Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance

December 2023 Forums General discussion Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance

Viewing 15 posts - 826 through 840 (of 902 total)
  • Author
  • #220649

    The article did say that draft reports go to government departments with the power of re-editing and it is the reason why they leaked the original draft – as a precaution to greenwashing out the unwelcomed conclusions

    As for the scientific community, while I trust in the scientific method, I am also reminded of what Marx said

    “the prevailing ideas of every society are the ideas of the ruling class.’

    It is equally daring to say that scientists are immune to the influence of their masters, and forget that he who pays the piper, or provide the research grants, calls the tune.

    We are in the realm of uncertainty but I think it is now being accepted that forecasts made by experts from past years are now proving to be have been on the conservative side. And following the scientific method, possible scenarios are being re-written but not discarded

    “It’s not so much that climate change itself is proceeding faster than expected — the warming is right in line with model predictions from decades ago,” said climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. “Rather, it’s the fact that some of the impacts are greater than scientists predicted…” This suggests that climate modelling may have been underestimating “the potential for the dramatic rise in persistent weather extremes,” Mann said.

    They got the basics right but how it plays out in the real world is now a matter of conjecture.

    However, my glass is half-empty and time for you to give it a re-fill ;-P


    Who We Are
    We are activists from a variety of scientific backgrounds, calling on our communities to stand in resistance to the genocidal direction of our governments, before it’s too late. If we scientists don’t act like we’re in an emergency, how can we expect the public to do so?

    We believe scientists should be resisting on the front lines, but the resistance must be bigger than any one group. If you are not a scientist, you are welcome – behind every action is a whole community of people supporting, creating and organising. When scientists rebel it is powerful because it inspires others to rise up. By bringing scientist and activist communities together, both are empowered.

    Where We Fit Within Extinction Rebellion
    We work within the framework of Extinction Rebellion, following the principles and values, but adopt some new forms of organising and mobilising.

    1) Technological decentralisation. We use open source and secure technology to connect activists with others in their areas, so they can plan and carry out actions locally, with all action details fully in the hands of activists.

    2) Facilitated horizontalism. We provide action resources, guides and trainings to facilitate actions. This allows activists to completely own their actions, take initiative, and ultimately creates “mini-leaders” everywhere. It also allows for rapid growth of the movement, since there are no organisational bottlenecks.

    3) The right to act. Action is how we make our voices heard, therefore we support any non-violent action unequivocally. Strategic disagreements can tear a movement apart: we refuse to be so divided. No one knows with certainty the impacts of any action. Through application of the scientific method to activism we will discern the most effective courses. Some efforts will backfire, and we will support those unsuccessful attempts as vigorously as we support the successful, secure in the knowledge that we are working to the same goal.

    Home Page


    ”It is corporate accountants who have the ear of governments.”

    But which corporations, as not all corporations have the same interest? The capitalist class is not a monolith with the same immediate commercial interests.

    A government is the executive committee of a ruling class and its remit is to look after the general and long-term interests of a ruling capitalist class as a whole.

    True, some one section of the capitalist class can come to control a government and use this to further their own sectional interests. And all capitalist corporations lobby governments to take measures that favour their sectional interest.

    But it is equally true that a government can sacrifice the interest of a section of the capitalist class in the general interest of the capitalist class as a whole.

    This seems to happening in many countries over measures to deal with global warming with the interests of the fossil fuel capitalists being sacrificed to deal with a problem which, if it gets out of hand, will cost the capitalist class as a whole more. In these countries the accountants of the fossil fuel corporations do not have the ear of the government.

    But not in all countries. In some, those with cheap supplies of oil or coal within their frontiers, which gives them a competitive advantage, the overall interest of the capitalist class there is not to sacrifice this section of their class.

    It is such differences between the interests of different national capitalist classes that is making it difficult for a co-ordinated global approach to climate change to be implemented.


    I think ALB a look at history and we can detect some sectors of the capitalist class has the more effective lobbying power and it has been persistent, from the Iranian 1953 coup to the 2003 Iraq invasion,

    In some states such as West Virginia, its fossil fuel coal-mining representative in the Senate, holds the Biden administration hostage. It is not unique for America or other nation’s parliaments.

    Australia’s government have been serving their mineral sector.

    In the UK we have new oil fields being opened off Shetland.

