The COP28 conference on what to do about global warming and climate change held in Dubai finished last Thursday. Attended by a record 70,000 people (carbon footprint?) and hosted by the head of Dubai’s state oil company (!), the final statement appeared to make a major breakthrough. The statement talked of “a transition away from all fossil fuels”. For the first time, it was agreed that fossil fuel exploration, production and use must end. An historic step, it has been argued.
But a ‘transition away’ is really mealy-mouthed sophistry to avoid ‘phasing down’, let alone ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels that cause over 90% of all carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The ‘transition away’ means that fossil fuel companies can go on producing oil, gas and coal and countries and governments and companies can go on using these energy sources with no agreed reductions. It’s business as usual for the energy companies and for countries with high greenhouse gas emissions.
Supposedly, fossil fuel production and use will gradually be reduced to avoid emissions that are driving global average temperatures above the 1.5C target limit above pre-industrial levels. This target was set in 2015 at the Paris COP to be achieved by 2030 and then zero net emissions by 2050. But words are easy to say. In action, it won’t happen. The targets will not be met and the consequences for people and the planet will follow.
Indeed, just as the COP28 communique was agreed, temperatures hit 43C in Brazil and Australia – records for this time of year. The average global temperature reached a record 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in November and the year is likely to end with an average 1.2C above – so not far short of 1.5C already.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising inexorably to put the world on course for a near 9% rise by 2030 from 2010 levels, according to the latest progress report by the UN scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is the world’s leading authority. So no fall at all. While the rise projected by the IPCC is slightly better than the 11% rise forecast in last year’s assessment, it remains vastly short of the 45% cut needed to limit warming to the 1.5C goal set as part of the Paris Agreement.
The energy plans of the petrostates contradict their climate policies and pledges, the UN report said. By 2030, their plans would lead to 460% more coal production, 83% more gas and 29% more oil than it was possible to burn if global temperature rise was to be kept to the internationally agreed 1.5C. The plans would also produce 69% more fossil fuels than is compatible with even the more damaging 2C target.
The countries responsible for the largest carbon emissions from planned fossil fuel production are India (coal), Saudi Arabia (oil) and Russia (coal, oil and gas). The US and Canada are also planning to be major oil producers, as is the United Arab Emirates. Another recent report found that the state oil company of the United Arab Emirates, whose CEO, Sultan Al Jaber, presided over COP28, has the largest net zero-busting expansion plans of any company in the world.
Yes, renewables and clean energy production are rising fast. The International Energy Agency (IEA) in its annual World Energy Outlook reckons that global investment in all clean energy technologies in 2023 is on track to be 40% higher than in 2020. “The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’ – and the sooner the better for all of us,” said the IEA’s executive director Fatih Birol. However, it’s not enough by any measure. The IEA Outlook concludes that current global energy commitments from policymakers are aligned with a temperature trajectory of 2.4C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
The Outlook also comes with several warnings about the delivery of existing commitments. Supply chain disruptions in sectors including wind, plus the grapple for energy security in the face of the Russia-Ukraine war and global economic downturn, are prompting many countries to seek to bolster fossil fuels. Birol emphasised: “Taking into account the ongoing strains and volatility in traditional energy markets today, claims that oil and gas represent safe or secure choices for the world’s energy and climate future look weaker than ever.”
The Outlook concludes that, unless additional policy interventions are made, the share of fossil fuels in the global energy supply will still be 73% in 2030, down from around 80% at present. But, according to the IEA, to align with a 1.5C temperature, the trajectory would require the share dropping to around 60% by the end of this decade. So much for a ‘transition away’.
The commitments and actions to achieve sufficient emissions-cutting are just not anywhere near enough. Pledges made by about 130 countries and 50 fossil fuel companies made before COP28 will still leave the world far off track in limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, according to the IEA. The planned reductions in 2030 emissions, even if implemented honestly and transparently. represent only around 30% of the emissions gap that needs to be bridged to get the world on a pathway compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 C (the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario). Indeed, the IEA said fossil fuel demand must fall by a quarter by the end of this decade.
Not a single G20 country has policies in place that are consistent with that, says Climate Action Tracker.
The IPCC report found that existing national pledges to cut emissions would mean global emissions in 2030 were 2% below 2019 levels, rather than the 43% cut required to limit global heating to 1.5C. Only one of the more than 20 sponsors of COP28 had signed up to UN-backed net zero science-based targets, (SBTi). Most of the corporate sponsors, which include the oilfield services company Baker Hughes as well as Bank of America, have made no commitment to reduce emissions to net zero in any time period under the target system. Lincoln Bauer of Spendwell, which carried out the analysis, said: “Science-based targets are the gold standard validation system for companies. The fact that so few of the sponsors are signed up to their net zero targets, and that EY itself, chosen to verify the climate commitments of the sponsors, doesn’t have set targets yet, suggests this is just greenwashing.”
The carbon budget is the maximum amount of carbon emissions that can be released while restricting global temperature rise to the limits of the Paris agreement. The latest figure is half the size of the budget estimated in 2020 and would be exhausted in six years at current levels of emissions. Instead, the world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, the UN report found.
A new analysis found the carbon budget remaining for a 50% chance of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C is about 250bn tonnes. Global emissions are expected to reach a record high this year of about 40bn tonnes. So to retain a 50% chance of a 1.5C limit, emissions would have to plunge to net zero by 2034, far faster than even the most radical scenarios. “Having a 50% or higher likelihood that we limit warming to 1.5C is out of the window, irrespective of how much political action and policy action there is” ,said the report’s author.
The reality is that the planet is on the verge of five catastrophic climate tipping points. Five important natural thresholds already risk being crossed, according to the Global Tipping Points report and three more may be reached in the 2030s if the world heats 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures.
The tipping points at risk include the collapse of big ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters, and the collapse of one oceanic current in the North Atlantic. Unlike other changes to the climate such as hotter heatwaves and heavier rainfall, these systems do not slowly shift in line with greenhouse gas emissions but can instead flip from one state to an entirely different one. When a climatic system tips – sometimes with a sudden shock – it may permanently alter the way the planet works.
What to do? First, remember that it is the poor that will take the hit from global warming and climate change, while the rich (and I mean very rich) are the main contributors to global emissions. The richest 1% of people are responsible for as much carbon output as the poorest 66%, research from Oxfam shows. Luxury lifestyles including frequent flying, driving large cars, owning many houses and a rich diet, are among the reasons for the huge imbalance.
