ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Many waved banners emblazoned with slogans including “System change, not climate change”
That’s a good slogan but what exactly do they mean by it? According to their website at https://rebellion.earth :
We aim to promote a fundamental change of our political and economic system to one which maximises well-being and minimises harm.
I’m sorry, but that’s far too vague. In fact, who would say they didn’t want that?
Also on the site is their objective in this particular campaign of theirs (they organise campaigns on other subjects too):
We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. The government has failed to protect us. To survive, it’s going to take everything we’ve got.
-
The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
-
The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
-
A national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.
If you listen to the 50-minute talk explaining their campaign it appears that they really believe they can achieve this by the “non-violent sacrificial action” of a few hundred. I got the impression that some religious or spiritual views was what was motivating them.
Demand 1 is for All-Day Climate Change instead of All-Day Brexit. They have achieved some publicity but nothing like that.
As to 2, this is a demand addressed to the UK government. I think we can safely say that it is an impossible demand. If the UK did this unilaterally it would undermine the competitiveness of UK businesses and the consequent loss of markets and an economic turn-out. I am not sure what they mean by “reduce consumption levels”. Are they proposing that people consume less, i.e more austerity?
Their stunts/sacrificial actions are achieving more publicity than marches, petitions, lobbying MPs or voting Green. At least for the time being, but I expect it will peter out with the only result being a few hundred people feeling “virtuous” as their spokesperson puts it.
Extract from the US 2018 National Climate Assessment report quoted in a previous post.
Regardless of future scenario, additional increases in temperatures across the contiguous United States of at least 2.3°F relative to 1986–2015 are expected by the middle of this century. As a result, recent record-setting hot years are expected to become common in the near future. By late this century, increases of 2.3°–6.7°F are expected under a lower scenario and 5.4°–11.0°F under a higher scenario relative to 1986–2015. (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/)
I know people have complained here about statistics overload but how can you make sense of this unless you know how to convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade and know what the lower and higher scenarios are?
I am sure Dave Bsc will be able to explain it better, but basically to convert a degree increase in F to one in C you multiply the F figure by 5 and divide by 9. So the 2.3 degrees F above is about 1.3 degrees C. Which doesn’t sound so scary. On the other hand, the comparison is with the period 1986-2015 as opposed to pre-industrial times. Between pre-industrial times and 2016 average global temperature increased by 1.8°F (1.0° C), so the comparable figures to those in the recent IPPC report are 4.1° F and 2.3° C.
Fortunately, in other parts of the report they give the figures in both F and C. The Report is one required every four years by law and so is a serious document. Its conclusions are more or less the same as those of the IPCC report.
As to the scenarios, the higher one is where CO2 emissions continue at their present rate, i.e. a sort of worst case scenario which is not likely to happen. An increase by 6.7°C (12°F) would in fact be a real disaster risking the runaway global warming that some talk about.
The lower one is what would be needed to limit the rise to 2°C as set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
As the Report puts it:
With significant reductions in emissions, global temperature increase could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less compared to preindustrial temperatures. Without significant reductions, annual average global temperatures could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century compared to preindustrial temperatures.
The “significant reductions” would have to be quite substantial:
Of the two RCPs predominantly referenced throughout this report, the lower scenario (RCP4.5) envisions about 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions than the higher scenario (RCP8.5) by the end of the 21st century.
The Report also puts forwards some capitalist reasons for doing something about it (and why I would think they will do something, though in the US there is the additional obstacle of having to stand up to sectional lobbies that put their interests before that of the capitalist class as a whole):
Without more significant global greenhouse gas mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause substantial losses to infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are increasingly vulnerable to impacts driven by climate change. Reliable and affordable energy supplies, which underpin virtually every sector of the economy, are increasingly at risk from climate change and weather extremes. The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operation and supply chains. Some aspects of our economy may see slight improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.
The odd plate of lentil soup would do them, the world, a world of good.
A “mess of pottage” you mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mess_of_pottage
Most humans are, have been since we came down from the trees (in fact even before we went up there) and will continue to be into socialism, flexitarians, or omnivores. That’s part of our biological nature as an animal species. It is only because human behaviour is flexible (another part of our biological nature as animals) that a minority can choose to be inflexitarian by not eating meat. Good luck to them as long as they leave the rest of us alone.
Alan, I don’t object to you being a vegetarian (how could I as what people choose to eat is a private matter?) nor to you propagating vegetarianism (how could I as that’s a matter of free speech? Though I would question whether here’s the place to do it). What I am objecting to is linking the case for socialism with vegetarianisam (and also the exaggerations that Matt and me have just drawn attention to). I am afraid that every time you do this someone has to call you out lest people think socialism has something to do with vegetarianism.