    The banks are still financing the fossil fuels. perhaps not the major banks putting out divestment programmes but there are many more sources of capital available across the world who seek rich short-term rewards

    Yes, the capitalist class is divided. It is divided by national interests as well as industrial. There does exist what is commonly called the North South developed and undeveloped split. We know who holds the power with the evidence of the vaccine nationalism and WHO begging for the developed countries to hold back on booster shots so that there can be global equity achieved in who gets vaccinated.

    The Paris Accord promised the poorer nations $100 billion – the money has not materialised or it is included within the usual foreign aid budgets but not as extra funding.

    A look at history when a nation’s existence is in question because of all-out war and although business concessions are asked for, the price demanded to governments are often high.

    You yourself highlighted the legal rights of fossil fuels corporations to financial recompense via the ISDS rules.

    Yes, we have division among businesses, the Brexit-Remain was about the interests of importers and exporters. Who had the ear of the government? A miscalculated call for a peoples referendum forced a government to heed one section and go against the interests of the other.

    The Paris 2015 was about a voluntary agreement, future COPs may well add punitive measures against countries that do not take action in accord with proposals. How many countries will then take the Trump route out of it?

    Then it will be a matter of loopholes and deception and lip-service.

    Capitalism, even if it is only a sector of it, will bring chaos and collapse to the climate remedies because he who pays the piper, calls the tune. I am reluctant to accept any suggestion that the capitalist class will unite behind the climate agenda and fix the world and have the support of national governments.

    Yes, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States are diversifying their investment portfolios but will they go a far as Norway’s Sovereign Fund which itself is under criticism for Arctic oil exploration.

    Even today I read an ulterior motive for the Israel-UAE treaty – an oil-pipeline

    Were they the decisive influence? Of course, not. Were they instrumental in facilitating the diplomatic and economic alliance? Perhaps? Perhaps not? Because it was a secret under the table negotiation.

    How long has it been since the tobacco corporations have been culpable of cancer and only now do we hear of moves by them to switch the focus of their death industry?

    As the IWW say in their preamble, “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.”

    Nothing about some capitalists being on the side of the angels, or our job being one of identifying and singling them outan an answer to our prayers.

    The government will do as it always did – act as the executive committee of the capitalist class as a whole but I fear that particular members of it have more political clout than the others combined and are well-capable of silencing them and excluding other capitalists from access to political power.

    We must be careful to not be interpreted as suggesting that capitalism is a rational system and the answer to the climate crises will be found by less anti-social businesses cooperating with the legislative and regulatory power of the State against the more anti-social companies, whose politicians will ride in like knights in shining armour with laws and edicts to save the world.


    I wouldn’t describe those capitalist corporations who are concerned about climate change as “less anti social”. They are just as profit-oriented as any other capitalist enterprise.

    They are concerned about their future profits and taxes on them (they reckon that it is better for them to pay less tax now to deal with the problem instead of waiting for it to get worse and have to pay more); some are looking to make a profit out of other sources of energy or new technologies.

    It is not a question of rationality but of calculated self-interest.

    What will happen will depend on how successful the fossil fuel lobby is, but most governments are not listening to them any more. Some are such as Australia, as did the US under Trump.

    I don’t think we can get away with saying or implying that all governments are in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby.


    The proof is in the eating of the pudding. Perhaps some corporations might change policy but the vacuum is quickly filled but others are less restrained.

    It is no longer an issue of denialism but delayism… policies too little and too little. Energy nationalism will continue with petro-states sabotaging global approaches.

    Doom…doom…and more doom

    COP26 if we read between the lines will offer at least an inkling to whether there might be an alternative…but I would not hold out too much hope, nor offer any.


    research shows state-backed fossil fuel companies and private equity firms are taking a tighter grip on North Sea oil, raising concerns about the government’s ability to wind down fossil fuel production and secure a “just transition” for workers.


    globally the share of fossil fuels in the total energy mix remains “as high as a decade ago” – 80.3% versus 80.2% – and renewables’ share only “increased slightly”, from 9% to 11%, the report found.


    Governments around the world are “hiding behind unreliable, unproven and unrealistic carbon removal schemes” and failing to meaningfully cut use of fossil fuels, a damning new assessment has warned.


    Words and their meaning.

    “We need to put policies in place throughout society otherwise our targets will just become empty promises,” said Joeri Rogelj, director of research at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London.

