IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?

[danny la rouge]

Just read this from an interview with Greta Thunberg.

"“This is some kind of misconception about activists, especially about climate activists, that we are just negative and pessimists and trying to spread fear but that’s the exact opposite,” she said, “we are doing this because we are hopeful, we are hopeful that we will be able to make the changes necessary.”

Helpful, again clarifies that maybe the more you actually understand the problem and the solutions the less likely you are to be a useless despairer.

Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over. They want us to think nothing can be done. That it’s too late.

It isn’t too late. We can still act. We must still act.

 

[lazythursday]

It's never too late, because even 3 degrees of warming is better than 4. This is an ongoing emergency until action is taken and sustained, there isn't really the option of accepting some climate change as inevitable. Because that's just a temporary holding position.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Essentially we’re not all going to be able to live the cars and hamburgers lifestyle the last 60 years of policy has been based on and we need to decide what a future involving that looks like

 

[LDC]

Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over. They want us to think nothing can be done. That it’s too late.

It isn’t too late. We can still act. We must still act.

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Capitalist realism - Mark Fisher

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. After 1989, capitalism has successfully presented itself as the only realistic political-economic system - a situation that the bank crisis of 2008, far from ending, actually compounded. The book analyses the development...

libcom.org

 

[weltweit]

I can see the change from ICE cars and the like to EV being motivated by vastly increased taxation on petrol and diesel fuels eventually making running a ICE vehicle prohibitively expensive.

Hopefully while this is happening the EV offering will expand a lot and include budget models which ordinary motorists can actually afford.

 

[Pickman's model]

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Capitalist realism - Mark Fisher

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. After 1989, capitalism has successfully presented itself as the only realistic political-economic system - a situation that the bank crisis of 2008, far from ending, actually compounded. The book analyses the development...

libcom.org

How lucky we are to live at a time when we won't have to imagine either

 

[Pickman's model]

Despair is what the industries responsible want. They want paralysis. They know the denial strategy is over. They want us to think nothing can be done. That it’s too late.

It isn’t too late. We can still act. We must still act.

Tbh we have nothing to lose and people with nothing to lose are dangerous indeed

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Capitalist realism - Mark Fisher

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. After 1989, capitalism has successfully presented itself as the only realistic political-economic system - a situation that the bank crisis of 2008, far from ending, actually compounded. The book analyses the development...

libcom.org

 

[redsquirrel]

Yeah, I wanted to say something more nuanced about technology as I agree much of it, having been developed for the needs of capital, is problematic, if not in its use then in the way it is produced and/or operates. I guess it's where you situate that, as a root cause divorced from capitalism, or something inherent in technology itself. Its much like people in that way, we're pretty fucked up due to capitalism, but we're not inherently so.

While I absolutely agree with the point you are making about how capital uses technology it important not to forget that there will always be two sides of the coin.

Labour is never a passive force, it has input into the develop and use of technology like anything else. Of course capital will use technology to further its own aims but as ever class struggle comes into it.

And building on the potential of labour goes hand in hand with the humanism that is needed, as opposed to either the anti-humanistic malthusian or the techno-optimistic position.

 

[danny la rouge]

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Capitalist realism - Mark Fisher

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. After 1989, capitalism has successfully presented itself as the only realistic political-economic system - a situation that the bank crisis of 2008, far from ending, actually compounded. The book analyses the development...

libcom.org

Ha ha, I’m just out of a meeting where someone quoted that!

 

[cloudyday]

Ha ha, I’m just out of a meeting where someone quoted that!

on that quote:

It has recently become something of a cliché, at least on the Left, to cite the claim, first made by Fredric Jameson in Seeds of Time (1994), that in the current conjuncture it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. "Someone once said," Jameson writes in "Future City" (2003), where he recapitulates and revises the point, and where it becomes apparent that he is probably misremembering some comments made by H. Bruce Franklin about J. G. Ballard, "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism."

(PDF) Imagining the end times: Ideology, the contemporary disaster movie, contagion

PDF | It has recently become something of a cliché, at least on the Left, to cite the claim, first made by Fredric Jameson in Seeds of Time (1994), that... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[danny la rouge]

Just what we’ve been talking about. The creepy abusive ex-boyfriend energy of the oil and gas industry:

 

[Spandex]

News values:

Monday's headlines/Tuesday's front pages - Climate emergency! Whole world doomed! We must act now!

Tuesday's headlines/Wednesday's front pages - Royal rapist/A-level results.

Wednesday - climate emergemcy? Yeah, I vaguely remember something about that. Everyone carries on as normal.

 

[NoXion]

News values:

Monday's headlines/Tuesday's front pages - Climate emergency! Whole world doomed! We must act now!

