can and cannot eat, all in the name of saving the planet?

Nice anarchist.



i can understand the desperation hari speaks from


"Desperation" is no excuse for reactionary proposals.

[bcbm]

So the capitalist state should be able to dictate to people what they can and cannot eat, all in the name of saving the planet?

Nice anarchist.


i don't recall saying i support the proposal (in the very next sentence i lay out proposals i support, ie not state intervention in people's diets) and it would be impossible in any event. the state, ie the people who have gotten us into this mess, is not going to get us out, especially not when there is so much money and support to be made by paying a bit of lip service while continuing all of the most destructive practices.

and this is yet another cherry picked attack. still no proposed solutions from you and in fact still no talk about the intended topic of this thread- just attack anyone who espouses any type of environmental concern.


"Desperation" is no excuse for reactionary proposals.well if he is right about the threat global warming entails, these proposals are really pretty modest but as far as i can tell he is a liberal and his proposals are just slightly more extreme than average. i don't know why you would expect better from him? this is why its important to not just point out that the proposals are flawed, but offer other solutions.

[Vanguard1917]

i don't recall saying i support the proposal


But you did imply that you don't think it's necessarily that bad ('that's not exactly "nasty and authoritarian."', you said).



still no proposed solutions from you and in fact still no talk about the intended topic of this thread- just attack anyone who espouses any type of environmental concern.



There are lots of progressive things that can be done to ensure that humanity is better equipped to control the negative and even destructive aspects of nature. None of them involve any of the utterly reactionary proposals put forward by the vast majority of environmentalists -- population control, halting development, increasing state control into our everyday lives, etc.

What i've tried to show in this thread is the extent to which the language of environmentalism can respectably be employed to legitimise all sorts of extremely backward political policies.

After all, as Johann Hari essentially argues, if the earth is gonna burn, then reactionary policies are justified:

"I hate these facts [that freedoms need to be restricted] as much as you do. But I will hate the reality of runaway global warming even more."

When it comes to climate change, anything goes, apparently.

[S.Artesian]

Is it just me? Does anybody else see the incredible hypocrisy, indeed
blunt-instrument ignorant arrogance, in holding a "climate conference" in
Cancun-- in an area built on drug money and destruction of a natural
eco-system for the benefit of hoteliers, beer brewers, pimps, and drunken
college students?

Maybe it might be better if those environmentally sensitive sorts were to boycott
conferences in these locations for reasons of ... environmental sensitivity?

[bcbm]

But you did imply that you don't think it's necessarily that bad ('that's not exactly "nasty and authoritarian."', you said).

in response to such a potentially devastating crisis? i think they're relatively modest and i think you are blowing their dangers out of proportion, as well as the possibility they will come to pass. i think its more likely most states will pay a bit of lip service to the problem until it is on their doorstep, at which point the policies they adopt will make a reduction in meat and jet flights seem like nothing.


There are lots of progressive things that can be done to ensure that humanity is better equipped to control the negative and even destructive aspects of nature.clever phrasing. what about the negative and even destructive aspects of human interaction with nature that are quickly becoming beyond our control and threatening our civilization? you want to talk about reactionary proposals, i don't know what else to call continuing on a path we know is harmful and simply trying to deal with the ever more concerning problems we are creating by trying to "control nature" (good luck) instead of changing course know which would make things much, much simpler in the long run.


What i've tried to show in this thread is the extent to which the language of environmentalism can respectably be employed to legitimise all sorts of extremely backward political policies. as opposed to the progressive stance of ignoring the problems or maybe paying a bit of lip service to "controlling nature" while continuing and even increasing practices we know are harming our planet and thus ourselves? people in desperate situation tend to panic and support all kinds of horrible policies and if we do nothing now, the kind of policies we will see enacted in the future will be much, much uglier and it won't be coming from environmentalists.


When it comes to climate change, anything goes, apparently.the scientists at the cancun presented a report that they believe we can no longer stay within the two degree limit most states were seeking for this century and that this will likely mean billions of people living on the coasts will be forced from their homes. this is in addition to likely affects on weather patterns, agricultural land and desertification and other changes that will have severe consequences for humanity. even the most modest predictions at this point don't look very good and i think it makes more sense to plan for the worst and so what we need right now are solutions. hari and other environmentalists are offering some. are they misguided? yes, and this is why we need to be putting other solutions on the table and rallying support for them because we need to be acting on this now.

