One of the things that should be obvious about the Covid 19 crisis has been how relatively easy it has been to get data, and so to predict the required reaction to it.
Scientists were able to foretell the crisis that we now have in the NHS, and demand action on it weeks ago. That there was going to be a second spike requiring lockdown was predictable months ago. And yet in both cases reaction happened too late, with profoundly serious consequences.
Why make the point? Because the comparison that can be made with the climate crisis that we face is horribly uncomfortable. Scientists know that the climate crisis requires action now. The consequences of the failure to act are entirely foreseeable. The consequences of not acting are dire, as they have proved to be with Covid 19. And still prevarication takes place.
As we face new lockdowns in England for many weeks to come the Covid 19 crisis feels very real. But although I have no confidence at all in the government's ability to roll out vaccines in the timescales they predict I do also accept that if properly administered in the dual doses that are licensed for use then vaccines do provide a way out of this problem, at least with regard to its medical consequences.
There is, however, no vaccine for climate change. Nor will there be. There is only a need for changed behaviour, a massively changed economy and a new structuring of how we manage our priorities and Iives, all of which will take time to achieve, which is why the process should be starting now.
But that process is not starting now, even though it is a way to rebuild after what has now happened as Covid 19 has brought destruction to the economy we have. There is, in fact, hardly any sign that this process will really start at any time soon.
Instead what is clear is that political management is now about delaying clearly required action until no other option is available and a decision is unavoidable, by when it is, by definition, too late.
This political decision making process is delivering substantial numbers of excess deaths from Covid 19 now.
If repeated with climate change, as seems to be entirely foreseeable at present, the impacts could be very much more serious.
The paralysis of political decision making is already costing lives. It may get very much worse.
There are people who know these decisions are required. And there are people who know what needs to be done. But there is an obstacle, and it is the politics of populism, now afflicting both the largest UK political parties, neither of whom now seem capable of delivering any form of effective political leadership.
Even my bottomless well of hope is being challenged right now.
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:
OECD even saying Austerity is a mistake
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/oecd-austerity-coronavirus-laurence-boone-b1782197.html
Wandering around American websites dealing with climate change, some are now making an argument that the real problem is global over-population. If that problem is solved, the climate problem will also be solved. This will not age well.
Great. I have a modest proposal then. Let’s start by, er, liquidating the populations with the highest per capita energy consumption and carbon output, until we are left with the largest number of people with sustainable consumption and output. Repeat as necessary every few years. Would they be happy with that?
Most reliable population predictions indicate the world population is now about 7 or 8 billion and will reach a maximum of about 11 or 12 billion by the end of this century. So we need to make sure we can all live good lives within a sustainable per capita budget for energy input and carbon output (and other resources: food, water, etc).
Covid has let Governments everywhere off the hook.
But this is because the way in which business (and therefore the economy) seems to be developed is through too much debt.
First of all business should be reformed (resource accounting and all that good stuff) and then (or at the same time) addressing the changes needed on environmental impacts.
As for the Left, there is a debate within the party it seems whether or not to accept the new populism and see if they can out ‘popularise’ the Tories and UKIP.
Yet I see there is huge potential to generate a green agenda as a populist tactic.
But Labour seem held back by concerns in some unions because they see Green ‘re-industrialisation as de-industrialisation.
You are right in that politicians need to lead the way. But the conservatism in the finance/FIRE sector is also a blight on development of a Green agenda. Mark Carney more or less said this in his recent Reith lectures.
For example, insurers, valuers and the building trade all have problems coming to terms with new and greener forms of construction for housing. Traditional bricks and mortar is still seen as the best. There is a lot of vested interest in keeping things as they are. Only Government can change this by investing in these industries.
They are proroguing fools. A Load of henry viii’s.
No consequences.
The people have shown the wisdom the crowd.
A vote, a democratic indication by the people is needed to flush this lot and get a unity government.
Then lots more votes on everything by everybody.
climate and the point when things could have been done (in the 1990s) was de-railed by politicos such as B.Liar and Broon who assumed that “markets” could fix the problem, the EU, USA etc swallowed this hook line & sinker and tokenistic approaches were deployed such as carbon trading etc. Hard facts were not presented to populations (and elements of the MSM continued to groom the population that things were not so bad). Gradualism ruled (& rules!) OK.
We are in an emergency situation and emergency measures need to be taken. They are not because, for the most part, politicos are functionally incapable of understanding what needs to be done i.e. most of them are too bloody thick (there are exceptions) and too bloody cowardly to tell the population the way it is. Of course there is always hope and I am by nature an optimistic person, but the age of consequences is upon us & the 21st century is unlikely to be very “happy”. We could engineer our way out of the current situation (in fairness we caused it) but that would require a substantial societal re-orientation, which will not happen with the current set-up.
