Larry Elliott is the Guardian's economics editor. He is beming ever more strident on the need for reform to tackle climate change. This morning he says:
Winning the race against time [to combat climate change] requires political leadership. It means acknowledging that the Chinese model of managed and directed capitalism might be more appropriate than the Anglo-Saxon model. A massive scaling up of investment in clean technology is needed, because the $300bn spent on decarbonisation worldwide last year merely matched the cost of the losses in the US from climate and weather-related events. It also means scaling up the lending of the World Bank and the regional development banks to help poorer countries build wind and solar capacity. And a global carbon tax set high enough so that fossil fuels remain in the ground must be implemented.
And, more than anything, it means accepting that the world needs to wage war against climate change. Powerful vested interests will say there is plenty of time to act, and they are aided by climate-change deniers who say there is nothing to worry about. These people need to be called out. They are not deniers, they are climate-change appeasers. And they are just as dangerously misguided as fascism's appeasers in the 1930s.
It is only fair to add that Larry and I are both members of the Green New Deal group, but this, as far as I know, has no influence on what he is writing here.
What he is saying is pretty fundamental. It's not just that the model of capitalism we have is bust. We all know that. But he is suggesting there is a compelling reason for changing it.
People can, and do, live with bust relationships for years. We are with Anglo Saxon capitalism. People do that because they cannot think of anything better. So they live with least worst.
But Larry is saying there may be something better. I am not wholly convinced China has all the answers. I very much doubt Larry does either. But the point is that there has to be something a lot better than what we have now. And climate change gives us every reason to change.
I suggest we get on with it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
In the West we need to be exceedingly wary about what the Chinese tell us and judge them primarily on their actions. After all there isn’t an independent free press in China to challenge the utterances from the single party state machine:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterious-source-of-illegal-ozone-killing-emissions-revealed-say-investigators
Absolutely right Schofield. There isn’t an independent free press here either.
@ John Adams
“Absolutely right Schofield. There isn’t an independent free press here either.”
Not an entirely accurate remark is it John? You managed to say it!
“Absolutely right Schofield. There isn’t an independent free press here either.”
Not an entirely accurate remark is it John? You managed to say it!”
Steady-on ,’boys’ !
Yes, we have a an independent (of the official State) free press. It happens to be the easiest form of press to control and is essential in a democracy,……. if the ‘ruling elite’ are to be able control public information, and the political agenda. (BBC impartiality is a part of the same system, but manipulated rather differently.)
If we had an actual State run media we would at least have a media that no-one would trust implicitly. As things are we have propaganda and distorted agendas masquerading as ‘fact’ in a field where there aren’t very many facts.
That John can say what he said is hardly evidence for a free press, since this blog is alternative and almost impossible to control and springs entirely as a benefit of the internet and world wide web. (Yes Tax Research could be shut down just like that, but other sources and platforms would spring forth like heads on the Hydra.)
Current moves to try and gain control of content, starting with social media platforms, is the beginnings of government interference (at whose behest I wonder? ) with the people’s platform in my opinion. I view this trend on the basis of a bit of attempted election rigging as largely manipulated and a source of concern.
If the likes of the BBC are going to play silly buggers with intellectual property rights (as in the case of the recent attack (that’s what it was) on Wings over Scotland, we are going to have to have a serious re-evaluation of when something has entered the public domain and the originator has lost rights of possession (and rent-seeking opportunity, which at bottom is what intellectual property is about)
No piece of intellectual property is exclusively the work of the person who registers ownership. No idea ever existed in isolation from what was known before. And who can claim ownership of words and musical notes….all the words and notes that went before, arranged in manifold ways. Where’s the quid pro quo payment to the public purse for the use of common property of culture?
Intellectual property is theft in the same way that material property is theft.
Time we maybe got real about the deceit of the evergrowing rent seeking hoards who would claim ownership of the air we breathe if only they knew how to.
“judge them primarily on their actions”. A fair point. China recently restarted work on 47 Gigawatts worth of coal stations – thus negating the totality of EU efforts in de-carb of the power sector – so much for Chinese de-carb efforts. The 47GW is needed to keep economic expansion on track (& avoid power shortages). Thus showing where Chinese priorities lie.
Elliot’s points about “managed capitalisim” are fair enough – but he fails to deal with the fianancing of the energy transition – which needs, as Richard notes, some sort of “Green New Deal” which in my view needs to be project focused – with delivery of projects being the remit of companies (which could be a mix of private and possibly public). The current global spend of $300 bn needs to be more like $3 trillion & possibly $10 trillion.
I honestly think the future of the battle of ideas is between a reformed EU model of ‘social Europe’ with a social market economy once we start winning elections on that model in Europe, and the Chinese model of one-party state capitalism. The more we can convince democratic electorates in Europe to accept a model of a ‘social Europe’ in theory written into the Treaty of the European Union, with the Social Market Economy, the better. States can and should own utilities, infrastructure – and critically some of the supportive institutions like development banks, and even some manufacturing if the private sector isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do due to vested interests. Guidelines on SOEs across Europe (see Sweden, Finland) do give reasons for state ownership under many conditions, not just market failures but also under strategic assets.
