Climate Change

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has put forward a report on the forthcoming severity of climate change on humanity as a whole.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26824943

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf


The costs of inaction on climate change will be "catastrophic", according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as "severe, pervasive and irreversible".

He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

In a statement, Mr Kerry said: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice.

"There are those who say we can't afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic."

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produced the report, told BBC News: "Even in rich countries, the impacts of climate change could lead to greater incidents of pockets of poverty, even in rich countries could lead to impoverishment of some particular communities.

"However there is an equity issue, because some of the poorest communities in the poorest countries in the world are going to be the worst hit."

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability. Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.

...

This is extremely serious, which I'm sure you all know. We will need to heavily emphasise environmental issues when attempting to bring about complete social change.

Also, I don't want anything off-topic concerning John Kerry, keep it clean.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's incredible that many people's heads are still in the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence that, if we don't change our ways, then our offspring's way of life will be irrevocably worsened, and our beautiful planet will be damaged possibly beyond repair.

Fuck. Capitalism. Shit.

[Queen Mab]

Yeah, we're pretty much doomed aren't we.

[Creative Destruction]

It's pretty shit!

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

We are pretty much doomed irrespective of what type of society we have (unless we find a way of utilising nuclear fusion efficiently, or other efficient means of sustainable fuel provision). However, that does not mean we just give up. The abolition of the current state of affairs should bring about a means to slow down climate change, but not stop it. I'd rather delay the process than suffer immensely in the next 30 odd years.

[Ele'ill]

I don't know what else to really add to these types of threads other than I don't think much will ever change, I think it's over.

[Klaatu]

NSIDC, NASA say Arctic melt season lengthening, ocean rapidly warming
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nsidc-nasa-say-arctic-melt-season-lengthening-ocean-rapidly-warming

[Red Economist]

Personally, whilst I accept that climate change is a problem, I think the chances that it will produce a 'catastrophic' outcome are less likely than scientists would have us believe; this is however for purely ideological reasons rather than anything substantive (with the obvious psychological plus of I don't want to go out and shoot myself at the prospect of the extinction of the human race and whatever bloody descent in to barbarism that precedes it).

The idea of 'feedback effects' where the carbon sinks in the rainforests and methane sinks in the Siberian Tundra are released in to the atmosphere is certainly a danger. But their is a peculiarly mechanistic 'on-off' thought process involved that probably over-estimates the qualitative change in the climate. I'm not saying it won't be bad, but I'd " "gamble" " that it won't kill us overnight and we will still be here in some form.

I've heard our era referred to as the 'anthroprocene', defined by the fact human activity is radically affecting the world's ecosystems and basically becoming a force of nature in it's own right. It is possible that in mastering our own social organization, we may well come to master it's environmental effects.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Personally, whilst I accept that climate change is a problem, I think the chances that it will produce a 'catastrophic' outcome are less likely than scientists would have us believe; this is however for purely ideological reasons rather than anything substantive (with the obvious psychological plus of I don't want to go out and shoot myself at the prospect of the extinction of the human race and whatever bloody descent in to barbarism that precedes it).

The idea of 'feedback effects' where the carbon sinks in the rainforests and methane sinks in the Siberian Tundra are released in to the atmosphere is certainly a danger. But their is a peculiarly mechanistic 'on-off' thought process involved that probably over-estimates the qualitative change in the climate. I'm not saying it won't be bad, but I'd " "gamble" " that it won't kill us overnight and we will still be here in some form.

I've heard our era referred to as the 'anthroprocene', defined by the fact human activity is radically affecting the world's ecosystems and basically becoming a force of nature in it's own right. It is possible that in mastering our own social organization, we may well come to master it's environmental effects.

We will annihilate large numbers of our population, and animal population, in time if we continue to use the same methods of extracting natural resources. This will happen irrespective of our form of social organisation until new, sustainable forms of energy changes come into existence.

The question now is, how can we maximise efforts into the search and development of new technologies?

[Red Economist]

The question now is, how can we maximize efforts into the search and development of new technologies?

It could be argued that the monopolistic character of capitalism has, as Lenin put it, a retarding effect on the development of the productive forces, (less competition= less investment in new technologies= more exploitation and profits for the capitalist class).