I emphatically agree with most of your analysis, Mike. But Thatcher was both scientifically trained as well as thoroughly informed by James Lovelock. She gave an ‘inspiring’ speech to the UN’s Global Environment conference in 1989. “Of all the challenges faced by the world community, … one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance–I refer to the threat to our global environment”. (https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817) Sadly she had a chancellor called Lawson and did not follow through.
In 2004, Blair initiated a conference at the Met Office in Exeter entitled “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”. The title indicates the spin. It denies what had already been established, that dangerous climate change was unavoidable. He posed questions: “What level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much? One or two scientists were bullied into declaring that an increase of up to “two degrees would be safe” for which there was no scientific evidence … but the government trumpeted the quote.
Whatever answers there were to his next question: “What options do we have to avoid such levels?” were disempowered by the spin doctors letting it be known that the government didn’t want to ‘frighten’ the public … which is still the policy of the billionaire media tribe … and so all subsequent UK governments.
Though I tend to agree that they are “too bloody thick (there are exceptions) and too bloody cowardly” it is a harsh judgement because …
… all our instincts are to carry on the way more or less as we have been:
Economists will not let go of their commitment to ‘growth’ [apart from Jason Hickel (‘Less is More’) and a few others] — even though they know that the planet is finite and that there is ample evidence that humanity is blasting past most of the “the nine environmental boundaries”
(https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html).
Of course, it is not just economists. In the late 1960’s, the Chinese government recognised that they had a massive food production problem — exacerbated by producing food for pets. Hard though it was, they decided that humans should have priority. The government’s methods of enforcement were terrible (Reuter’s journalist Antony Grey was a victim) but they have improved the nutrition of the population remarkably. So readers, notice your reactions to this: “By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise. Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet” Donnachadh McCarthy 23 October 2020 (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pets-uk-ownership-cats-dogs-carbon-environmental-impact-b1249610.html)
How, reader, do you respond to … Greenland, the Antarctic and most of the world’s glaciers are melting decade by decade, probably unstoppably, though we could slow the process. This link shows maps of areas anticipated to be vulnerable to inundation by the sea — perhaps only occasionally – because of sea-level rise and more intense coastal storms by 2050 [Maybe it should be 2100 or 2150 … My father was born in 1877 — 144 years ago.] https://coastal.climatecentral.org
When East Anglia and coastal communities everywhere suffer, where will food be grown? Where will people be housed? Yes, sea defences will be constructed in some places (an enhanced Thames Barrier?) but … https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth.
Up to the end of 2020, humankind has: Increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% – Destroyed 80% of mammals, 50% plants and 15% of fish by biomass – Caused extinction rates to increase by a factor of nearly 1000.
Having dashed all hopes of easy answers try:
STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS as much as possible and as soon as possible.
So I suggest that to perpetuate the possibility of abundant human joy, it would be wise to campaign for:
(1) NO LIGHTS for anything other than necessary work, safety and security — campaign starts now. As important as the reduction in the emissions of CO2 is the message THERE IS A CRISIS!
(2) NO FLIGHTS for anything other than necessary work, safety and security.
(3) NO USE OF PRIVATE CARS for anything other than necessary work, safety and security but … allow for a little leisure use.
(4) NO FIREWORKS anywhere, for anything, ever again because they display a stupid denial that we have an existential problem.
Difficult? Yes — but I like children and I want to perpetuate the possibility of abundant human joy.
I have yet to see any mainstream politician willing acknowledge the inherent contradiction between an economic system which expects infinite growth and a physical planet of finite resources.
I have a sinking feeling that attempts to deal with climate change will (directly or indirectly) lead conflict and war in my lifetime.
My metaphorical well of hope has never been bottomless though…
#carbonneutral2030
#powergreenhouses
20000 globally ?
Growth 10-15%?
Brownfields
That’s better. 🙂
I nearly deleted that as I have no idea what it means
Might you comment coherently please?
I did two messages.
I think I overwrote myself.
It was example tweet. About #electricgreenhouses.
On the subject of finite resources and energy……
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2020/12/31/when-inflation-refuses-to-appear/
A while ago now The Rocky Mountain Institute made the point that Energy Efficiency isnt a free lunch, it is one you are paid to eat.
There are a large number of strategic and economic reasons for decarbonising the economy that have little to do with climate change or peak oil but still governments decline to take action.
Along similar lines: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/01/1015533/covid-lessons-for-climate-change-emissions-renewables