Inequalities are not just between the global north and the global south: the research from Oxfam shows that the differences in carbon footprint of rich and poor people within countries are now greater than the differences between countries. So reducing global inequality and inequality within countries would also reduce global warming rises.
Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist, says the 1% of richest emitters also influence far wider consumption. “The 1% group use their hugely disproportionate power to manipulate social aspirations and the narratives around climate change. These extend from highly funded programmes of lying and advertising to proposing pseudo-technical solutions, from the financialisation of carbon to labelling extreme any meaningful narrative that questions inequality and power. Such a dangerous framing is compounded by a typically supine media owned or controlled by the 1%. The tendrils of the 1% have twisted society into something deeply self-destructive.”
Since the 1990s, the richest 1% have burned through more than twice as much carbon as the bottom half of humanity. But more than 91% of deaths caused by climate-related disasters of the past 50 years have occurred in developing countries. The death toll from floods is seven times higher in the most unequal countries compared to more equal countries.
Is too late and if not, what’s the answer? The solutions proposed by mainstream economics and governments are no solutions at all but just ‘greenwashing’. The IMF and the World bank promote carbon pricing and taxation. The theory is that we make polluters pay for what they emit, providing a strong nudge to clean up their act. It can take the form of a tax or an emissions trading scheme (ETS) that requires companies to purchase tradable allowances to cover their emissions.
This market solution won’t deliver. To get emissions down, the global price of carbon would need to reach an average at least of $85 a tonne by 2030, compared with just $5 today. And less than 5%of global GHG emissions are covered by a direct carbon price equal to or higher than the suggested range for 2030.
What about increasing investment in renewables? It’s true that the cost of renewables is falling fast. The cost of electricity from solar power is now 85% lower than it was in 2010. Battery technology is progressing far faster than anticipated, powering the electrification of road transport: in China, 35% of all new passenger car sales are now electric. But this still pales in comparison with capital spending on fossil fuels, while subsidies by governments and credit by banks outstrip the same for renewables and other green investments.
Oil and gas producers should be spending about half of their annual investment on clean energy projects by 2030 to be aligned with global climate goals, the IEA has said. But so far, producers account for just 1% of global green energy investment and last year committed just 2.5%, or $20bn, of their capital to the sector. Not much of a ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels yet!
Chevron will spend just $2bn of its $14bn capital spending budget on lower-carbon investments this year. Exxon said last December it planned to spend $17bn in total on lower-emission initiatives through to the end of 2027, while annual capital spending on fossil fuels would remain at $20bn-$25bn during the period. Shell has said it planned to invest about $5bn on average a year between 2023 and2025 on low-carbon energy, against overall capital spending of $22bn-$25bn a year. France’s TotalEnergies said it planned to put 33% of its capital expenditure between 2023 and 2028, or about $5bn a year, towards investments deemed low carbon.
The problem for capitalist industry is that it is still more profitable to invest in fossil fuels than in clean energy projects. The IEA estimated the return on capital employed in the oil and gas industry was 6-9% between 2010 and 2022, compared with less than 6% for clean energy projects.
Then there is talk of new technologies to capture carbon in the air. This was the cry of the fossil fuel lobby at COP28. Industrial carbon capture technologies come in many flavours, but the most prominent are carbon capture and storage (CCS), which removes carbon dioxide from highly concentrated point sources like power plants; and direct air capture (DAC), which attempts to remove CO from open air, where concentrations are much lower. Limiting global warming to 1.5C would require significant carbon dioxide removals, achieved either by nature-based solutions such as reforestation, or by capturing CO₂ direct from the air and storing it permanently underground.
But currently, the planned Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs the US Department of Energy is supporting will only be able to capture one million metric tonnes of CO every year; while the world emits 40.5 billion. The technology is also expensive, costing thousands of dollars for every tonne of CO2 removed. The US Department of Energy has already poured tens of billions into poorly conceived and managed ‘clean coal’ and CCS projects. They have almost entirely failed, earning the condemnation of the Government Accountability Office. The US government has tax credits for these carbon capture projects at $60 a tonne for carbon used in enhanced oil recovery—which delays the retirement of the fossil fuel production.
So there is no escaping it. Since fossil-fuel combustion currently produces about 32Gt of CO₂ emissions a year, that means more than 85% of emission reductions must come from ending fossil-fuel use and less than 15% from applying carbon capture.
All these proposals are avoiding the elephant in the room – getting rid of fossil fuel production and use in the planet. Yes, the technology is there to do it and the money is there to help those poor countries and people to make the transition. What stands in the way are the vested interests of the global energy companies; the current profitability of fossil fuel production and use; and of course, the lack of any global agreement, let alone coordination, to implement any phasing out plan.
According to Daniela Gabor, an associate professor in economics at the University of the West of England, we need states to undertake an “extensive, deep intervention in the reorganisation of economic activity that is necessary for a just transition. Carbon wealth taxes don’t even begin to scratch the surface of that transformation.” Jason Hickel wants “democratic control over investment … and production, because profit-seeking markets prioritise the wrong things. When people have democratic control over production, they prioritise human well-being and ecological sustainability,” he says.
This must mean a campaign to bring into public ownership the fossil fuel industry globally and to use the profits and revenues to dramatically invest in renewables, electrification and environmental projects. The solution does not lie in replacing petrol and diesel vehicles with electric cars, but in replacing private transport with carbon and price-free public transport. The solution is not in building homes for profit and speculation, but in well planned urban housing projects built by governments and controlled by working people.
And we still face hell if we do not stop the destruction of nature and instead save the forests, wetlands, land and ocean life. Saving the planet and its species is inexorably connected to controlling global warming.
Michael Roberts Blog 
Dear Professor, you can NOT aspire to more at COP 28 because otherwise capitalism would collapse, and capitalism is not going to be a hara-kiri. You can aspire to another society, what you cannot aspire to is another form of capitalism different from the really existing capitalism.
The data is clear: as long as the so-called “top 1%” continues to exist, CO2 emission will continue to rise, irrespective of the will and actions of the “bottom 99%”.
The diagnosis is clear, so is the solution: the First World working classes must do the practical movement of the elimination of their capitalist classes, i.e. a communist revolution. Without this simple, objective and practical movement, CO2 will never lower to significant levels.
14 of the 20 largest oil and gas companies globally are already government controlled, amounting to about 80 percent of oil reserves and 60 percent of gas.