That said, it is not impossible capitalism may develop technologies to overcome environmental problems (they may well already exist but are holding on to the patents to limit competition?) but this depends on the degree of competition within the capitalist economy and the opportunities for new capitalists to set up, exploit workers and sell their 'eco'-sensitive products. the extent to which technology can solve the problem alone under capitalism is highly debatable because the economic system is so heavily geared towards economic growth irrespective of the sustainability (before technology can kick in), with the obvious lack of impetus to develop new technologies to replace fossil fuels in existing companies.

The arguments for catastrophic social collapse in the near future rely heavily in the belief that technology- not social organization- is the problem. This is to some extent true as resources are finite and depletable. But with the exception of mineral resources (which could be sourced from outer-space in the long-term) and fossil fuels, if the existing resources of the planet were managed sustainably- it is more than possible these problems could be overcome.


We will annihilate large numbers of our population, and animal population, in time if we continue to use the same methods of extracting natural resources. This will happen irrespective of our form of social organisation until new, sustainable forms of energy changes come into existence.

That 'also'. If the human race survives, (:crying:), it will probably remember climate change as part of the existential crisis of capitalism that the black death did for feudalism. I think it's supposed to take 200 years for the climate to stabilize with what is already up in the atmosphere if we stopped polluting over-night.

[The Jay]

I'm not sure why you think that scientists are exaggerating for ideological reasons, Red Economist. Regardless, even if things are not as bad as they say it will still be horrible. If, for example, there were to be severe droughts in midwestern United States prices of staple crops could increase greatly and the only method of countering such a price increase would be a subsidy from the government even greater than what they have now. The agribusinesses do not care if they get their profits made up through subsidy or direct increases of market prices.

All that will happen is more welfare for the rich.

I'm sure the they could engineer drought resistant strains of crops but that will be rather limited to the individual businesses that both own and enforce their patents on genes, something thoroughly fucked up in my opinion.

Essentially, even if things are not as bad as what is said it is bad enough.

[Red Economist]

I don't think the scientists themselves are exaggerating, but that 'capitalist' ideology is predisposed towards exaggerating 'trends'.

To give you an example from economics; when you're in a 'boom', economists are celebrating and saying the good times will go on forever/this time is different; when you're in a 'bust', they'll say it will last forever, and a few will argue it is the end of capitalism. in other words, they have not a clue how you get from one to the other and get carried away.

capitalist ideology relies heavily on thinknig about 'external causes' for things (whether this is competing individuals in the market/democracy in social science, or the interaction of atoms in natural science), it can't identify changes as a result of 'internal contradictions'. The feedback effects in the climate are considered in such as way as to be 'external' to the climate system, where as in fact they must in some way already be inter-related with the process and, if this is right, would 'soften' the extent of the changes in the climate in a 'dialectical materialist' conception of nature as opposed to the standard scientific conception.

The most extreme 'end of the world' climatologists are saying that once these feedback effects 'start' there is no 'stopping' them; (what I meant by the 'on-off' switch) and things get carried away into an ever more apocalyptic vision of the future. Dialectical reasoning would suggest there is an anomaly here, but if I was debating a scientist, this is little more than a philosophical 'hunch' based on attacking the 'logic' of the argument rather than the evidence.

[Red Commissar]

FWIW, there was a sole participant in the study, an economist, who withdrew his name because he felt they were too alarmist, in his view that advances in agriculture would result more in a decline in the growth of agricultural productivity rather than a total collapse, or something to that effect. Still, farmers here even in the US are worried about prolonged droughts, increased strains on water supplies including underground aquifiers, and so on that may have adverse effects on US agriculture in the long-term.

But still, at least when the states are considered, it amazes me how much climate change denial occurs and is firmly institutionalized to boot with political circles. I don't know if the problem is as widespread elsewhere, I get the impression that other countries acknowledge this is going on but they're offering different solutions to it that complement their political views.

I think the big problem that'll come out of this, as the report points out, is that developing and underdeveloped countries are going to have a very rough time of this as we continue to drag our foots. The most developed nations will be able to weather this, even if it's a very late response, but in those countries which don't have those resources, it'll be very bad.

What's good is that they're tying the effects of climate change to societal and economic effects like disruption in food supplies and displacement of large populations and their likely subsequent migration to neighboring regions or countries. There's been a lot of speculation about this, and we're already seeing it in some places- the shrinking of the Sahel and growth of the Sahara in North Africa has caused many people to move either southwards towards the coast or attempt to cross the Sahara and migrate to Europe. In Bangladesh, which is really vullnerable to sea-level changes, this has meant the possibility of migration out to India (which is already occuring though for different reasons), which has in turn accelerated their plans to repair and expand the fences and walls that go across the Indian-Bengladeshi border.