Agreed
The following article describes the depressing reality of Western Climate Change action via the Market.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-16/canada-u-k-plan-the-first-carbon-trades-in-paris-climate-deal?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business
The amazing aspect to this is:
1. A disasterous history of Neoliberal economic ‘market solutions’ is presented yet there is no accompanying or self-reflective criticism. For example, take a look at the graph of the ‘Carbon Price’ over time and note that the cost per tonne needs to be close to $250 per tonne to be in an effective range (I can supply links).
2. The scale of the commitment by the various countries in relation to the scale of the challenge. Trillions of dollars / pounds are required (can provide justification) yet the sums discussed are 100-1,000 fold lower.
3. The metrics being designed to measure Carbon Dioxide actions worthy of credits have previously been ‘gamed’ and are discredited (can provide links to EU reports). The ‘new’ methods for quantifying credits look like they will be open to more of the same.
The article, having been written for ‘true-believers’, shows the methods neoliberal economists use to take control of Climate Change actions. If everything has to go through them, we will remain in deep, deep trouble. Unfortunately, they really believe that economics trumps physics. Their actions will baffle politicians and disenfranchise the public.
http://evonomics.com/how-changing-my-economic-model-made-me-a-climate-change-optimist/ This article echoes some of your points re the conventional economic model and its response to climate change.
An item in Business for Scotland http://www.businessforscotland.com/failing-to-address-climate-change-is-like-playing-russian-roulette-even-if-the-climate-skeptics-are-right/ discusses the danger of doing nothing. It makes the point that if we take appropriate action and it was unnecessary (ie sceptics were right) then we may lose a little economic growth but get a cleaner healthier environment in return, but if we do nothing and the 97% of scientists were right then the consequences will be cataclysmic.
Personally, I think nothing serious will be done until the situation is really serious by which time it will be too late – unless we have some kind of (hopefully peaceful) revolution in thinking and action.
Interesting evonomics article. Thanks.
Although the criticism of the economics is well made, I’m worried that the ‘Technological Optimist’ plans are unrealistic.
The biggest technical challenge is not now energy generation or consumption (scalable solutions are available). The challenge is Negative Emissions. Deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) at scale are now essential in virtually every official model to avoid catastrophic Climate Change. However the technologies do not yet exist. Those that have been trialled (e.g. BECCS) have not yet been demonstrated at scale, will compete with food production and may perversely make the climate change worse (can provide refs).
As a Research Scienist, I’m very aware of the challenges in developing new technologies and fear that many members of the public misunderstand the processes. In particular, the time needed to go from concept to realisation. In short, we should not be relying on a Technological Fairy Godmother. She doesn’t exist yet we are now reliant on her benifience.
Normally this sort of stuff quite rightly wouldn’t secure any traction, but, since it chimes with the Lexit (the sunny left-wing uplands of Brexit) view of the world that seems to resonate with the Corbyn/Milne/McDonnell Labour high command, there is a dange this might too.
I have no clue what you are trying to say
“I have no clue what you are trying to say”
I don’t think the writer did either; he was just having a little fulminate against something you said that he can’t be bothered to think about.
No No No No. Go and look up how many coal fired power stations CHina has brought online in the last week/month/year. These sorts of projects are adopted for (i) headlines, (ii) gdp growth potential and (iii) job creation. Any environmental benefits are outweighed by other externalities.
Also consider that in its Japan style debt splurge has resulted in the greatest credit bubble in history. $25 trillion. Chinese style capitalism is neither desirable nor sustainable.
You can now actually see the effects of other states which have signed up to the Chinese model under the One Belt One Road initiative. States like Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Venezuela are in significant debt, the Chinese are taking control of assets and not offering debt forgiveness. In South Eastern Europe Chinese projects are undermining solidarity of your cherished EU and project funding.
Also on the tech side have a look at AliBaba accounts. You will be impressed with the ingenuity (you heard of SInoforest right)? Paul Gillis has an interesting blog on accounting issues in the region.
http://www.chinaaccountingblog.com/
Then there’s the small matter of the claiming of the entire South China Sea. And producing more steel than the rest of the world multiple time over and dumping on global markets.
It is certainly true that there is much to be gained from stepping outside the Euro bubble and considering more dynamic parts of the global economy. But Chinese style capitalism. Be wary.
It’s worth looking at the numbers for CO2 emissions here:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015
Since 1995 China’s emissions have trebled, USA are around the same & UK is 20% lower.
Hang on
Look at emissions per head
The row going on over the Genoa bridge collapse of course helps highlight the dangers of Neoliberal fiscal collars in regard to global warming collapse:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/genoa-bridge-collapse-latest-eu-response-italy-populists-european-commission-juncker-a8494216.html
If global warming is viewed as a threat on a similar level to a global war then human beings know how to mobilise for it. We did it with the Second World War. It’s a matter of political will.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/08/mobilization-and-money.html#more-6200
We will need to do it for infrastructure replacement soon
And greening the economy
Anthropogenic global warming is perhaps the greatest threat to human society as it is currently constituted.