Joe yes i know but they are not run by workers organisations but by capitalist governments and the big five oil majors are private
Some are Chinese state-owned corporations. Just a footnote, since they are run for profit, too. And their “owner” is a capitalist regime of “princelings.”
Compulsive science nerding here.
The planet will be continue to orbit the sun, fighting climate change is about saving human lives not the planet.
There is at this point no reason to think anthropic mass extinction will work any differently than all the previous mass extinctions, namely, eventually the handful of survivors will radiate and adapt and fill/create new niches with new species.
On the other hand, the previous history of civilization collapses does suggest that the handful of human survivors may never re-establish any civilization, advanced or otherwise. Wherever the people who built Stonehenge or Great Zimbabwe or Cahokia or even Angkor Wat, they didn’t come back in any form we can recognize.
In the history of life on Earth, there is no “permanent.” Possible relatively sudden changes from the tipping points are only permanent in relation to our current life spans.
Possibly the major proximate cause of war is the belief in an easy victory. And maybe the second is the belief that the ruling class has nothing to lose, especially including the lives of the ruled classes. The sudden uprising of starving or heat stroked people ravening at the privileged is not usually conspicuously one of them, being as they aren’t the rulers who make such decisions.
Large countries with lower population densities will necessarily have higher transportation costs and cutting out the transportation will require major material hardships for the mass of people. If the nearest OB/GYN is fifty miles away? If CCS at power plants is ineffective, then ultimately electric vehicles are worse for the environment (the rare earths mining is environmentally destructive) *unless and only unless* the power generation is non-carbon emitting—-which strangely doesn’t clearly rule out wood fired plants, as trees are potentially renewable. But so far as I know, there is not even any coordinated program for planting billions of trees, much less paying poor countries for preserving old-growth forests. By the way, much of carbon dioxide recapture by “plants” is coastal algae. An exclusive focus on algae omits the problems of water pollution and environmental disruption for these vital waters.
Direct Air Capture is handicapped even in principle by the lower concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.
The scaling up of non-fossil fuel energy production is not clearly feasible, due to the difficulties in calculating the long term costs of massive mining.
Equally uncertain is the objection to a “rich diet” which seems to mean poor people eating meat. It’s not even clear whether the broad range of foods can be produced to provide a truly nutritious diet for everyone. It’s not just whether it’s possible to produce enough almond milk—transportation of fresh fruit and vegetables are an issue. Also, it’s not clear that taking away milk from all children, old people and sick people who can’t afford rich isn’t in the end bad for many people and their development. There are indeed some people who abstain lifelong from meat but it’s not obvious that they aren’t just the fortunate variety physically tolerant of such a diet. There may be a reason other than simple greed that some many people do not maintain a vegan diet permanently.
Lastly, there are no environmental problems that can’t ultimately be “cured” by massive population collapse. Whether it’s Thanos openly saying it or the unspoken subtext of zombie movies, this thought is out there in the popular culture.
That should be “an exclusive focus on carbon emissions omits…” Shoot my proofreader if you wish.
Also, the stuffiness about the immoral masses eating meat is something I see elsewhere, not here. See for example if you insist: https://crookedtimber.org/2023/11/27/presentism-and-veganism-if-im-wrong-im-wrong-now-and-forever-crosspost-from-substack/
“Battery technology is progressing far faster than anticipated, powering the electrification of road transport: in China, 35% of all new passenger car sales are now electric.” This is not renewable energy in itself; it depends on how the electricity is generated. In China, for example, both solar and coal power are slated to expand substantially over the next several years.
It is poor philosophy to link the communist revolution (socialism) with the environmentalist agenda of cutting CO2 emissions at any cost. The first is a practical movement of History, the second is merely an administrative decision.
The proletariat, as the revolutionary class in capitalism, has the role of, at the same time, continuing the development of the productive forces and creating a new mode of production. Oil is and will continue to be for the forseeable future an essential product, without which development of the productive forces will be impossible. It will continue to be extracted without limits in socialism.
Speaking more as a science nerd than a philosopher…My formal education is mostly a more or less even split between history and natural sciences with one semester of philosophy, the one designed to give freshmen/sophomores a humanities elective, so obviously I can’t argue the philosophy. But I must say that I don’t understand the concept of productive forces if it doesn’t include very material things like the atmosphere/climate. Any version of productive forces that denies this strikes me as metaphysical and idealist, with only a superficial materialism. Obviously, my misunderstanding of Marxism is of the positivist Engelsian perversion, I’m afraid. It’s still true I think the most important productive force is people, but other material things nevertheless matter too. Admittedly air is literally diffuse and climate is a process not amenable to individual observation at any given moment (that sounds dialectical to me but no doubt that’s my lack of sophistication.) I still say, the air and climate are as much productive forces as oil off the coast of Guyana or low sulfur coal in WV. A healthy biosphere really is the wealth of humanity and it should be collective “property” in my judgment. As is, it is being stolen by private hands.
In a capitalist system, it seems to me that the law of value implies 1)the utility of air and climate for the benefit of all is not even an issue since growth in a capitalist system means, the growth of profits. 2)The law of value also suggests to me that capital must be a system of multiple capitals and that system is impelled in the long run to unlimited search for profits which means I think it cannot ever be a stationary economy, which is to say, cannot ever be in equilibrium with the environment. 3)The law of value I think specifically says that expropriation of natural materials ultimately tends toward pricing it at the price of production which in principle excludes the future price of the stock remaining. And by the way, turning the atmosphere into a dump for waste products like carbon dioxide is using constant capital and a form of expropriating said constant capital. 4)Insofar as any aspects of nature, like land, can be used by legal right, there is an absolute rent accruing to the private owners, just like land rent. (Like the prices of production, to be sure, absolute rent is as controversial as prices of production, maybe even more so.)
I don’t know what a socialist law of population would be. But I am pretty sure that eventually the socialist economy will be “stationary” in the sense that it is in rough balance with the biosphere. That does not mean unchanging, any more than equilibrium in a reversible reaction in a chemistry lab is unchanging. Both would still be very dynamic. Further, like changing the proportions of reactants or temperature/pressure would change the equilibrium, changes in technology, aka the productive forces, would change the socialist equilibrium with nature. This wouldn’t count as growth in the capitalist sense, not being a growth in profits. My guess is that such an equilibrium, such a stationary economy, would be greater freedom in the end, since it would rely on obeying the laws of nature to achieve human ends.