Likewise we've seen a surge in water politics, more than the norm at least. In the Middle-East there's been a race to dam off rivers and secure watersheds in countries, particularly by Turkey, which in turn hurts countries that are downstream of those rivers. In the US of course a lot of states have been bickering among themselves over who has access to what water supplies that exist on their borders. And of course the ongoing drought's effects in California has put that state's original water system under strain and having cities weigh the effects of using water for public use or ensuring that the state's agricultural economy is fed with water it demands.

[Klaatu]

Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none

Date: April 11, 2014

Source: McGill University

Summary: An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study.

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

"This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers," Lovejoy says. "Their two most convincing arguments - that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong - are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it."

Lovejoy's study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out "with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%."

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses "multi-proxy climate reconstructions" developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences - a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. "This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models," he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy's findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than - but in line with -- the IPCC's prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

"We've had a fluctuation in average temperature that's just huge since 1880 - on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius," Lovejoy says. "This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

"While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can't generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases - including this one - the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other."

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by McGill University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

S. Lovejoy. Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming. Climate Dynamics, 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2

SOURCE
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411153453.htm

[Redistribute the Rep]

Fox News Botches Climate Change Coverage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/04/07/study-fox-news-botches-climate-change-coverage/


Those proportions come from a look at Fox News coverage of climate change in 2013, when UCS found 50 segments to examine for accuracy. Of those, 72 percent “included misleading portrayals of the science.” The breakdown goes further than the network-wide coverage, delivering a sharp elbow to one of the Erik Wemple Blog’s favorite shows on cable news:
More than half of Fox’s misleading coverage (53%) was from one program, The Five, where the hosts often instigated misleading debates about established climate science. In general, Fox hosts and guests were more likely than those of other networks to disparage the study of climate science and criticize scientists.

(Associated Press)

Even more pointedly, it cited “The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld for alleging that there’d been a “pause in global warming over 15 years now.” Indeed there’s been a slowdown in the rate of warming dating back to 1998, but the UCS report faults Gutfeld and others on Fox News’s air for having “omitted references to long-term trends in rising temperatures and [failing to] discuss other markers of climate change, such as rising seas or melting glaciers (NASA 2013; Nuccitelli 2013).”
Greg Gutfeld, however, is not one to be scared off by some study, as he showed in his fun 2012 book, “The Joy of Hate: How to Triumph over Whiners in the Age of Phony Outrage.” In that book, Gutfeld rips a study in the International Journal of Press/Politics that looked at the cable nets’ coverage of climate change, quoting a story in U.S. News & World Report:
“Although Fox discussed climate change most often, the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive,” says the study by four professors, two from George Mason University, the others from Yale and American University. They wrote, “Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes.”

Writes Gutfeld about that assessment of Fox News’s coverage: “Yikes! Fox challenged, undermined and questioned! To the gallows! That quote, right there, shows you that tolerance is not deemed necessary if you reformat the game board so anyone who questions the basic assumptions is disqualified from playing.”
Expect the results of the UCS thing to get some rotation today on “The Five,” particularly since it more or less applauds the other networks (CNN, 70 percent accurate; MSNBC, 92 percent accurate) in their coverage of the topic area. As the panelists on “The Five” banter about the fine points, they’ll likely kick up grist for the next climate-change study, which’ll supply yet another round of material for bloggers and on-air discussion. Such is the cable-news cycle of life.

I'm surprised they got 28% of it right

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I drink because I hope it'll kill me before the clouds of exploding methane from the sea do.

I read a decent article on libcom quite recently about the wilful blindness (or spiteful dismissal) of bourgeois economists towards climate change titled Let Them Eat Growth*, documenting the positions of some particularly vile and no doubt very punchable fellas who seem to think that the deaths of millions through environmental hazards and failing crops are nothing compared to losing a couple of decades of economic growth (for rich white dudes, obv.)



*http://libcom.org/blog/let-them-eat-growth-02032014

[Jimmie Higgins]

We will annihilate large numbers of our population, and animal population, in time if we continue to use the same methods of extracting natural resources. This will happen irrespective of our form of social organisation until new, sustainable forms of energy changes come into existence.

The question now is, how can we maximise efforts into the search and development of new technologies?

