I have just skimmed through a borrowed copy and read the above review which makes a statement that the book is disappointing in its conclusion, which deflects questions of precise understanding of the social change necessary to combat climate change.
I would take this much further to suggest there is in fact a critical lacuna resulting from an almost exclusive attention to supply side issues and how these might be addressed (which is extremely comprehensive), whilst there is almost no consideration given to demand side issues.
A parallel can be drawn between the war on fossil fuels and the war on drugs. Both these types of pixie dust have immensely useful and damaging properties which we humans find highly addictive and almost impossible to resist. Attempts to limit the production of fossil fuels are likely to be as ineffectual as the paramilitary efforts to halt the production of cocaine and heroin without a major and unlikely change in human nature.
We are truly addicted to the magical properties of coal, gas and oil, which, amongst many other highly desirable things, allows us to effortlessly travel vast distances. Irony upon irony I notice that Klein herself, with no apparent trace of irony, refers to her own frequent flier status acquired from traveling hundreds of thousands of miles by air.........
Overconfidence, not just expert overconfidence but general overconfidence,
is one of the most common illusions we experience. Stan Robinson
The only plausible solution on the demand side is some form of socialism, however difficult that may be to achieve and maintain. The reason the author gets all vague when it comes to spelling out the precise details of a mass movement in terms what kind of political and cultural structures need to be built on the back of it is because a whole generation has now been born and grown up in a world that has fully indoctrinated them into a neo-con narrative that tells them socialism is impossible. So much so, in fact, that it is not even a case of mere denial of socialism's possibilities now. For many adults in the age range of, say, 30-60, they no longer even have the political vocabulary to express discontent in socialist terms. Having said all of the above, I get the distinct feeling, when I speak to people in their twenties, that they are clumsily groping their way back to it simply by virtue of their experiences on the ground and an inherent need to understand those experiences. In other words, they are having to rediscover and reinvent a socialism their parents forgot about because they were too busy playing with their shiny, mass-produced toys.
In fairness, she has had some serious awakenings with regards to her personal circumstances and part in climate change. Overall the book is a useful addition to the armoury, if only the right people would read it. The problem is too huge to have one book 'solve' it, though articulation of the problem by serious, respected thinkers is essential.
Much like the anthopocene itself, the book does not contain the usual happy ending.
But yes, what Steve said, it's depressing.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Her line "there is still time to avoid catastrophic warming but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed" summed it up for me. Nous sommes totalement fúcked.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
their political spending has been growing faster than their spending on anything else. It’s been growing even faster than their wealth.
Those that spend the most money in politics win the power. Democracy is dead, if it ever lived. One guy said, "Two things are important in politics. One is money and I can't remember the other".
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
They've already got so much money that they can afford to waste it on politicians so that they can make even more money to waste on politicians so ....
These people should have their heads examined rather than be held up as role models!
kenneal - lagger wrote:They've already got so much money that they can afford to waste it on politicians so that they can make even more money to waste on politicians so ....
These people should have their heads examined rather than be held up as role models!
These people should have their heads excommunicated from their bodies and held up on spikes.
Apologies for referring to Monbiot again - but he does say some extremely sensible things frequently - this piece contains exactly the sorts of thoughts and directions we ought to pursue and ought to have been pursuing for years.
Is it not time to think again? To stop sacrificing our working lives, our prospects, our surroundings to an insatiable god? To consider a different economic model, which does not demand endless pain while generating repeated crises?
Amazingly, this consideration begins on Thursday. For the first time in 170 years, parliament will debate one aspect of the problem: the creation of money. Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of the loans they issue. At no point was a democratic decision made to allow banks to do this. So why do we let it happen? This, as Martin Wolf has explained in the Financial Times, “is the source of much of the instability of our economies”. The parliamentary debate won’t stop the practice, but it represents the opening of a long-neglected question.
This, though, is just the beginning. Is it not also time for a government commission on post-growth economics?
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
The UK gov will never make changes that the City of London corporation doesn't agree to. It would be trivial for the gov to run a 'retail' bank or electronic to currency clearing facility. This is all the public requires 99.9% of the time. If it offered domestic loans and paid interest on positive balances it covers everything. No party will agree to this. You will recall that Mandeslime, working for Tony Liar, turned down the Post Office a banking licence and required them to use that amazingly reliable group the Bank of Ireland for financial services.
For example, a Carrotmob might descend upon a coffee shop for one day, often doubling or tripling normal revenue. The cafe then uses the extra money for an improvement, such as installing energy-efficient lighting, replacing inefficient water fixtures, or switching to green paper products. This “carrot” approach rewards businesses that desire to do good, as opposed to “stick” protests that boycott or punish businesses that simply need a little help realizing their sustainability goals.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of the loans they issue
Remember when Javascriptdonkey et al would swear blind that "private banks don't create money".
Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of the loans they issue
Remember when Javascriptdonkey et al would swear blind that "private banks don't create money".
I have a close relative who is the CEO of a major financial organisation and HE swears blind that banks don't create money. I've long since given up trying to have a meaningful conversation with him on the subject.
emordnilap wrote:"Two things are important in politics. One is money and I can't remember the other".
With a $4 billion price tag, the recent US midterm election was the most expensive in the country’s history.
$4 billion!
Across the US, we are living in a dream state; crisis is the new normal. In the face of global catastrophe, the leading political parties of the country typically offer more business as usual, meaning more corporate power to fuel democracy, more capitalism to fight inequality, more war to fight for peace, and more pollution to fight climate change.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of the loans they issue
Remember when Javascriptdonkey et al would swear blind that "private banks don't create money".
I have a close relative who is the CEO of a major financial organisation and HE swears blind that banks don't create money. I've long since given up trying to have a meaningful conversation with him on the subject.
I shit you not.
Strictly speaking, you could say they do or don't create the money supply and both be partly right. Lenders are responsible for much of the money in circulation at any time, because they issue money immediately, which the borrower must divert from his future spending to repay the debt. This may be the money supply today, but it's not the money supply permanently, like a bar of gold. If they stopped lending credit, the money supply would be less now, but it isn't additional money, they have simply shovelled a pile of it from say 25 years in the future [eg a mortgage] into the present. Banks do run a cartel in charging for borrowing. And they are champions of offshore acounting, tax avoidance and globalist lobbying which is the root of most social problems.