    Translated means “a national plan that would be instigated to ensure implementation of all the different policies – from transport to power generation and from home heating to farming – that will be needed to make sure emissions are cut as quickly as possible.”

    Hardly the “society wide vision”, the article talks about

    But not known for their hyperbole, some experts are now using very emotive language.

    “Our future climate could well become some kind of hell on Earth,” said Prof Tim Palmer, of Oxford University.

    Prof Dave Reay, executive director of Edinburgh University’s Climate Change Institute, put it: “This is not just another scientific report. This is hell and high water writ large.”

    Others confess the lack of science and that there are still not full understanding or knowledge.

    Prof Andrew Watson of Edinburgh University. “The IPCC report gives a comprehensive update on the knowns of climate change, and that makes for grim reading. But it also makes the point that climate models don’t include ‘low probability-high impact’ events, such as drastic changes in ocean circulation, that also become more likely the more the climate is changed. These ‘known unknowns’ are scarier still.”

    And when some look back at the predictions they admit mistaken optimism

    “It is plain that any hopes that climate change might turn out to be ‘not as bad as expected’ were forlorn,” said Prof Rowan Sutton, of Reading University’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science. “It is happening now and it is happening very fast. Dealing with this crisis means taking urgent actions.”

    And urgent actions?

    “The climate story was all over the front pages on Tuesday but by Friday, three days later, it was hardly mentioned,” added Prof Martin Siegert of Imperial College, London.
    “Yet this is the most important thing that humanity needs to do in the next 30 years. It is going to change our lives, it is going to change the way we regard ourselves on the planet. And if we don’t, we are going to stoke up huge problems for our children. But after three days we seemed to be forgotten despite the fact this is something that needs decades of consistent, persistent work.”

    1% of GDP are needed to ensure the country’s transition to net-zero status.

    “However, we are currently spending about 0.01%… a 100th of that estimated price tag. And this is also well below what the government is spending on things that will actually add to our emissions, such as airport expansion plans and the tens of billions it has pledged on new road schemes, which will only make it easier to drive around and burn more fossil fuel.”


    Three-quarters of people in the world’s wealthiest nations believe humanity is pushing the planet towards a dangerous tipping point and support a shift of priorities away from economic profit, according to a global survey. 74% of people agreed that countries should move beyond focussing on gross domestic product and profit, and instead focus more on the health and wellbeing of humans and nature.

    We have the audience, why are they not receptive to our message?


    From Adam;


    “The climate and environmental crisis is a class issue. It is the poorest people in working-class communities, in polluted cities, and in low-lying island communities who suffer first and worst in this crisis.”

    His solution?

    “And if we take on the powerful, removing the systemic incentives to burn the planet for a quick windfall, we can do things differently. That means workers everywhere mobilizing for a global Green New Deal at COP26 this year which takes carbon out of the atmosphere and puts money back in workers’ pockets, while tackling injustice and inequality in the Global South.”

    In our words, he thinks that mass mobilisation can get capitalist governments to do this. Some hope.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by PartisanZ.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by PartisanZ.

    The Red Arrows want to be the first net-zero air force by 2040:
    Such ambition – only 19 years away!! That should do it then, the answer to our problems.
    Such are the token gestures of the capitalist system.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by rodshaw.

    I see Afghanistan is now top of the news agenda.
    As I predicted, climate change would be yesterday’s fish out chip paper.
    Afghanistan will become tomorrow’s ……


    Over and over again I read WHO statements about vaccine nationalism, of countries putting their own interests against the scientific consensus, first on the vaccine rollout and now on booster shots yet people cannot make the connection that will be exactly how climate promises and pledges will go, vested interests and domestic politics will take priority, James


    Can capitalism fix things. People say that the CFC Montreal Treaty did.

    Can they do it again is the question


    George Monbiot usually has much of interest to say

    The global emergency requires a new politics, but it is nowhere in sight. Governments still fear lobby groups more than they fear the collapse of our living systems. For tiny and temporary political gains, they commit us to vast and irreversible consequences…No government, even the most progressive, is yet prepared to contemplate the transformation we need: a global programme that places the survival of humanity and the rest of life on Earth above all other issues. We need not just new policy, but a new ethics. We need to close the gap between knowing and doing. But this conversation has scarcely begun

Viewing 15 posts - 826 through 840 (of 902 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.