IMO this is a technical solution to what's really a social problem: human relationships to the environment. And what determines this relationship - privite property and competative accumulation for the sake of more accumulation. Real sustainability means a disater for the economy of capitalism... there can NEVER be "enough", there can only be profitable or unprofitable. Real sustainability is impossible as long as the envirionment is privitely owned and production is unplanned and geared towards the quickest, fastest turn-around among firms competing to accumulate and profit faster than the others.

I don't know if there's "no hope" at this point or not, but I do think the only real possibility for altering the current relationship of humans to the environment depends on first altering the relationship of humans to humans (not that fighting for environmental issues and forcing some concessions is seperate from the process of building a class force).

But there's definately no hope if capitalism is just left to its own devices. It's telling that the buzz-word in US environmental policy went from climate denyal to "climate change adaptation". They have no ability to work together while they compete in firms and on the national level, so their goals are just to position themselves to be able to be in the strongest position compared to competing powers or industries when shit hits the fan.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Personally, whilst I accept that climate change is a problem, I think the chances that it will produce a 'catastrophic' outcome are less likely than scientists would have us believe... I'm not saying it won't be bad, but I'd " "gamble" " that it won't kill us overnight and we will still be here in some form.


When you say 'us', who are you referring to?

If you are referring to humans, in rich countries based in temperate geographic regions, then you may be correct.

But what about humans, and animals, and bio-diversity, in poorer countries, and countries nearer the tropics? The knock-on effect of climate change, in terms of rising water levels, loss of habitats, one-off freak weather events and the horrific destruction of food production will neuter large sections of animal and human populations, and destroy great swathes of the beauty of our planet.

Somehow, i'd hope that people, unlike you, would do more than sit back and 'gamble' that they'll be alright at the end of it.

[Thirsty Crow]

In very broad outline, I believe there's two aspects to this problem.

One is more narrowly technical-scientific; it relates to the actual science and technical practice behind the productive apparatus which has this and this effect upon the environment.

The other is social organization itself. Now, the thing is to see how the two interface and what results from this particular combination.

I firmly believe that at the very least a radical change in the latter could indeed produce, probably incremental, significant changes in the former which could when combined through time bring about something which might be reasonably called a more sustainable and less destructive practice of energy production (and production of useful products in general).

This implies that it is completely necessary to view such statements as those of Mr. Kerry as futile cries for help (if one believes that a faction of the ruling class is genuine in the long term view, and the concern for future this entails). In other words, this proposed dramatic and decisive action will surely hit a brick wall called capital - indeed, any proposals will probably in the first place be completely and utterly structured by the very needs of, not the environment, not human reproduction, but that of capital.

And on a purely psychological level, I refuse to believe "this is the end folks sorry" line. I think such perspectives are based in a total lack of a class position and a clear understanding of the way scientific and technical creativity might work when liberated from the fetters of capital. It just might be the case that we've not even begun researching prospects that might offer some kind of a solution; which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's familiar with the way research programs are formed in capitalist society. Another problem is that this can induce nothing else than a passivity and probably apathy.

The alternative is a massive risk for the ruling class; severe social dislocation and escalating social conflict, where different lines of possible development are possible but none of them enabling business as usual.

EDIT: And sure, one could accuse me of approaching this as a matter of mere blind faith; there would be some basis to this I have to admit, as I do place my faith in a free association of producers across the globe; that can be no guarantee to anything really. But I do think there is the aspect of actual knowledge of existing barriers; which, again, doesn't constitute a guarantee, but a mere possibility in the absence of said barriers. Even in the case of a globally recognized need to scale back both the scope of production and consumption, I think this would represent a real possibility, especially if found necessary for the continued reproduction of the human species, in a radically different kind of social formation.

[Red Economist]

Somehow, i'd hope that people, unlike you, would do more than sit back and 'gamble' that they'll be alright at the end of it.

agreed. The problem is that climate change is already happening and we can now only reduce the effects of future climate change by reducing our current emissions (unless they start using new technologies to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere). However, we cannot prevent climate change from happening, as there is already so much CO2 (or equivalent) in the atmosphere that it will take decades for the climate to stabilize.


As Michael Mann put it, "we are already committed to 50 to 100 years of warming and several centuries of sea-level rises, simply from the amount of greenhouse gases we have already put in the atmosphere". (p. 7, Progress or Collapse, Robert De Vogli)

So, yeah. I need to get off my ar*e and do something, but it really is going to be sh*t regardless of what I do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In very broad outline, I believe there's two aspects to this problem.