“Oil is and will continue to be for the forseeable future an essential product, without which development of the productive forces will be impossible. It will continue to be extracted without limits in socialism.”
Well, that’s heartening– without limits? Really? Oil today isn’t produced “without limits,” the limit being profitability.
Without limits? The largest consumer of petroleum products in the world today is the US military, so say a revolution is successful, internationally, and all the military requirements for petroleum shrink a hundredfold? Oil still gets produced “without limits”?
And of course there is an established history of the predominance of oil extraction has impeded the development of productive forces–as the resulting environmental impacts make large areas literally uninhabitable with the exhaustion and pollution of land and water. And no, socialism won’t automatically correct that.
Without limits? How did Pete Townsend put it? “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”??
@ stevenjohnson
The development of the productive forces transcends capitalism.
The key here, in my opinion, is that we must analyze these categories materially and not ideally.
From a purely objective point of view, human labor doesn’t create anything, only transforms. A given human, in a given social-historical context, interacts with nature in order to transform matter into humanly useful things. Wealth, therefore, is not creation in the absolute sense of the word (in the world of the hard sciences), but merely the subjective form of nature where it is useful to humans. The creation of wealth is, therefore & so to speak, merely the expansion of human space into the objective material world (i.e. nature; planet Earth; the Solar System; the Observable Universe).
We humans are not creators. We are, deep down, part of nature. Therefore we can never create nature or not-nature, only transform it. This process, of course, is part of humanity itself (therefore, of every human possible), therefore “inescapable” to humans, and, therefore, to any mode of production and any possible (so far, theoretical) form of communism.
With that, Marx unified Humanities with Biology and, since Biology already was unified with the hard sciences through Chemistry (thanks to the Modern Synthesis), with the hard sciences. As far as I know, Marx is the only model that can do that; every other theory in Humanities has to postulate, philosophically, that Humanity is special (i.e. that it transcends the Universe).
So, how do we use this stuff to the present-day example of oil and CO2 emission? Just by analyzing the situation humanity literally finds itself in coldly, objectively, literally, as-it-is. And this situation is clear: at the present day of the development of the productive forces (of “human civilization”, in idealist terminology), humans cannot afford to not use oil. It is present in too many things we need to survive civilizationally. There is no ideology or higher purpose behind it: it simply is. And, until the moment it isn’t comes, it will continue to simply be.
To repeat, people are the primary productive force. As they existed before and will exist after capitalism, obviously the productive forces “transcend” capitalism. Human needs and wants are rooted in both human biology and human society and the pursuit of those needs and wants is the fundamental driving force towards development of the “productive forces.” This reality is why we can speak abstractly or generally, in a kind of short hand, about developing the productive forces or the contradiction between said “”forces” and the relations of production yet still say something meaningful. In this case, the desire of people to live, the motive for developing productive forces, doesn’t mean the threat of the tipping points briefly described in the post above don’t matter. Harking back like this is a kind of non sequitur, or maybe it’s a category error? In my direct comment on the post I said fairly clearly population (aka productive forces) can collapse, irrevocably. Now as usual I will be unoriginal: We face a choice between socialism or barbarism, even if the future seems to move at glacial speeds…until it doesn’t.
Reality is concrete. The specific analysis has to address the material specifics and rest on an abstract and general level which acts more as a framing for searching for answers to given problems (including what constitutes a meaningful problem in the first place,) rather than the answer. I do not think the PRC has tamed or regulated or greened capitalism so that it can solve the world’s problems. Win-win deals and multipolarity won’t save the west Antarctic ice sheet from collapse. I don’t think capitalism has a future, it has increasing failure overall, even if local spots look healthy and bright. There’s a lot of ruin in a planet, to paraphrase somebody (Edward Gibbon? Adam Smith?) I don’t think even capitalism with a human face under a suitably pragmatic and civic. multi-class national authority (not to say, Confucian?) will serve. I especially don’t think an anti-Maoist CPC is able to save capitalism, which I still don’t think is humanity, no more than a religious commitment to demonizing Cromwell or Robespierre or Thomas Muentzer or Washington or Lincoln saves democracy. (Of course no one else agrees with that.)
.”And this situation is clear: at the present day of the development of the productive forces (of ‘human civilization’, in idealist terminology), humans cannot afford to not use oil. It is present in too many things we need to survive civilizationally. There is no ideology or higher purpose behind it: it simply is.” But these tipping points threaten us civilizationally, In my comment, I noted that the people being annihilated were not likely to rise up and take resources from the fortunate survivors. If I wasn’t clear, the likelihood is that the fortunate survivors will attack the poor first, to preserve their wealth and power, then fight each other when threatened with the loss of their position. That is, the face of environmental catastrophe will look like war. I believe we are in a hybrid form of WWIII already because of the decadence of capitalism. The material decadence of imperialist exploitation of the biosphere is possibly already at work. Civilization need not survive the terminal stage of imperialism.
But, but, but….as my comment already noted, everyone knows, even those who don’t want to say it out loud, that extermination of populations is an imperialist solution. We’ve already seen that historically. The difference between vk and me is that I don’t think blind optimism, which is what I see in vk’s comments, is sufficient. The organizational questions of world revolution are beyond me personally and too off topic for this site as well. But although I think a different strategy than more capitalism is urgently needed, I too think that the solution to ecological polycrisis is not an assault on the mass of humanity. Thus, I stand with vk in opposition to the cynical declaration of Anti-Capital that socialism is irrelevant.
@ stevenjohnson – “December 19, 2023 at 4:20 pm”
Humans (in the sense of Humanity, the idealist “Man”) are not a productive force. This is a philosophical error.
Humans cannot be a productive force (let alone “the primary”) because, if you postulate that, you are admitting there’s something human outside humans, or, in idealist terms, that humans can transcend themselves while also being humans.
We can say that, in the capitalist system, the working class are factors of production — indeed, that was what the classical (political) economists from Ricardo backwards considered them to be. But that arises from alienation of labor, not from the fact that the reason-to-be of the human is to produce something. Therefore, it is the human-as-a-proletarian that can be considered the “primary productive force”, not humans (let alone Humanity) in general. Marx explained why labor is absolutely alienated in capitalism in German Ideology, the first part, where he differentiates “natural property” (basically, simplifying a lot: those that arise from direct monopoly of land) from the typical capitalist property (basically: industry).