[S.Artesian]

Then WTF are those scientists doing at Cancun? Besides enlarging a carbon footprint that's probably as large all of the rest of Quintana Roo?

[Vanguard1917]

in response to such a potentially devastating crisis? i think they're relatively modest and i think you are blowing their dangers out of proportion, as well as the possibility they will come to pass. i think its more likely most states will pay a bit of lip service to the problem until it is on their doorstep, at which point the policies they adopt will make a reduction in meat and jet flights seem like nothing.

So you clearly sympathise with the notion that we are in a state of emergency which justifies the reactionary proposals put forward by the great majority of environmentalists -- population control, pro-austerity policies, and even the state dictating public food consumption and whether and where people take their holidays.

And you don't see this green legitimisation of reaction as something to be utterly opposed by anyone who calls themselves progressive, let alone socialist.

[jesper]

A serious crisis requires a serious response, if we dont do something significantly now, the consequenses will be disastrous later, consequenses that we will have to pay as workers. We need to generally support green policy in my opinion, especially with regards to investing in green technology and research, regulate coorporations etc.

[bcbm]

So you clearly sympathise with the notion that we are in a state of emergency which justifies the reactionary proposals put forward by the great majority of environmentalists -- population control, pro-austerity policies, and even the state dictating public food consumption and whether and where people take their holidays.

And you don't see this green legitimisation of reaction as something to be utterly opposed by anyone who calls themselves progressive, let alone socialist.


are they misguided? yes, and this is why we need to be putting other solutions on the table

the state, ie the people who have gotten us into this mess, is not going to get us out, especially not when there is so much money and support to be made by paying a bit of lip service while continuing all of the most destructive practices.

this is why its important to not just point out that the proposals are flawed, but offer other solutions.

i would prefer solutions that attack the biggest industrial polluters while working to encourage things like rail travel instead of car and plane or better, grassroots solutions



and, again, still just attacks and no solutions from you

what about the negative and even destructive aspects of human interaction with nature that are quickly becoming beyond our control and threatening our civilization? you want to talk about reactionary proposals, i don't know what else to call continuing on a path we know is harmful and simply trying to deal with the ever more concerning problems we are creating by trying to "control nature" (good luck) instead of changing course now which would make things much, much simpler in the long run.


:rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

finally read the hari article linked earlier by vg1917, as i understand it he is basically saying the government needs to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. that's not exactly "nasty and authoritarian." less nasty and authoritarian than saying fuck it and continuing down the path we're on, surely?




in response to such a potentially devastating crisis? i think [johann hari's proposals are] relatively modest ...


Those statements by you would suggest that you do indeed sympathise with the Hari's proposals.

Though it is also true that your arguments in this thread have been quite inconsistent -- "i don't support his proposals but i kinda do", to paraphrase your basic argument -- but that is not my fault.

[Jazzratt]

It's nice to see that you, Vanguard1917, have managed to go long making attacks whilst bringing nothing of your own solutions to the table. Yeah, we get it, you don't support the measures that Hari suggests but I still have no clear idea what the fuck it is you do support.

[Lord Testicles]

It's nice to see that you, Vanguard1917, have managed to go long making attacks whilst bringing nothing of your own solutions to the table. Yeah, we get it, you don't support the measures that Hari suggests but I still have no clear idea what the fuck it is you do support.

Just because you have no solutions yourself, doesn't mean that you can't offer any criticisms. Sometime the people who claim to belong to the environmentalist movement come out with some bizarre and sometime downright murderous shit.

[Vanguard1917]

It's nice to see that you, Vanguard1917, have managed to go long making attacks whilst bringing nothing of your own solutions to the table. Yeah, we get it, you don't support the measures that Hari suggests but I still have no clear idea what the fuck it is you do support.

Usually, if environmentalists oppose something, i support it (nuclear power, economic development, factory farming, large-scale agriculture, dam-building, animal testing, etc.). :) Not suprisingly, since green and red are diametrically opposed to one another on all major issues.

But that's a separate issue. My aim in this thread has been quite modest: to show that Johann Hari is, in fact, a total reactionary when it comes to his environmentalist politics, very much in keeping with the vast majority of greens.