One is more narrowly technical-scientific; it relates to the actual science and technical practice behind the productive apparatus which has this and this effect upon the environment.

The other is social organization itself. Now, the thing is to see how the two interface and what results from this particular combination.

I firmly believe that at the very least a radical change in the latter could indeed produce, probably incremental, significant changes in the former which could when combined through time bring about something which might be reasonably called a more sustainable and less destructive practice of energy production (and production of useful products in general).

This implies that it is completely necessary to view such statements as those of Mr. Kerry as futile cries for help (if one believes that a faction of the ruling class is genuine in the long term view, and the concern for future this entails). In other words, this proposed dramatic and decisive action will surely hit a brick wall called capital - indeed, any proposals will probably in the first place be completely and utterly structured by the very needs of, not the environment, not human reproduction, but that of capital.

And on a purely psychological level, I refuse to believe "this is the end folks sorry" line. I think such perspectives are based in a total lack of a class position and a clear understanding of the way scientific and technical creativity might work when liberated from the fetters of capital. It just might be the case that we've not even begun researching prospects that might offer some kind of a solution; which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's familiar with the way research programs are formed in capitalist society. Another problem is that this can induce nothing else than a passivity and probably apathy.

The alternative is a massive risk for the ruling class; severe social dislocation and escalating social conflict, where different lines of possible development are possible but none of them enabling business as usual.

EDIT: And sure, one could accuse me of approaching this as a matter of mere blind faith; there would be some basis to this I have to admit, as I do place my faith in a free association of producers across the globe; that can be no guarantee to anything really. But I do think there is the aspect of actual knowledge of existing barriers; which, again, doesn't constitute a guarantee, but a mere possibility in the absence of said barriers. Even in the case of a globally recognized need to scale back both the scope of production and consumption, I think this would represent a real possibility, especially if found necessary for the continued reproduction of the human species, in a radically different kind of social formation.

I thank you again for this useful post!

The book catastrophism backs up your argument about fatalism and passivity and cites polls that show the more informed someone is of climate change, the less likely they are do give a shit (because they think there's no point).

On the one hand I can't blame people for feeling doomed after reading this stuff, but I do think, like you suggested, that it also reveals a degree of seeing humans as non-actors. From a liberal perspective this makes sense: seeing consumption as the problem, seeing it in purely technical terms and leaving the social questions given as neutral (production/industry are the problem, certain levels of population automatically create negative enviro impact, etc). But for revolutionaries, it really should be a case of socialism or barbarism.

[Thirsty Crow]

I thank you again for this useful post!

The book catastrophism backs up your argument about fatalism and passivity and cites polls that show the more informed someone is of climate change, the less likely they are do give a shit (because they think there's no point).

On the one hand I can't blame people for feeling doomed after reading this stuff, but I do think, like you suggested, that it also reveals a degree of seeing humans as non-actors. From a liberal perspective this makes sense: seeing consumption as the problem, seeing it in purely technical terms and leaving the social questions given as neutral (production/industry are the problem, certain levels of population automatically create negative enviro impact, etc). But for revolutionaries, it really should be a case of socialism or barbarism.
Of course, the point isn't to deride people for feeling doomed, but rather to connect this environmental catastrophism with a broader phenomenon of bourgeois ideology, which is precisely premised on masking the collective agency of human beings as an active factor, and instead promoting a rigid separation between supposedly immutable "natural laws" and potentials for human action. Together this plays into the agenda put forward by both liberals and conservatives, to offer piecemeal reforms which aren't even reforms; and it entrenches the mentioned passivity nicely, maybe leaving only some variants of "responsible consumption" as options for people.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I thank you again for this useful post!

The book catastrophism backs up your argument about fatalism and passivity and cites polls that show the more informed someone is of climate change, the less likely they are do give a shit (because they think there's no point).

On the one hand I can't blame people for feeling doomed after reading this stuff, but I do think, like you suggested, that it also reveals a degree of seeing humans as non-actors. From a liberal perspective this makes sense: seeing consumption as the problem, seeing it in purely technical terms and leaving the social questions given as neutral (production/industry are the problem, certain levels of population automatically create negative enviro impact, etc). But for revolutionaries, it really should be a case of socialism or barbarism.