Humans in general (“Man”; “Mankind”) do not have any purpose. We only have purpose because we, ourselves, are human. Purpose is something humans, in society (because the objective historical conditions are given when we are born, we are not the proverbial Adam & Eve), impose on ourselves. This imposition, long story short, is History at its most “macro” level. That’s one of Marx’s great “eureka” moments, that the idealists didn’t notice or didn’t want to notice: to the idealists, Man was, at the same time (dialectically) the Everything and the Nothing; the Nothing that came out of Nothing; the Everything that came out of Nothing. That’s why Marx correctly stated that idealism was, deep down, just the Christian Bible in a secular form; the attempt to prove God is real in pure philosophical terms.
Apparently this got lost in the ether. Apologies for any duplicates.
SJ: ” I too think that the solution to ecological polycrisis is not an assault on the mass of humanity. Thus, I stand with vk in opposition to the cynical declaration of Anti-Capital that socialism is irrelevant.”
Wow. Not only am I cynical but apparently I advocate an assault on the mass of humanity? Well, Mr. Johnson can stand where and with whom he likes. It is, after all a free….blogosphere.
However before I’m referred to the international criminal court for cynicism and assorted crimes against humanity… several points:
1. VK’s original statement is : ” It [oil] will continue to be extracted without limits in socialism.”
And this is done because of the need to develop “productive forces,” His follow up post is just so much boiler plate served up for what it is– an ideological response to a concrete issue.
2. Marx’s work, essentially revolutionary critique, (positivist spins to the contrary notwithstanding), is not a theory of the development of the productive forces, but rather an analysis of the possibilities and requirements for the emancipation of human social labor. These, productive forces and the emancipation social labor, are interrelated but NOT identical. The point of socialism is precisely to achieve that emancipation by subordinating development of the productive forces to “reason”–social reason, or the collective decision making of human laborers.
3. I find it hard to reconcile VKs original and follow up statements with any recognition on his part of the primacy of that emancipation and frankly, I believe the “blind spot” that produces statements that “It will be extracted without limits in socialism” is exactly that– a blind spot to the key issue. If, after all, continued extraction of oil “without limits” destroys water resources, poisons the air, and raises global temperature, it certainly seems such a course is antithetical to the emancipation of human labor and the reproduction of the conditions of that emancipation.
4. The blind spot is of course “developmentalism” where all and everything can be excused, justified, supported in the name of “advancement of the productive forces.” It, developmentalism, is an ideology that is used to endorse a “socialism” that mimics, apes, capitalism in its subjugation of labor to a religious icon–“growth.” This is not to endorse “small is beautiful” nostalgia. It is simply the recognition that, replacement of a property relation is necessary but NOT sufficient to solve all problems of HUMAN growth as the record of the “real socialisms”–fSU, China, readily proves.
5. I make no apology for my reference to the greatest rock n roll band in rock n roll history, The Who,. In reality “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is not all that cynical. Rock n roll saved my life, cynicism and all. God Save the Queen.
Apparently, just 1% (one percent) of the US population are responsible for 50% of all the greenhouse gases emitted by out of control capitalism and they’ll keep on doing it until either, the ecosphere expires and us along with it or, we destroy capitalism and will that future socialism limit the consumption of our finite resources and give Nature the chance to recover? What we do know is that imperialism will never stop, it’s incapable. It’s driven by forces it barely comprehends.
@ Anti-Capital (December 20, 2023 at 6:34 pm)
[1.] & [3.] The issue of oil extraction is purely practical, not philosophical: there are simply to many use values humans need today that use oil as its main ingredient for its consumption to fall, let alone cease. As far as I know, there is no perspective os fully subsituting oil for the forseeable future. What may happen (big “if”) is we develop nuclear fusion and cease to need to consume fossil fuels — but oil is useful for a lot more than fossil fuels. This is what the Greens don’t understand: their agenda is purely practical, not philosophical; there’s no theory behind oil substitution. You cannot go very far politically without a program unless it is an ideology of decline (e.g. degrowth in Japan; post-apocalyptic theories in the USA).
[2.] In purely philosophical terms, the development of the productive forces is a conditio sine qua non to achieve communism. It is the material base of emancipation of labor. Surely, History is not linear: there may be some periods where there is undevelopment — but the tendency must be always for its development. Of course that Marx’s philosophy explains everything; however, he was interested in changing the world, not merely describing it — that’s why he didn’t waste time on apocalyptic, back-to-the-Stone-Age scenarios in History (which were easily intuitive to the idealist philosopher of his time either way and the first socialists and communists). See, e.g. the part where Marx exposes Max Stirner’s conception of communism as merely the romanticization of the feudal shire.
[4.] You’re going from the wrong philosophical premise. “Developmentalism” would only equal the development of the productive forces if, as @stevenjohnson did, you consider humans as mere factors of production, i.e. the alienated human (from its own labor). But that would not be the scenario in communism. Your take is an idealist take, not a Marxist one.
vk doubles down. To me it is clear that humans like every other animal organism have the “purpose” of living, which requires for the species reproduction. This encounter with nature, aka “production,” may or may not be a transcendence of something. But it seems rather more a sublation of humanity as natural, embedded in material reality, the opposite of claims of transcendence. But again, my formal education is largely history and natural science so perhaps vk is correct on the philosophy. Still, in the boldness of my ignorance, I will say it seems to me entirely wrong to claim that idealist notions of “Man” treat material life as essential to human nature.
In the first comment, Anti-Capital wrote “And of course there is an established history of the predominance of oil extraction has impeded the development of productive forces–as the resulting environmental impacts make large areas literally uninhabitable with the exhaustion and pollution of land and water. And no, socialism won’t automatically correct that.” But the tipping points have not tipped yet, no matter how indignant Anti-Capital is that socialists rape nature too. Hundreds of millions of people live because of abundant energy. But the target of this falsehood is not capitalism, but socialism. This may strike an objective reader presuming that socialism has been ruling the world and thus has responsibility but any stick is good to beat a horse, right? As Paine said of Burke’s horror at the French Revolution, he pities the plumage but forgets the dying bird. And for what it’s worth, the Manifesto had some words about easy Christian asceticism.