Actually, William Morris put the socialist attitude to vegetarianism very well when her wrote in Commonweal</em), the journal of the Socialist League, in September 1886:
Our readers will have noticed several letters amongst our correspondence on the subject of Vegetarianism, one or two of which were written in a somewhat aggrieved tone, apropos of attacks by Socialists on that doctrine, if one may call it so, though several comrades and friends are vegetarians. It seems to me that there is no need either to attack a vegetarian or to confer a vote of thanks on him, so long as he is one because he chooses to be so on any grounds that please himself, whether he makes it a matter of health, or economy, or sentiment. But a man can hardly be a sound Socialist who puts forward vegetarianism as a solution of the difficulties between labour and capital, as some people do, and as one may think very severe capitalists would like to do, if the regimen were not applied to themselves; and again, there are people who are vegetarians on ascetic grounds, and who would be as tyrannical as other ascetics if they had the chance of being so. I do not mean to say that Socialist vegetarians are likely to fall into these traps; they only make themselves liable to the sneer of an anti-Socialist acquaintance of mine, who said to me one day ‘All you Socialists have each of you another fad besides Socialism’.
Yes, this pro-vegetarian propaganda is getting out of hand. People might get the wrong impression and not realise that the Party’s position is that what workers eat (or drink or wear) is a private matter that has nothing to do with socialism and that we certainly don’t tell people what they should or should not eat.
I think you should have made it clear that the first quote is not from the Lancet but that it is the Lancet quoting an article in another scientific journal. I say this because the Lancet article ends with a statement (you quote) about “red or processed meat” not about meat in general.
Agriculture is by nature a change in the ecological environment so does the study take into account the destruction of the trees that originally grew on the land cleared for agriculture (nothing wrong with that of course as long as a new stable ecological balance is established)? Also, I believe you pointed in another post to the global-warming gas, methane, being released by growing rice (your staple diet?).
Incidentally, is processing vegetables more environmen-friendly than processing meat?
Although we can say that the capitalists and their political puppets don’t “seem remotely interested in tackling” CO2 emissions, we can’t say that are not doing anything about it, however feeble and hesitating. They are, if only in their long-term interest, e.g. not having to spend money in the future on sea defences, moving populations, coping with forest fires, etc.
And it is not always a case of a government not wanting to do anything. It’s that economic constraints (profit considerations)prevent them for doing much. Capitalist corporations from the different capitalist states are competing against each other to sell their goods on world markets. And states with sources of fossil fuels are interested in continuing to sell them.
So, if one state were to unilaterally take the necessary measures, which will involve extra energy costs for their capitalists, this would make them less competitive on world markets. So they are only going to take action if other states are too. Hence the various climate change conferences. At these conferences each state is trying not to disadvantage itself and to prevent other states getting an advantage over them. So what emerges is the lowest common denominator.
This is why we can be certain that the IPCC recommended 45 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 compared with 2010 will not be reached so that, unless something else happens, the average global temperatures rise since pre-industrial times will not have been limited to 1.5 degrees by 2100.
As you say, the only framework in which the world can rationally tackle this problem is the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources.
Having now read the IPCC’s own summary of its report, I realise that I have been labouring under a misapprehension. I had assumed (like the rest of us here) that it was talking in terms of limiting the rise in average global temperature between now and 2030 to 1.5 degrees. In fact it was talking in terms of what extra measures needed to be taken up to 2030 to prevent a rise of 0.5 degrees by 2100 (to bring the rise to a total of 1.5 degrees since pre-industrial times, a rise of 1 degree having already happened.)
So, even if nothing more is done than at present or as presently planned the average global temperature will be nothing like 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2030. Such a rapid rise since 2010 would be a disaster ! What is being talked about is a rise of 0.5 degrees over an 80 year period; which on the basis of a crude back of the envelope calculation is 0.00625 per year and a rise of 0.075 degrees by 2030.
This has convinced me more than ever that to talk in terms of an increase in average global temperature by a further 4 or 5 degrees by 2100 is absurd and scare-mongering. For that to happen countries would have to increase the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, by an enormous amount (I don’t know, perhaps three or four times present levels). Which is not going to happen and is in fact not happening. It may be increasing but at nothing like the extent or rate that would be required to increase the global average temperature by a further 3 or 4 degrees over the next 80 years.
There is a problem. Rising sea levels, more stormy weather, more forest fires, more droughts, desertification, etc will make things worse for millions of people but there is no “existential threat” either to civilisation or to the human species. For us to join those who say so would be opportunism and unscientific. Let’s stick to saying that only within the framework of socialism can the problem be rationally dealt with as, under capitalism, conflicting interests between competing capitalist states will mean that what will be done will be disorganised and too slow.
Just posted a summary of a summary of the IPCC report on the Extinction thread here:
Average global temperature has already risen by 1 degree since pre-industrial times, i.e. since 1750.
As a result of this, sea levels will continue to rise whatever is done now but, obviously, slower if something is done.
If the aim is to prevent a further rise of 0.5 degrees (on top of the already 1 degree rise, i.e by 1.5 degrees in total) by 2100 is to be achieved, CO2 emission will have to have been cut by 45% from 2010 to 2030.
