The FT features an interview with President Macron of France this morning. They note him saying:
There is a realisation, Mr Macron says, that if people could do the unthinkable to their economies to slow a pandemic, they could do the same to arrest catastrophic climate change. People have come to understand “that no one hesitates to make very profound, brutal choices when it's a matter of saving lives. It's the same for climate risk,” he says. “Great pandemics of respiratory distress syndromes like those we are living through now used to seem very far away, because they always stopped in Asia. Well, climate risk seems very far away because it affects Africa and the Pacific. But when it reaches you, it's wake-up time.”
I hope he is right.
It is all too easy to forget that the coronavirus crisis, serious as it is, is not the biggest crisis that we face right now.
I am already aware that the right-wing is already arguing that the dislike of the lockdown will prove that people are not willing to pay the economic price of tackling climate change and that the reaction will be a new dedication to consumption once the shops reopen. This is, as far as some there are concerned, a glorious opportunity for them to celebrate the continued destruction of our plant, which they acknowledge might happen, but which they say is our right to choose.
Macron offers a different view, and one I share. I think that there is an opportunity in the current situation to prepare for what is to come and to appreciate that he rebuilding of the economy that we will need must no recreate the edifice of our economy the way that it was. Macron happens to recognise that as well. The FT notes him as saying:
“I think it's a profound anthropological shock,” he says. “We have stopped half the planet to save lives, there are no precedents for that in our history.
"But it will change the nature of globalisation, with which we have lived for the past 40 years . . . We had the impression there were no more borders. It was all about faster and faster circulation and accumulation,” he says. “There were real successes. It got rid of totalitarians, there was the fall of the Berlin Wall 30 years ago and with ups and downs it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But particularly in recent years it increased inequalities in developed countries. And it was clear that this kind of globalisation was reaching the end of its cycle, it was undermining democracy.”
He is only partially right of course: it increased inequalities everywhere, for a start.
But he's right: globalisation and the financial capitalism associated with it has come to the end of its life, and it was threatening values more important to society.
Unfortunately, Macron does not at present have a good record on delivery, and that's if I am being kind to him. I welcome the sentiments. I await the action. But the realisation is always the first step to reform. Maybe along with other surprising sentiments noted in recent days this may be significant. We can hope.
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:
“the right-wing is already arguing that the dislike of the lockdown will prove that people are not willing to pay the economic price of tackling climate change”
I’m sure they will – but as usual they frame the argument in terms of “price”.
The virus disaster has provided an opportunity to look at power systems & how they function when demand falls & renewable output remains the same. I will not go into the technicalities, but will use Denmark as an example. To move the power system to 100% renewables will take (we estimate) around 7.5GW of mostly off-shore wind and a similar amount of electrolysers to produce hydrogen. Oddly, Denmark is home to the No 1 global developer of off-shore wind projects and the No1 global producer of wind turbines. A business case with positive IRRs exist for the 7.5GW wind & electrolysers. I guess “the price” the Danes will “pay” for going 100% green in the electricity (& heat) sectors is… lots of well paid jobs.
Oh dear, I can see how the right wing might be upset by that. Well paid jobs? dearie me no!
You can extend the above to most Europen countries: for the most part business case with positive IRR and to a large extent European companies supplying the goods/systems/know-how. What’s not to like. Oh yes and of course direct monetary financing ECB – EIB (now where is that fully charged cattle prod? got a meeting with Christine in a few minutes).
Jokes aside, most EU countries are moving at a glacial pace in terms of the energy transition – if they had reacted to the virus in the way they have reacted to the climate catastrophe the only bunch that would be making money is the suppliers of JCBs & the EU would be looking at 25 million or thereabouts – dead..
Thanks 4 all the info, great.but what r u going 2 do about it,,,they will all turn on u,not very nice,I no,I am in the middle of doin what everwith a few other,s..they try 2 stop and block us,,,p.s…they all love money. Don,t. They ..keep writing ,good luck,,, good-bye.. Ptd
Warm words from Macron but the cold reality is that the current disaster capitalist mode will merely adapt or mutate like a good virus does – it does not come to the end of its life, because it is granted eternal life by having all the money and money is power – as the Koch brothers will tell you, as well as many a US Congressman or investment bank CEO.
This is the situation we are in and likely to be for some time. It is the reason why you do what you do Richard, and why I’m still working out what I can do about it other than voting which no longer works.
One thing that would have to change if we are to have any chance of carrying over any of the limited positive outcomes of this lock down would be a ban or serious reduction in the amount of advertising that is produced.
Advertising, marketing, whatever you call it is one of the main drivers of unnecessary consumption, and if we are to have any chance of beating climate change, then consumption has to massively reduce on a global scale, but especially in the developed world. Your idea of making its costs no longer tax-deductible would be a good start, followed by total bans on advertising for any products known to harmful, either to human health or the environment. That would include categories such as: gambling, alcohol, tobacco, sugar-based foods, fast foods, and I would include, automobiles and possibly international travel.
Thousands of the most intelligent brains on the planet are currently working round the clock to manipulate humans to over-consume, and they are brilliant at their jobs. Their talents really could be used elsewhere.
I so agree with your conclusion
We have to accept that what stops these powerful and intelligent minds is the power of the money they are offered to use their talents in ways which do not enhance society. Solving that is a tall order but necessary and it has to be addressed.