Anti-Capital doubles down in the follow up comment. “It is simply the recognition that, replacement of a property relation is necessary but NOT sufficient to solve all problems of HUMAN growth as the record of the ‘real socialisms’–fSU, China, readily proves.” Supposedly “it” is the emancipation of social labor by somebody, someday, somehow, details unnecessary given the purpose is to criticize socialism. But the thing is, poverty is not the emancipation of labor, it is the opposite. Developmentalism as the idea that power over nature—-which I emphasize again means obeying nature (not an original thought, I don’t do those)—is freedom. Freedom and power are a unity in life, however separate in metaphysics. And so is development of the productive forces, first and foremost people—again, I’m not prescribing a law of population!—and the emancipation of labor, however useful an arbitrary metaphysical distinction is to an attack on socialism.
Repetition is tedious, but there’s no avoiding it. Sometimes.
Note: The objection is to VK’s claim that petroleum will continue to be extracted without limits in socialism. The objection is not to what is determined to be essential petroleum production under socialism. SJ takes VK a step further and decides that an objection to unlimited petroleum production is a stalking horse, concealing an hostility to socialism because it is pointed out that ecological damage occurred also during the regimes of “real” socialism.
A. There is no need for petroleum to be produced without limitation under conditions of socialism when and where technology is directed to reducing said production by establishing effective substitutes — energy supplies that are more socially efficient, costing socially less in terms of reproducibility when all costs, including those borne by the environment are included. This includes the question of development. For example, in the railroad industry, coal fired steam boiler propulsion systems were replaced by diesel-electric mode locomotives as energy use was more efficient and allowed a single locomotive engineer to electrically control multiple locomotives. And as of 20 years ago, the last time I checked, the SECOND largest single consumer of petroleum was the US’s Union Pacific Railroad. Now is it necessary that all railroads in developing countries follow this Union Pacific model? When catenary systems feeding energy from the overhead wire systems have been shown to be more efficient for dense operations than having every locomotive carry its own supply of diesel oil? When advances in battery technology are already powering switching locomotives? When the advance of the means or forces of production means precisely the once called “devaluation” that will be accurately identified as the actual superseding of the former and existing forces of production? Of course not.
Natural gas use for energy generation in the US already exceeds the amount generated by coal, and the US EIA projects that the amount generated from wind and solar will soon exceed that of coal .
There is no need to present the use of petroleum as somehow ahistorical and….metaphysical, separated from the mode that subordinates use to profit, and preserves profit by unloading the true costs on the rest of the environment, social and natural.
B. We now the truth to SJ’s “definition” of “Western Marxist”– it’s Marxism that insists that Marx’s “merciless criticism of everything in existence” applies even when that everything includes “real socialism.” Arguing that “real socialism” was not quite so real or socialist is not anti-communism.
Repetition is indeed tedious. I have not given a definition of western Marxism that I recall. If Anti-Capital speculates I tend to see western Marxism as academic productions promoted precisely because they are anti-Communist in political aim, while posturing as true liberation, like Anti-Capital does, then Anti-Capital’s ox is gored and bellowing loudly. (By the way, safely dead revolutionaries who can’t argue with their alleged disciples’ reactionary politics are favorites canonization as True Marxists for that reason, I suspect.) Anyone reading my comments rather than Anti-Capital’s rendition of them will see I have considerable disagreements with vk. Formally, some of them are shared with Anti-Capital. But agreement with me is impossible I think because Anti-Capital’s real issue is to attack all real world efforts at socialism as impure, falsely equivalent to the status quo. It is precisely because I also reject the anti-Communist politics that Anti-Capital cannot separate me from vk.
Anti-Capital in mimicking real argument gives an example from railroading. At one point, Anti-Capital remarks that electric wires (“catenary”) are energy efficient in “dense” applications. That’s because of losses from power transmission of course (science nerding again, sorry.) The thing is, as I’ve already pointed out (though Anti-Capital wouldn’t know this) there are many countries with low population densities. What happens to those people when Anti-Capital takes away their fuel engines? Anti-Capital doesn’t care, which is why between Anti-Capital and vk, it’s vk.
Further, the talk about batteries? The environmental damage from mining battery materials and from battery waste is unknown. There are scaling issues. Enough batteries to power the world is a difference proposition from the number of batteries used now. As it is, mining of coltan (capacitors are effectively “batteries” in economics, being electrical storage devices) is already implicated in the ongoing social catastrophe of the great Congo war, another issue I doubt Anti-Capital cares about, it being so much more important to ruthlessly criticize the alleged socialism. What will be involved in revising the world to produce even more coltan and cobalt for literal batteries rather than capacitators and for that matter lithium and rare earths for photovoltaic cells? Microplastics are alarming enough, how much of these metals are we going to add to the biosphere without creating a whole new problem? There are a lot of people with a lot of energy needs.
Plus, Anti-Capital artfully insinuates that technological advances are imminent. Well vk can just as easily and fairly imagine cheap and effective carbon capture and storage tech that can economically work at point production, like fossil fuel power plants.
Plus of course, batteries/capacitators are only green—less green than oil production by the way so far as direct environmental damage from the extraction process itself!—they are only green when the power source is environmentally safe. That means, technically, not just net carbon dioxide emitting but all the environmental effects. There’s a reason why Anti-Capital anti-Communists also reject socialism for building dams, even though hydroelectric does not emit carbon dioxide. The plants drowned don’t recapture carbon dioxide so the net effects of course depend on rather specific details, including the excess human population inflicted on beautiful Nature by hydroelectric power artificially and ruinously increased by socialist misplanning. (Yes, that’s sarcasm, because I really don’t think Anti-Capital values human life in general, but values spiritual liberation—from the flesh, apparently.) The whole discussion about batteries is misconceived. The example is not very relevant!
These kinds of scaling problems and hugely multifarious interconnections can be viewed in two ways: One is to conclude only the market, private initiative, can solve the problems and that socialism can only make the whole thing worse. Maybe that’s what Anti-Capital believes but my best judgment the history of population collapse in the past and the scientific evidence about processes taking place right now that will not magically disappear means this is ideologically driven nonsense. The other way is to conclude that planning is ultimately the prerequisite to maintenance of the human population in the long run (on our own terms, whatever levels that may be decided upon?) In practical political terms, relentless wrong criticisms of socialism is part of the problem, not the solution. Perhaps Anti-Capital never troubled to think this through because the fate of most of humanity just isn’t as important as the fate of the Earth.
If you want to argue against planning on the grounds it is impossible, and you accept the obvious, that imperialist markets can’t, then the environmental argument is not against socialism. That’s just Anti-Capital’s interest in it. The argument is against industrial civilization in general. The problem there is that technologically primitive civilization and cultures can disappear with hardly a trace. Even in the short term, massive population reductions raise the issue, who gets reduced? There we have the fascist solution, which to me are no solutions at all.