The policies so far adopted after the last intergovernmental meeting on climate change in Paris in 2015 won’t achieve this.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the IPCC report is wrong. Maybe the planet can take even 4deg warming and we can all still carry on as (relatively) normal.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that an increase in global warming of 4 degrees above pre-industrial levels (ie pre 1750)would mean we could all carry on as normal. It doesn’t seem a likely scenario anyway. Certainly the IPCC report is not suggesting that it is.
I don’t think the IPCC is wrong or, rather, than lay persons like ourselves are in a position to say it is. Quite the opposite. Not being experts in the field we can only rely on reports like this which say what most experts in the various fields involved are agreed on. If we don’t do this we will just be quoting the conclusions of individual experts who happen to agree with our uniformed opinion.
This being the case we ought to know what the IPPC report says. Its finding are summarised on pages 5-20 of the report here:
ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sr15/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Here’s some extracts:
“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence). (p. 6)”
“Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence). (p. 7)”
“By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). Sea level will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (high confidence), and the magnitude and rate of this rise depend on future emission pathways. (p.9)”
“On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C is projected to lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and to retain more of their services to humans (high confidence). (p. 10)”
“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). (p.14)”
“Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr−1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence). (p. 21)”
Basically, it is stating the obvious (that things will be worse if by 2100 the rise is 2 degrees rather than 1.5 degrees, i.e given that these have already risen 1 degree since 1750, if there is a further rise of 1 degree rather than of 0.5 degrees) but its main message is that current stated policies (“pathways”) will not lead to the rise being limited to a further 0.5 degrees by then. To achieve this, global CO2 emissions will have to decline by around 40 percent before 2030, i.e within the next 12 years.
The second of those letters links to an article in the Guardian last Friday under the headline:
Policies of China, Russia and Canada threaten 5C climate change, study finds
Be honest, does that not suggest that there is a threat that the average global temperature will rise by 5 degrees (which would indeed be a disaster that could trigger a runaway global heating}?
If, however, you read the smaller print in the article, what the study says is that if all the countries in the wold pursued the same “emission reduction” policies as these three then the average global temperature would rise by 5 degrees by the end of the century compared with the pre-industrial level (they have already risen by 1 degree since then, so it is a question of a rise by a further 4 degrees):
The study, published on Friday in the journal Nature Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed their example.
But other states aren’t and won’t be pursuing the same policies as the three in question (some couldn’t anyway). This is why I think the headline in the Guardian is tendentious and misleading and is the sort of thing that will have led to the writer of the first letter to think that there is an imminent threat of a runaway global warming.
There is an imminent threat (I would say likelihood) — of capitalist states not preventing average global temperature rising by 1.5 degrees since pre-industrial times by 2030, i.e by a further 0.5 degrees between now and then. The article explains why:
Under the Paris agreement, there is no top-down consensus on what is a fair share of responsibility. Instead each nation sets its own bottom-up targets according to a number of different factors, including political will, level of industrialisation, ability to pay, population size, historical responsibility for emissions. Almost every government, the authors say, selects an interpretation of equity that serves their own interests and allows them to achieve a relative gain on other nations. (emphasis added)
Precisely. Because of the competition between capitalist states to sell their products on world markets and to obtain the raw materials to generate energy they are unable to adopt a rational policy to slow down global warming.
In the 60s and 70s the Party did talk of socialism being “A World of Abundance”. This was even the front cover of the August 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970/
The Socialist Party of Canada reprinted it as a pamphlet with the same title.
I suppose this reflected the optimism of the period (“hope” of a better future). Today, on the contrary, pessimism is the dominant view (“fear/ threat” of a worse future). Inevitably this is affecting us, but I don’t think we should condemn technology. Ok, we can talk of a world capable of producing enough for everybody (and more) instead of “a world of abundance” but this still requires advanced technology. After all, technology, properly used under democratic social control, is going to be the way-out. Not just nuclear fusion but all the renewable energy sources require developing and applying technology, as Murray Bookchin explained in his 1968 article and pamphlet Towards A Liberatory Technology:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/tolibtechpart2.html
p.s. As the moderator is allowing us some leeway to discuss the pronunciation of dour I assumed all Scotch people pronounced it “doo-ur”. That’s how I do. No doubt because my father was an Ulster Scot. Next we’ll be discussing how to pronounce “scone” (which of course is “scon”) … Better than discussing how many birds can dance on a non-material pinhead.
So now there are two. Private Frasers, that is. And what’s the betting that the new one is from Scotland too ! No wonder they had to invent a new word up there that doesn’t exist in English English: dour (pronounced do-er, I think).
But seriously, last night’s discussion brings out the advisability of not projecting a doom scenario to get our case across. The reaction might not be a spur to action but, as was suggested, to party on. “Let’s eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”. What would be more constructive would be to offer hope, the hope of a solution. I wonder if our Extinction friends have thought of what hope to offer (their main aim seems to be to pressure governments into doing something now within capitalism). Of course they show by their attempt to change things that they don’t really think we’re all doomed. That human action can intervene in the course of events.
It is true, though, that “we’re all going to die”.
-