Tuesday's headlines/Wednesday's front pages - Royal rapist/A-level results.

Wednesday - climate emergemcy? Yeah, I vaguely remember something about that. Everyone carries on as normal.

So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I'm seeing plenty of stuff in the news about wildfires and extreme weather events across the world, so it's not as if they're burying this shit. The new IPCC report doesn't change the fact we still need to get up and work for a living, so "carrying on as normal" was always going to happen for the vast majority of people.

 

[ska invita]

So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I

Where to start.....

 

[ska invita]

...when the press want something done like ousting a socialist labour leader or demonising migrants they campaign for it: they doorstep politicians, they put pressure on, they create a sense of panic day in day out... theres none of that here.
havent seen Johnson cornered and Tory plans scrutinised. Ive no idea what Starmers position is, other than some laughable thing i saw on Twitter about Labour want 70% emissions cuts as opposed to the Tories 68%.

Wheres the photomontaage of East Anglia under water? Wheres the Daily Mail piece on house prices in places like Worthing that are due to be submerged?
How are the government going to build sufficient sea defences to stop all this?
How the Thames flood barrier can't handle that level of sea rise...

Wheres the front page analysis of the key business polluters? Wheres the discussion on rationing air flights?
What's the criticism of UKs Net Zero policy that doesn't include externalised production-consumption in places like India and China? Wheres the discussion of continuous capitalist growth?
Etc etc etc etc etc etc
All several decades too late

 

[teqniq]

Well that's just great:

Rishi Sunak 'blocking climate change plans by refusing to commit funding for net-zero drive'

The Chancellor is adamant that he has spent generously on policies which will help reduce carbon emissions in the UK

inews.co.uk

 

[bimble]

Meanwhile, Mr Johnson is the person who gets to decide whether its a good idea to go ahead with the massive new oil field off Shetland and the coal mine in Cumbria.

Boris Johnson insists Cambo field 'contracts' cannot be 'torn up'

Boris Johnson has insisted that "we can't just tear up contracts" as campaigners urged him to block the Cambo oilfield project, west of Shetland. Industry

www.energyvoice.com

Opponents of Cumbria coal mine welcome Prime Minister's comments on coal | ITV News

Responding to a major climate change report, the Prime Minister said that leaders should "consign coal to history". | ITV News Border

www.itv.com

 

[Spandex]

So what exactly do you think they should do differently? I'm seeing plenty of stuff in the news about wildfires and extreme weather events across the world, so it's not as if they're burying this shit. The new IPCC report doesn't change the fact we still need to get up and work for a living, so "carrying on as normal" was always going to happen for the vast majority of people.

If a politician is caught fucking someone they shouldn't the news will run with it for days. Yet we're literally faced with the end of the world as we know it and after dutifully somber reporting of the IPCC Report it disappears from the news agenda again.

The Mirror could start a Countdown to Armageddon. The Guardian could have a black Climate Emergency banner on the front page every day. The Mail could bemoan the effect on house prices of Worthing disappearing beneath the waves. The Express could go with Kate's Tears: People's Princess tells of her fears for the future. The Times could report Gove's hopes for the COP26 summit. The Telegraph could report what it wants Johnson to do at the COP26 summit. BBC news could tie together the various climate catastrophes happening right now into one issue, rather than reporting them as separate events. Channel 4 News might already be running a series of reports on it for all I know, it's on at the kids' bedtime so I haven't watched it for years. If the media put their minds to something they can make it An Issue Where Something Must Be Done. But they're not.

Of course people will carry on their lives as normal. This is too big an issue for individual action to make much impact. It needs governments to take meaningful, far reaching action, and without pressure on them it seems they can't be arsed.

 

[lazythursday]

And it's clear from the reporting that does exist that there's an enormous gap of understanding amongst journalists who just don't really even get the basics about the science, the cumulative effects of carbon, the principle of carbon budgets, the incredible lack of time to transform our infrastructure. Newsnight a couple of nights ago was absolutely woeful. If Kirsty Wark and co went on just one day's training they could tear the government and opposition to shreds, but they just don't have the knowledge so ask stupid questions.

 

[glitch hiker]

I suspect off the back of the COP event there will be a rush of fossil fuel projects that will be greenlit as "one last project". Like a smoker saying he'll just have one more pack/smoke before quitting.

Can't say I'm looking forward to governments doing nothing except making things we all need more expensive. Like food and clean water.

 

[danny la rouge]

And it's clear from the reporting that does exist that there's an enormous gap of understanding amongst journalists who just don't really even get the basics about the science, the cumulative effects of carbon, the principle of carbon budgets, the incredible lack of time to transform our infrastructure. Newsnight a couple of nights ago was absolutely woeful. If Kirsty Wark and co went on just one day's training they could tear the government and opposition to shreds, but they just don't have the knowledge so ask stupid questions.

Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).

 

[LDC]

Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).

One of the things that's shocking about much of the media is the lack of time they have (give themselves) to cover things, and that makes a massive difference to how they cover stuff, there's just not time to go into any details really at all, it's all very surface level. That and being hampered by the ideological blinkers where some ideas are not so much off-limits as just not in their vision at all.

 

[danny la rouge]

One of the things that's shocking about much of the media is the lack of time they have (give themselves) to cover things, and that makes a massive difference to how they cover stuff, there's just not time to go into any details really at all, it's all very surface level. That and being hampered by the ideological blinkers where some ideas are not so much off-limits as just not in their vision at all.

Exactly.

 

[lazythursday]

Being cynical, I wonder if they don’t have the knowledge or if they ask what they think is “newsworthy” (ie is within self permitted parameters).

It's probably a bit of both.

If you spend time delving into the Committee on Climate Change reports on decarbonisation, the immense effort involved across every sector is really quite overwhelming. It's completely outside of the political zone of business as usual. Clearly most politicians just haven't grasped this and nor has the media and commentariat. They just can't conceive of this level of change, it's outside of acceptable debate. Even though said Committee/organisation is a statutory one.

 

[danny la rouge]

it's outside of acceptable debate.

Indeed.

 

[LDC]

It's something that does get done, but I think the targeting of the BBC and other media is also a completely wrong direction to take, even with the above issues in mind. And even more so post-covid with all the MSM/conspiracy stuff about.

On a related note I predict a shift of some of the covid conspiracy types to anti-climate change stuff, fitting it into their whole 'social control of the masses' narrative. Already seen someone saying the flooding in N. Europe was some 'elite weather control technology' thing.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's something that does get done, but I think the targeting of the BBC and other media is also a completely wrong direction to take, even with the above issues in mind. And even more so post-covid with all the MSM/conspiracy stuff about.

Agreed. Far better to press journalists to change focus. Shouting at them that they’re liars is never a good look or productive.

This is a more constructive approach:



But of course that requires them to know the right questions to ask. So they need to be helped.

 

[LDC]

It almost certainly needs a new thread, but thinking about strategy for all this. Three strands going on in my head...

1) Their solutions are not going to be good ones. Higher taxes, some kind of eco-austerity, unemployment, etc. That all needs to be resisted, not on some old union 'protect jobs/the way things' are but in conjunction with people in those industries and areas that are going to be impacted. Full unconditional financial support for all people impacted.

2) Are there things that have a high carbon output that can be changed or got rid of without massive and disruptive impacts for the majority of people? And not telling people to eat less meat or drive less ffs. Structural stuff.

3) Related to 2), what are the 'easy' victories that can have an impact on carbon emissions but not on most people's daily lives? Stopping any new oil and gas exploration and extraction, and also no new airports must be two?

 

[lazythursday]

It almost certainly needs a new thread, but thinking about strategy for all this. Three strands going on in my head...

1) Their solutions are not going to be good ones. Higher taxes, some kind of eco-austerity, unemployment, etc. That all needs to be resisted, not on some old union 'protect jobs/the way things' are but in conjunction with people in those industries and areas that are going to be impacted. Full unconditional financial support for all people impacted.

2) Are there things that have a high carbon output that can be changed or got rid of without massive and disruptive impacts for the majority of people? And not telling people to eat less meat or drive less ffs. Structural stuff.

2) Related to this, what are the 'easy' victories that can have an impact on carbon emissions but not on most people's daily lives? Stopping any new oil and gas exploration and extraction, and also no new airports must be two?

I'd have to go and check the stats but there is no getting away from the fact that none of this is easy. About 25% of carbon emissions come from domestic properties, with 20% of that being space and hot water heating. That is really the biggie and it means most properties having to both be properly insulated and have a change of heating system. How that happens without people who can't afford it having a huge cost, or people being left behind by landlords who don't give a fuck, is a big political question.

Transport is another huge chunk and is the one area that is consistently getting worse not better (emissions have gone down at least a bit in most other areas, with electricity generation leading the way). There is no way to do this without people driving less. There is no way to get around that fact.

Land use and agriculture is another enormous issue. People do have to eat less meat on a population level. There is no getting away from that. Some of that is due to methane and some is due to the fact that we do need to use a fair portion of agricultural land for biofuels and planting trees. (yes I know both of these options get dismissed by people - but most net zero scenarios rely on them to some extent to get the sums to add up).

I agree this can't come down to hectoring people not to eat meat or not to drive - the structural stuff is putting place alternatives, subsidising them, discouraging driving / meat eating in some way over time.