Precisely. As has been mentioned several times, the key is to bring about the alternative with the highest chance of slowing down climate change and minimising negative effects (already crossed the point of no return). Looking at this and saying 'oh shit' and then going on another thread to stir up revolutionary sentiments based solely on a 150 year old analysis seems a little saddening. I know I'm reducing what people do to a simple hypocrisy but sometimes this happens. It needs to be stopped. Incorporate environmental concerns into everyday discussion or responses to other threads if you can.

We need social change not only because of ethical concerns, but also because of the threatening possibility that the human race will suffer immensely in the near future.

[Thirsty Crow]

We need social change not only because of ethical concerns, but also because of the threatening possibility that the human race will suffer immensely in the near future.
I'd say that a different kind of immense suffering is happening nowadays as well - and not confined to the most brutal forms of misery; and that this is the reason for advocating social change - not due to ethical concerns only, but also because a good number of us here are drowning in shit, figuratively speaking.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course, the point isn't to deride people for feeling doomed, but rather to connect this environmental catastrophism with a broader phenomenon of bourgeois ideology, which is precisely premised on masking the collective agency of human beings as an active factor, and instead promoting a rigid separation between supposedly immutable "natural laws" and potentials for human action. Together this plays into the agenda put forward by both liberals and conservatives, to offer piecemeal reforms which aren't even reforms; and it entrenches the mentioned passivity nicely, maybe leaving only some variants of "responsible consumption" as options for people.

I think we still need to highlight that regardless of the mechanics of the current system of social organisation, the overwhelming majority of scientific research shows strong evidence that, without a change in our own actions, there will be some severe environmental and social consequences to man-made climate change, and there is - to a greater or lesser degree - a chance of ecological, economic and social catastrophe and total societal breakdown.

From what i've read, the main debate in the literature in recent years seems to be the extent to which this latter, doomsday scenario is likely.

For me though, that is really missing the point. I think that yes, we need to take into account the likelihood of doomsday scenarios, and yes, we also need to bear in mind that the social organisation of society currently is a barrier to potentially creative solutions to climate change, but we also need to focus on the fact that, class society or post-class social organisation, radical action needs to be taken if we are to at least secure some of the wonderful aspects of Earth for our grandchildren and beyond.

I would suggest that putting that solely in the hands of some unknown future creative solution harnessed by the emancipated working class is somewhat leaving things to chance. I think that we can actually start now, as a class, to agitate for solutions to climate change - less food waste, less meat production, better coastal defences, less deforestation, the end to carbon markets and the end to rich countries fobbing off their carbon usage to poorer countries.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I'd say that a different kind of immense suffering is happening nowadays as well - and not confined to the most brutal forms of misery; and that this is the reason for advocating social change - not due to ethical concerns only, but also because a good number of us here are drowning in shit, figuratively speaking.

The desire to change that can be reduced to an ethical argument, as was discussed in another thread. Climate change becomes, on the other hand, a fight for people to exist in numbers and survive.

[Thirsty Crow]

The desire to change that can be reduced to an ethical argument, as was discussed in another thread. Climate change becomes, on the other hand, a fight for people to exist in numbers and survive.
I don't think that this desire can be under all historically produced circumstances be reduced to an ethical argument; most of all in cases of imperialist war, which is a fight for survival scenario as well. Even without this element, it is entirely possible that a severe assault on the working class doesn't need to result in any comprehensive ethical argument - but instead in addressing our very interests that are being trampled. That is, this holds I believe if one does not conceive of any ethical argument as "ought to" claim (I think that a specifically ethical dimension is erased by doing so).

After all, I don't think we as workers should ever feel the need to justify ourselves before the ruling class and their ideologue hacks.


I think we still need to highlight that regardless of the mechanics of the current system of social organisation, the overwhelming majority of scientific research shows strong evidence that, without a change in our own actions, there will be some severe environmental and social consequences to man-made climate change, and there is - to a greater or lesser degree - a chance of ecological, economic and social catastrophe and total societal breakdown.I agree with this completely.

I didn't ever want to imply that I see some productive use for a denialist arguments, no matter how weak in form; I don't and I think this would be totally absurd as it is necessary to confront the problem in its full scale so that potential solutions might even begin to be devised.