What are we going to do if large areas of the globe become uninhabitable because they are too hot, desertified, or under water? (Or possibly, like the UK might be without the North Atlantic Current, much colder, as the warming will not be evenly distributed.) How are we going to feed ourselves if large areas of agricultural land become less productive? We are leaving our grandchildren a legacy of economic disruption, social disorder, and conflict.
The changes to address it adequately are on the scale of the Second World War. That does not necessarily mean Communist style five year plans – somehow, the UK and US and other places managed to maintain broadly based market economics even while focusing on the “war effort” – but it does mean muscular state intervention to set the agenda and make it happen. Everyone knows that prevention is better than cure. (If a cure is available: how to we re-freeze the permafrost? or do we put methane deposits back on the sea bed?)
(Another analogy: with sufficient political will and financial backing, NASA put men on the moon, but the equipment was built by outside contractors.)
I fear G Hewitt is right. We are going to ignore it or deny it for as long as possible, and do too little until it is too late.
Andrew says:
“I fear G Hewitt is right. We are going to ignore it or deny it for as long as possible, and do too little until it is too late.”
It has often intrigued me that Darwin’s wonderful insight into the way evolution works through natural selection doesn’t seem to apply to weeding out stupidity.
The biggest difficulty his early audience had in grasping the idea of selective evolution was timescale. Best guesses supported by theological experts estimated the Earth to be about six thousand years old. (We can laugh about it now, but it was widely believed to be true)
We don’t, as a short lived species, have an easy grasp of geological time. Maybe global anthropogenic climate change is the sign of an impending selective pressure ‘designed’ to wipe out stupidity in a single stroke (?)
We will be a lightning-fast blooming and fading in terms compared to the flowering of the dinosaurs we regard ourselves as being so superior to.
Cue for a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2PBmnI-uh8
Good song
Militarisation comes first before fiscal collars and global warming. The United States has substantially increased its deficit spending for the militarisation of space to combat China’s and Russia’s programmes in this area. The Republican Party has, of course, fallen silent on this and Trump’s tax cuts which substantially benefit the wealthy!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/trump-budget-deficits-growing-big-spending-fiscal-irresponsibility/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/space-force-plan-us-military-trump-mike-pence-details-a8485106.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/politics/house-passes-defense-bill-space-corps/index.html
And Trump, when the US should be leading, has set his administration against mitigation, has had a bonfire of regulation (contributing to CO2 emissions) reduced investment in and research on renewable technologies, telling the coal miners they’re back in business (America First) etc etc. What hope is there?
Democracy
Larry getting more strident on tackling climate change?
And yet he voted Leave alongside all those rabble rousing rightwing AGW deniers?
I know this isn’t tackling the argument here but jeez it’s frustrating to see such cognitive dissonance on display.
Larry’s view that China’s state managed capitalism is a viable option is understandable given the condition Western democracy is in at the present time. Where is the coherent leadership in the West on this issues? I don’t see any. All I see is the those concerned about climate change still banging on windows and being ignored or at worst denigrated.
The fact that Larry is talking about China in this way tells us how bad things really are in the West. Here we are burdened by BREXIT when we should be re-orienteering the the EU as Matti suggests and kicking out the neo-liberalism it has adopted.
China has problems of its own. In the West we underestimate what a huge country it is. It is rife with corruption and the State architecture has not always kept up with the darker ‘animal forces’ in the markets it has enabled.
China really is a transitional state – it is still learning and adapting – and it’s green leanings could still go either way.
One way of visualising the likely effects of climate change is through maps. Danny Dorling, who is a geographer, has many maps in his latest book, “Peak Inequality”, redrawn to show how unequal the UK is on a number of measures. There is also a map which his collaborator, Ben Hennig, has drawn, with land areas proportional to population, to illustrate how some of the places which are most populous are also the most low-lying and in danger of flooding if, or more likely when, sea levels rise.
http://geographical.co.uk/places/mapping/item/1268-people-and-the-sea
A friend is dean of Nottingham Universitiy’s Business school at Ningbo near Shanghai. Coincidentally he just sent me a bunch of slides from a 5 month programme they have just finished for 150 managers from the worlds biggest train manufacturer (Chinese). Big focus on Green Economy as key to business success.
Biggest manufacturer and installer of wind turbines and solar panels. For all their undoubted problems, they are taking this seriously.
I agree
No one says Chinas has all the answers
It’s wrong to say Larry did
He was discussing whether we could survive without direction of the economy
It might be salutary to remember that China (and India too) finds itself, from an historical perspective, in a unusual situation as a “developing country”. For much of history China was “top” nation having a large proportion of world GDP, for example, while Europe did what it did best, fight each other. Then the likes of the UK had a great leap forward and with superior weaponry subjected China, India and others to destructive colonialism and extraction of wealth which set them back enormously both economically and socially.
And, the map referenced above show how much and how many in China is at risk of devastating flooding as sea-levels rise. Maybe they’ve twigged?
[…] Is China showing us the way to go green? […]