They can always apply their talents to ‘Social Marketing’. While the pay would be a bit less, the output of their skilled labour would be beneficial to society. For any marketeers out there – now is the time to switch. Your planet needs you! https://www.thensmc.com/what-social-marketing.
(Personal ego ‘commercial’ : I helped organise the world’s first Social Marketing Congress in Brussels in 1975!)
“Thousands of the most intelligent brains on the planet are currently working round the clock to”….. groom ….”humans to over-consume”.
There fixed it for you.
Given they “groom” the population this would make them paedophiles in the sense that the population is treated as malleable – which it is (& which children are) thus the label “marketing or advertising paedophile” could be usefully applied to those that work (I use the term loosely) in that area.
“I working in marketing” – “oh what’s it like being a paedophile?” – one could see how the shine would rapidly fade.
On a lighter & related note: you will be amused to know that the logo of one of the UK’s leading banks, produced by a company that does branding is in fact a stylised cat’s anus – the logo being product of a long lunch and a couple of lines
(“oh go on – they’ll never notice” – & they never did).
I wonder if you can guess which one it is?
Robin.
I agree with everything you say.
The challenge is what happens when we all reduce our consumption?
I can reduce my personal consumption and become greener than green, but I rely on someone else consuming for my income.
I still need to feed the kids. Give me a UBI and I’ll stay at home and consume less by proxy.
UK GDP growth relies on consumer spending (which is fueled by household debt!). If we all reduce our consumption, the economy (as it stands) will start to falter.
The squaring of that particular circle is the big challenge ahead of us.
It’s encouraging to hear that even Macron is asking the questions though!
With COVID-19 people have seen that the virus is a real and present danger. There has been little to no dissention from the media. Yes, there have been disagreements about how to tackle the virus, but the fact of the virus and its danger have been promoted by governments and media worldwide.
That is very much not the case with climate change. An extraordinary effort has been made by vested interests to deny the issue exists, to obscure its effects and to demonise those who promote change. People do not see famine in Africa and the Middle East as being related to climate change, there are plenty of confounding factors. People do not see that climate change can provoke wars and that population migrations are ulktimately being driven by climate change. The media reports on climate change as though it is something that will happen in 25, 50 or 100 years rather than that it is happening now. In politics climate change has become a partisan issue and without political consensus, there can be no media consensus.
There is no clear and present danger, particularly in the developed world. When there is, of course, it will be too late to take action.
It is good that Macron is able to see parallels and possibilities, but as you say look at his actions. Merkel also seems to have grasped that classical economics will not help businesses to survive, but what happens when the crisis is over and she has retired? Hopefully, they can start a process of change in the EU. Without acceptance of MMT in the Eurozone and debt cancellation for those hardest hit by the virus, any change of attitude will not result in anything practical and that will undermine any fine words about climate change and its relation to the current emergency.
Just came across this article.
A taste of what is to come.
https://forge.medium.com/prepare-for-the-ultimate-gaslighting-6a8ce3f0a0e0
Very good
Macron speaks well, but he is the product of the world he now questions, no one can see him as a revolutionary, and I have severe doubts about his reformist conversion. I sincerely hope my doubts are wrong.
He has a strong voice in Europe, and perhaps other powerful members will be ready to listen…but Europe itself is in turmoil, with some newer members preferring to go towards authoritarianism and nationalism, taking this health crisis as an opportunity to weaken Human Rights.
It would take a massive shock to uproot the (French style) neo-liberalism Macron has justified and defended for so long.
Those “intelligent minds” working out how to exploit the natural as well as the human world to produce maximum consumption, which in turn produces maximum profits for a few, are not ready to convert quite yet. The powers behind them may be furloughed for now, but they’re using the time to regroup, I have no doubt.
People, however, are also doing that, at ground root level.
A Tale of Two Worlds.
The amazing solidarities and new short circuit networks they’ve put in place in the last month will now carry on for another month, and hopefully well beyond that.
There is certainly a possible change in view if the government grabs that opportunity, it would mean supporting a Green project which can get all kinds of people behind it, it wouldn’t have to be imposed from the top down, but would follow naturally from what many are doing now: working more often from home, not using cars or planes so much, not buying so much junk, using more local shops, not wasting so much, recycling more, valuing the time and new solidarities they have found and created.
People are finding new resources to carry on despite (because of) the lockdown. Small and medium businesses are reopening to produce essential items for hospitals, care homes, and for what I’d call ‘normal’ everyday needs, or essential needs.
Focusing on what’s essential, noticing that a lot is not.
But another big unknown is what will happen in the developing world when the virus really takes hold there. Population movements may increase considerably if people get too desperate, when survival motivated rebellions against their own governments lead to repression.
So much is unknown…
I share all your concerns
But there is a but…
But if some can be persuaded – and we can only hope Macron is – although they are probably not the agents of change they smooth progress towards those who are
I hope you’re right Richard. And there is some hope that he can be moved, or persuaded to go, in the right direction.
Marie.
I share your reservations about Macron.
But at least he has said it!
It’s a start!
His influence is limited as he is only one man after all.
Yes, only one President…but you’re right, he said the right things, giving people hope.
Now the next presidential elections are in 2 years time, and within a year or so, the country will be in election mode, assuming it has got out of lockdown by then.
So hoping for a lot of pressure to be applied, and a lot of listening to be done.