In this sense, this pessimism or catastrophism (well, not catastrophism as such since this already presupposes the futility of human action, no?) might play a positive role; on the other hand, I also think it's necessary to acknowledge the negative role it might play, especially that catastrophism proper. And a good part of acknowledging that negative role has to do with noticing how well it accompanies the general borugeois ideological framework which poses human beings as basically non-actors (either through an ahistorical ideology of eternal "natural laws"/human nature or through feel-good "consumer choice" ideologies).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In this sense, this pessimism or catastrophism (well, not catastrophism as such since this already presupposes the futility of human action, no?) might play a positive role; on the other hand, I also think it's necessary to acknowledge the negative role it might play, especially that catastrophism proper.

I would probably have agreed with you a few years ago, for example when the Stern Review was published in 2006. That was clearly a piece of politically-inspired propaganda that, at most, took its inspiration from accurate scientific modelling. I think that, whilst it was an interesting read and actually did much to highlight the potentially severe negative effects of climate change, it is a piece of work we might accurately call 'pessimism' or 'catastrophism'.

But since then, arguably it is not conjecture but fact that, assuming no change in current and predicted future emissions, we are heading for a scenario that has pretty awful ecological and economic consequences, and potentially social conflict, too (though of course social breakdown is really more a problem for the ruling class, it is still a concern as the breakdown would probably reflect the dire reality workers could potentially face as a result of the effects of climate change). I was reading an article the other day that stated the following:

"An analysis of abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011 and written by 29,083 authors, found that 98.4 per cent of authors who took a position endorsed man-made climate change, with just 1.2 per cent rejecting it and 0.4 per cent uncertain."

(http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/04/michael-gove-is-concerned-about-teachers-promoting-science-in-schools-yes-really/)

The majority of those 98.4% of papers will, as I have said (and particularly those in the past decade or so), have focused on the extent to which climate change will damage eco-systems and future economic output. In other words, climate change is going to cause damage, the question is how much.


And a good part of acknowledging that negative role has to do with noticing how well it accompanies the general borugeois ideological framework which poses human beings as basically non-actors (either through an ahistorical ideology of eternal "natural laws"/human nature or through feel-good "consumer choice" ideologies).

I don't think the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' sort of thinking is really valid here, though. Granted, bourgeois green politics sucks, as it is just that - politics. The Al Gores and Green Partys of this world are probably incapable of actually pushing through actions that could either reverse, stop, or mitigate the worst potential effects of climate change because of their position within the social system. But why should this mean we don't engage with trying to push through actions (examples of which I gave in my previous post, although i'm really no expert in this area as i've only mainly studied the economics of climate change and not the policy nor the science/technology of it all) that can do this?

[Thirsty Crow]

I would probably have agreed with you a few years ago...
But since then, arguably it is not conjecture but fact that, assuming no change in current and predicted future emissions, we are heading for a scenario that has pretty awful ecological and economic consequences, and potentially social conflict, too (though of course social breakdown is really more a problem for the ruling class, it is still a concern as the breakdown would probably reflect the dire reality workers could potentially face as a result of the effects of climate change). I was reading an article the other day that stated the following:

"An analysis of abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011 and written by 29,083 authors, found that 98.4 per cent of authors who took a position endorsed man-made climate change, with just 1.2 per cent rejecting it and 0.4 per cent uncertain."

(http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/04/michael-gove-is-concerned-about-teachers-promoting-science-in-schools-yes-really/)

The majority of those 98.4% of papers will, as I have said (and particularly those in the past decade or so), have focused on the extent to which climate change will damage eco-systems and future economic output. In other words, climate change is going to cause damage, the question is how much.
Just to clarify on terms I use, when I say "catastrophism" I'm actually referring to variants of the broader "we're fucked no point in trying to even minimize it whatsoever" view; I should have made that clearer, and still I suppose you could argue that even the most pessimist scientific accounts on projected level and kind of damage do not fall unto this rubric really. I guess I'm arguing against what I believe to be the case with a widely disseminated apathetic view which relates to the prospects towards any kind of social change, and to changes in environmental sustainability patterns in particular.

And I think surely the working class has every reason to be apprehensive of that potential for social breakdown - after all, and especially in relation to underdeveloped regions, I would assume it is going to be the dispossessed, as always, that are going to get the majority of the shit.


But why should this mean we don't engage with trying to push through actions (examples of which I gave in my previous post, although i'm really no expert in this area as i've only mainly studied the economics of climate change and not the policy nor the science/technology of it all) that can do this?
I'm not sure what were you referring to exactly with the view on "enemy of my enemy is my friend" which I didn't quote here.
But yes, I can't see a meaningful minimum programme nowadays (as demands that need to be forced onto the ruling class) that would not contain actions pertaining to this problem; I don't think I disagree not even to an extent with you here.