[Jazzratt]

Just because you have no solutions yourself, doesn't mean that you can't offer any criticisms. Sometime the people who claim to belong to the environmentalist movement come out with some bizarre and sometime downright murderous shit. Well naturally, but in this case we all know the ideas presented are so much authoritarian wank. It doesn't make for much of a thread to just agree that the ideas are shit. It's more interesting to see what members of the left, who should be less inclined toward this sort of bollocks, come up with as workable solutions.

[Lord Testicles]

Well naturally, but in this case we all know the ideas presented are so much authoritarian wank. It doesn't make for much of a thread to just agree that the ideas are shit.

Agreed.


It's more interesting to see what members of the left, who should be less inclined toward this sort of bollocks, come up with as workable solutions.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel very qualified to offer any workable solutions to any environmental crisis. Maybe I know the odd fact here and there, but I'm far from grasping the entire picture or even every viable solution to it, and I'd be surprised if anyone here was any different. Also we have to bear in mind that any "solution" we come up with is very unlikely to be enacted for as long as we don't have any power, making all of this solution finding nothing more than mental masturbation, not that I think there is anything wrong with that. However when people in positions of power or influence offer "solutions" to the current problem which involve extensive attacks on our class, we should be ready to resist them, we definitely shouldn't be supporting such ridiculous ideas as food rationing or generally lowering my levels of consumption.

[Vanguard1917]

It's more interesting to see what members of the left, who should be less inclined toward this sort of bollocks ...

If only...

[La Comédie Noire]

Yes, my father always recounts to me the horror of the camps when they discontinued the use of leaded gasoline. *shivers*

[S.Artesian]

It's nice to see that you, Vanguard1917, have managed to go long making attacks whilst bringing nothing of your own solutions to the table. Yeah, we get it, you don't support the measures that Hari suggests but I still have no clear idea what the fuck it is you do support.


That's a bit unfair. And more than that, it's the typical establishment argument used against radicals, rebels, critics etc. "What trees do you plant" is all that argument boils down to.

If Vanguard1917 opposes Hari's suggestions, in that those suggestions can lead to support being given to ceding more power to the police function of government, good for Vanguard1917. He doesn't have to say another word.

Doesn't mean he doesn't recognize the seriousness of the situation, or that he's for pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an increased rate. Just means he opposes a policy that can be used to increase repression.

Similarly, opposing the Malthusian content of much of the "ecological movement," -- that strong undercurrent that the problem really boils down to too many people-- does not mean anyone has to offer alternative solutions for population control. As a matter of fact, the alternative is the fact that there is no need for population control-- that birth rates decline dramatically as society develops, becomes less rural, and poverty declines.

Anyway, the point is nobody's required, as an individual to offer solutions to the crises created by capitalism--other than to oppose capitalism.

[bcbm]

Those statements by you would suggest that you do indeed sympathise with the Hari's proposals.

Though it is also true that your arguments in this thread have been quite inconsistent -- "i don't support his proposals but i kinda do", to paraphrase your basic argument -- but that is not my fault.

saying i don't think they are particularly extreme is not the same thing as saying "i kinda do" support them.


My aim in this thread has been quite modest: to show that Johann Hari is, in fact, a total reactionary when it comes to his environmentalist politics, very much in keeping with the vast majority of greens.

easier to attack the writer then address the point of the article, i suppose.

----


Doesn't mean he doesn't recognize the seriousness of the situation, or that he's for pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an increased rate.

i'm skeptical of that.

[Vanguard1917]

easier to attack the writer then address the point of the article, i suppose.

If a journalist wrote an article condemning violent crime, but in a previously article had argued for more police on the streets, more street cameras and greater stop-and-search powers to combat violent crime, it is going to be clear to me that that journalist's opposition to violent crime is not a very progressive one, regardless of the fact that i too oppose violent crime. The important thing is not what you are against, but what you are for.

[bcbm]

The important thing is not what you are against, but what you are for

indeed...

[bcbm]

and i think your thinking here is flawed. if the point he makes in this article is right, it doesn't matter that the solutions he draws from that elsewhere are wrong. the point in this article still stands and i think the basic thing he proposes in this article- stopping our destructive practices while we still can mitigate their damage- make sense and are what we should be discussing, instead of whether he is a reactionary or not.