Not to mention EXPLODING batteries!!! In several ships carrying 100s of new EVs, the batteries have caught fire and ships have sunk (yet more pollution!) and as stevenjohnson points out, where do these rare earth elements come from? In Europe, the largest source of Lithium is the Donbass! And there is no way of recycling the millions of useless batteries filled with all kinds of lethal chemicals. In other words EVs are ‘business as usual’ for capitalism, the Earth (and us) yet again pays the price. And I might add, that an article in the Guardian (of all places) revealed that the production of EVs produces even more CO2 than petrol engines, so whose fooling who here? I see that China is the largest producer of EVs, so what are they going to do with the dead batteries?
SJ: I have not given a definition of western Marxism that I recall.
Except he had less than a month ago, in response to my question re what identifies “Western Marxism”:
stevenjohnson
November 26, 2023 at 6:18 pm
Neither vk nor mandm here, but the question as to what is common to those listed are variously commitment to revising Marxism, whether in favor of Hegel or psychoanalysis or whatever; rejection of Marxian critique of political economy as necessary to their personal critique, whatever that was; hostility to all states claiming to be socialists; refusal to engage in a political party; an academic life and position; denies centrality of imperialism in analyzing the international; never a part of a revolution. Likely enough no single one of these shares every one of these features but only Soboul to my knowledge wasn’t in the end an anti-Communist. Admittedly my understanding of Weisbord as the greater prophet than Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky isn’t really based on first hand study…but he was too sectarian for the Trotskyists!
____________
That might be a honest mistake. I’m no stranger to short-term memory loss myself. The rest of SJ’s attack however is not honest. It’s simply smear based on assumptions, distortions, and evasions.
Evasions? Yes, for the concrete question that apparently put SJ’s knickers in a twist is simply — who agrees with VK’s assertion the petroleum will continue to be extracted without limits in socialism? That’s the question SJ, and others won’t engage.
So will petroleum be extracted without limits under socialism, when socialism means first and foremost that the forces of production have been developed to the point that systemic underdevelopment of countries, regions has been mitigated at least to the point that the remaining differences are not the result of ongoing exploitation or vectors for the rebirth of classes?
Yes or no? SJ, Barovsky, anyone who is interested in something other than proving I’m anti-communist?
In 2022, 139 billion cubic meters of natural gas were flared off from petroleum extraction. Enough energy is flared off each year to alone satisfy the energy needs of sub-Saharan Africa. Not all sources of petroleum vent the same mass of the NG at the same rate, and indeed there exists a secondary market where petroleum extractors sell-off high flaring assets to others, if the economics of the extraction do not support the suppression of emission for an operator. Now will high flare per barrel extraction sites be allowed to operate under socialism? No? Well, that’s a limitation.
Socialism is supposed to mean the rational subjugation of production to need and use. There is no carte blanche given to any sector of production.
Who here really believes that petroleum extraction will continue without limitation when production for the purposes of accumulation of value is abolished?
While SJ gets off distorting what is, and is not, stated in order to prove anti-communism, he is actually following some deep footprints– of those who think the law of value continues to determine the allocation of social labor time under, not conditions of transition, or of the DOTP, but under “real socialism.” Or maybe I’m wrong, maybe the law of value, based on the reproduction of labor as a class of laborers exchanging their time for wages, persists “without limitation in socialism” as a sort of Proudhonian utopia– where socialism is just capitalism without the capitalists.
“Yes or no? SJ, Barovsky, anyone who is interested in something other than proving I’m anti-communist?”
As I’ve never made a comment about Anti-Capital’s alleged anti-communism, why am I lumped in?
There are no limitations *in principle* to oil production in socialism. It is not the goal of socialism to purify humanity of excessive luxury, to discipline it in order to create a (mythical) pristine Nature free from humanity’s corrupting touch. There is instead a powerful presumption that any transition will involve considerable use of oil and natural gas because sacrificing people to the morally superior Nature is no part of socialism. Which is to say, there are limitations to cutting oil production in the way desired.
It seems to me Anti-Capital’s objections are meant to be limitations in principle, which is why Anti-Capital can’t accept a transitional period, not even to argue vk is incorrectly elevating a practical refusal to immediately punish the mass of humanity for crimes against Nature (literally in this case,) into a blanket principle. And then argue vk is underestimating the practical need for some sort of urgent transition because excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is both immediate destruction of the productive forces and mass death as well, thus not a goal of socialism. If your purpose is to promote a vision of socialism as social discipline of man’s fleshly appetites, this indifference to valid criticisms makes perfect sense. By contrast, an uncharitable reading of vk as literally meaning increased oil production makes no sense. vk is reluctant to prescribe/describe the socialist future, which is not any part of exclaiming “drill, drill, drill” is the socialist slogan of tomorrow. And vk is very apt to laud the current PRC leadership which is right now actively engaged in some efforts at green energy. Reading vk as insisting on increased oil instead is claiming vk’s implicit criticism of the PRC leadership is the natural understanding of vk.
But I’m the one who criticizes current PRC leadership, not vk, nor in my estimation, does Anti-Capital, who simply rejects any actually existing socialism as failure to live up to the inarguable ideals being gifted to us. Anti-Capital wrote “socialism means first and foremost that the forces of production have been developed to the point that systemic underdevelopment of countries, regions has been mitigated at least to the point that the remaining differences are not the result of ongoing exploitation or vectors for the rebirth of classes…” Given that imperialism and the general decadence of capitalism have been blocking the development of the productive forces (which in my erroneous view—vk says—-is the same as blocking human development, factors of production being a part of material life, even if they are also humans) waiting for the sufficiency of production before “we” get enlightened and choose True Socialism. I would say, absolute retrogression of the productive forces is an issue, hence the need for a philosophy that elevates Nature above people, even if they are part of nature too. Anyhow, at this point, I’m not sure Anti-Capital has much grasp of what exploitation is. I don’t think anyone could have much grasp of how regional differences can be “vectors” for the rebirth of classes, either.