It's just that I really can't see a comprehensive social set of solutions (and neither the bases for arriving at these) in social conditions which we face today. That, I think, absolutely needs to be realized (which is a potential meeting ground between communists and eco-socialist reformists, I would like to believe).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=LinksRadikal;2739017]Just to clarify on terms I use, when I say "catastrophism" I'm actually referring to variants of the broader "we're fucked no point in trying to even minimize it whatsoever" view; I should have made that clearer, and still I suppose you could argue that even the most pessimist scientific accounts on projected level and kind of damage do not fall unto this rubric really. I guess I'm arguing against what I believe to be the case with a widely disseminated apathetic view which relates to the prospects towards any kind of social change, and to changes in environmental sustainability patterns in particular.

I agree. I don't think that there are many people who pose 'catastrophic' views that are remotely taken seriously by the scientific community. I certainly hope not, anyway. I think it is agreed that we are still at the stage where things can be done to at least mitigate the worst effects of climate change.


And I think surely the working class has every reason to be apprehensive of that potential for social breakdown - after all, and especially in relation to underdeveloped regions, I would assume it is going to be the dispossessed, as always, that are going to get the majority of the shit.

I agree be apprehensive, but I would imagine that in any truly doomsday scenario of the breakdown of social order it is the bourgeoisie that would have more to lose. Whether they end up 'losing' is another matter, as you say the workers normally bear the brunt of the shit in 'emergency' situations.

Tbh though this point on social order is probably moot; I don't imagine such a doomsday scenario arising purely out of the negative economic effects of climate change.


I'm not sure what were you referring to exactly with the view on "enemy of my enemy is my friend" which I didn't quote here.

I meant that we shouldn't oppose action to slow or stop climate change just because some sections of the ruling class pay lip service to similar things.


But yes, I can't see a meaningful minimum programme nowadays (as demands that need to be forced onto the ruling class) that would not contain actions pertaining to this problem; I don't think I disagree not even to an extent with you here.

I didn't think you were disagreeing, maybe things just got lost in translation.


It's just that I really can't see a comprehensive social set of solutions (and neither the bases for arriving at these) in social conditions which we face today. That, I think, absolutely needs to be realized (which is a potential meeting ground between communists and eco-socialist reformists, I would like to believe).

I would agree, I think that your last point re: meeting ground between communists and eco-socialists is an excellent one.

[exeexe]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/uk-britain-climatechange-royal-idUKKBN0E727D20140527

Britain's Prince Charles stirs controversy with warning over climate





But he showed on Tuesday he is determined to voice his opinions, calling on an audience of global business leaders to take tough choices over climate change and capitalism even if it made them unpopular.
He said the world was at the mercy of people vociferously and aggressively denying the current operating model was accelerating climate change which could destroy the world.
"... We can choose to act now before it is finally too late, using all of the power and influence that each of you can bring to bear to create an inclusive, sustainable and resilient society," he said in a speech in London to a conference entitled Inclusive Capitalism.
He added: "There will, of course, be hard choices to make, and, take it from me, in the short term, you will not be popular with your peers, but if you stand firm and take the kind of action that is needed, I have every confidence the rewards will be immense.


...


He highlighted the growing plight of the world's most vulnerable people and the unprecedented environmental change that he said was undoubtedly compounded by man-made global warming and the great strain put on nature's life-support systems.
"These changes threaten to undermine all of the progress we have achieved, unless we can create a much more sustainable and inclusive approach," he said.
"If there is a price to pay for achieving the necessary transformation, it will be our abandoning of the next, seemingly easy, short-term solution that our current form of capitalism thinks is necessary and, instead, focusing on approaches that achieve lasting and meaningful returns."

The thing is Charles is not influenced by big oil companies but he is upper class.. So maybe the greedy capitalists will listen now! Or maybe we will see a monarchy vs capitalism war again. Then we have the dumb middle class (if they werent dumb we would have been strong enough to force them to take action to save the climate already) who most certainly will be against change. Then we have the socialist radicalized workers who value philosophy highly and want to change society and want to make sure we wont destroy earths climate.

Monarchy+ socialism VS capitalism + middleclass - Round 2!