Anti-Capital seems to think that socialism must forbid oil drilling if there is a large natural gas emission. Given that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, I think socialism will require that all emissions be captured as much as physically possible, regardless of the profitability to, well, the unregulated local firm, which doesn’t seem to fit the question, but maybe that’s me. There is something too about enough energy lost to power sub-Saharan Africa. This may be true given the poverty of sub-Saharan Africa. But I think a socialist should see that as a problem to correct (increasing the use of energy, by the way) rather than an ideal for the whole world to aspire to! And is the insinuation in context sub-Saharan Africa is somehow exploited by wasted flare off? Again, I’m not at all sure Anti-Capital understands what exploitation is. Aside from not reading vk as literally as Anti-Capital insists, this sort of indifference to people is why on this I favor vk over Anti-Capital, regardless of grammar. (Especially given that English may not be vk’s first language.)
In a would be gotcha! moment, Anti-Capital asks “Who here really believes that petroleum extraction will continue without limitation when production for the purposes of accumulation of value is abolished?” I believe that petroleum extraction for the purposes of human welfare will continue. To stop drilling for more oil when people have enough is in any meaningful sense of the word a “limitation.”
“Socialism is supposed to mean the rational subjugation of production to need and use. There is no carte blanche given to any sector of production.” Neither is there any veto or prohibilition given, not at this level of abstraction! It would be an irrational subjugation of production against need and use to cut petroleum production heedless of its role in keeping people alive. (That is what vk meant by talking of “civilizational” importance, by the way.)
As to the law of value, Anti-Capital’s understanding of that, like vk’s philosophy of the productive forces, is simply beyond my understanding. I do think the material expenditures in production must in the long run transform previously existing materials and the end products constitute some of the materials for new production, or be wasted. But this seems to me more like acknowledging the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws of thermodynamics and so on, rather than a moral proposition. This continuity of matter and energy by the way is one of the forgotten meanings of “equilibrium” in some of the quotations from Marx. (I think.) The actual political economy is not an equilibrium system in the economists’ sense. (I think, again.) And the rationality of a socialist political economy will never consist in ignoring this kind of physical necessity. (Yet again, I think.) I think that like capitalism, the transition to socialism cannot be physically instantaneous, because “socialism” is a material social formation, not a conversion experience, and looking for it instantly is as foolish as looking for saints. (To be really boring, I think.)
Last, literally first, but definitely least, I really thought of my description of western Marxists from a list—-if I recall correctly, which is not a given!—written by Anti-Capital was not so much a definition of western Marxist as an observation about what vk, mandm and even Anti-Capital meant. Even then, I thought “variously” and “no one” suggested that it wasn’t even clear “western Marxism” is truly a thing, not a school at all, just an amalgamation. Thus, declaring oneself a western Marxist or insisting on taking them seriously is like certifying yourself an anti-Communist. The real issue I suspect is that I thought Anti-Capital’s list was mostly bad examples.
SJ: “There are no limitations *in principle* to oil production in socialism. It is not the goal of socialism to purify humanity of excessive luxury, to discipline it in order to create a (mythical) pristine Nature free from humanity’s corrupting touch. There is instead a powerful presumption that any transition will involve considerable use of oil and natural gas because sacrificing people to the morally superior Nature is no part of socialism. Which is to say, there are limitations to cutting oil production in the way desired.
It seems to me Anti-Capital’s objections are meant to be limitations in principle,”
_________________________________________
To my recollection I have never claimed that there are limitations “in principle” to oil production. SJ flips the script when the objection is in fact to VK’s assertion that are no limitations period on the extraction of oil in socialism, as VK claims unlimited production is an immutable necessity to the “development” of the “productive forces.”
Given SJ’s repeated distortion, I can only include his is deliberate.
There will be of course limitations on such production– based on necessity and total social (including environmental cost) as opposed to today where the limitations are based on profit and the ability to “slough” off the costs onto the social environment.
SJ raises objections to my citing examples of technological advance that can reduce the need for petroleum extraction, but has no problem ‘wishing’ such technological advances in remedying the costs of unlimited extraction i.e. the capture of what is now treated as “waste” natural gas. Again the social cost of such technology may rule against its “unlimited” application to low output wells.
Rather than deal with the real original question, SJ paints the questioner as anti-humanity, anti-communist, anti-development, anti-socialist a la Trump– throwing the plate of shit spaghetti against the wall and hoping something sticks, or that at least enough noise is generated to distract..
Will there be “unlimited production” of any material in socialism. Of course not, Production will be based on need and the required expenditure of time and effort, and the social impact of production. This applies to locomotives, shoes, semaglutide, ethanol, coconut water, petroleum. Unrestricted production, that is production regardless of need or cost is not a socialist principle.
Might petroleum production increase? Certainly it might, if the production satisfies needs without the total social cost becoming insupportable– which means by definition that governing principle is that such limits exist– not because the natural resource is limited, or because development is unnecessary but because resources and development are subject to social “reason.” Those quantities “sanctioned” by limits will change over time, but the principle will remain. The “forces of production” are not a thing unto itself; without measurement or management.
This is not the first time I’ve explained this and I’m sure it’s not the last time SJ distorts it.
Note to Barovsky: You’re included because you ignored the initial argument that precipitated the thread. Apologies for your hurt feelings
So since September the temperature is 1.7 above base line and this is before El Nino and Solar 25 peaks next year. There is a clear upward trend. Summer 24 is going to be hell. In the UK the NHS Estate is unfit for purpose so are all the care homes. During COVID a ventilator crisis occurred now an aircon crisis. This time there are no vaccinations against heat stroke, or lockdowns.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said ‘never again’ when the Pandemic broke. And here we are again. Never again means getting rid of the system that repeatedly plunges society into crisis and is therefore unfit for purpose, capitalism.
Just thought I should mention that the International Energy Agency is a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry and that its forecasts have been drastically wrong for each of the last 20 years. For obvious reasons, it constantly underestimates the speed of take up of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, along with electrical transportation, and the storage of electric power in batteries. On the other hand, forecasters such as Tony Seba who have adopted a dialectical approach towards technological change based on historical data, have correctly forecast the growth of solar, wind, electrical transportation and batteries since 2010, all of which are being driven by rapidly falling prices. According to Seba’s forecasts, 90% of global energy requirements will be met by renewables by 2040 if not earlier. Not the 2060 or longer forecasts of the IEA.
Unfortunately, the United Nations climate community have continuously based their assumptions on the IEA forecasts. This is like basing your calculations on information provided by your enemy!
Interestingly, one leading climate scientist after another is expressing surprise at the much faster takeup of solar wind and batteries than they expected. But they are still using IEA forecasts. Duh!