I admit that I have been struggling to find appropriate words to write since it became apparent that COP26 really would not deliver anything like the climate deal that we required.
My first Twitter comment was this:
I have this morning said this on Twitter:
Both are in a sense reaction to the sentiments in this tweet from Beth Rigby:
Antonio Guterres got it. He understood the need to tackle climate change. He knew that this was not a game, unlike many of those present - and most especially Johnson. He also realised that this was no dress rehearsal. COP 26 had to deliver, and it has not.
I am going to ignore all the apologists and the right-wing media that are claiming this as a success. It isn't. This was a chance to deliver 1. 5° change. It won't. That is the definition of failure.
This was an occasion when people might have been put first. There could have been recognition of the limits to profit-making, and that there are issues more important than increasing the wealth of a few. But that was ignored. The corrupted world view of neoliberal capitalism prevailed instead.
With proper commitment, this might have been when young people were given a chance to at least take part in a peaceful transition to what is required. But that opportunity was missed as well. This looks increasingly likely to be turbulent as more time passes.
So of course I am angry.
And yes, I do feel that I owe an apology to my sons - and every one of their generation for the mess that mine has made because so many believed (and still do believe) Thatcher, Reagan, Hayek and Friedman who said greed is good when that is so clearly not true.
But just as much it makes me want to go on.
We must have governments that we can trust, and as one of my tweets makes clear, I very much doubt that we have anything close to that in the UK at present. The demand for better government, better representation and so better democracy must continue as a result.
More than that, we must have business that will deliver on its commitments. This COP saw the official announcement of the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). We already know that what it will demand of business is little more than greenwash. The fact that there is this Board was created outside the accounting standard framework is the surest indication of that. Until the environment is at the heart of accounting standards we will not get the change this needs and the ISSB by its very existence pushes it to the sidelines This fight will go on.
So too will the fight for funding to tackle the climate crisis. Colin Hines and I hope to continue our work on turning the worldwide glut of private savings into capital to be used for social gain. But we also need to talk about how money can be created, free. You would have never believed that such was the struggle to fund $100bn in Glasgow. This may be the biggest challenger of all - to simply persuade the world that money is not an obstacle to our survival and that it is merely a tool to be used to facilitate that goal.
I am profoundly angry with the governments, the lobbyists and the businesses that reduced the hope of the world yesterday. They did so knowing what they were doing.
I am as certain that they will be beaten. They simply have to be. This is about survival. Their petty interests will eventually be seen as insignificant in the face of that. But we sure as heck need to get in with this. Time is not on our side.
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:
Thanks. I agree.
I did not have high expectations of COP but still feel broken and sad now that it is over and failed so badly to deliver.
But as Bill Mckibben writes in the Guardian, it is up to us now. I believe that activism will strengthen and will make a difference.
Your work is more important than ever.
I was asked this week if I was retired
How can anyone retire in the face of this crisis?
COP26 was the ‘vested interests’ summit really – just (it turns out) a means of slowing change down by those with the most to lose financially.
I suppose that these people share a certain psychology with the anti-vaxers/lockdown numpties in that they think that their obscene wealth will protect them from the consequences in as much as the anti-vaxers/lockdown brigade thing that they are special because they are genetically blessed and Covid just gives them a bad cold.
Marketisation has merely created a segmented society with each segment making a different claim – but of course, new segments with new ideas are simply finding it too hard to enter and compete against the money and the organisation of established ones – and there is no doubt that that is being enabled by those at the very top money wise.
So new ideas are thwarted. This will remain where the battle will be fought but it’s such a shame that Government as been captured by vested interests too.
One takeaway I got from cop26 is that action on climate change is more likely to happen through ‘vested interests’ That once the financial markets see there’s no long term future profit in fossil fuels they will stop funding it, pull out any existing funds they have in that sector and redirect them into renewables, thus hurrying the demise of the fossil economy. I hope that’s an accurate prediction.
But that will be too late
You told us 13 years ago that there were only 10 years left to act to save the planet. That deadline has gone and we are all doomed. We might as well make life for everyone as comfortable as possible until it all ends by continuing with policies that have lifted so many out of poverty in such a short time.
It is wholly inappropriate to make people poorer when the apocalypse is already baked in. And very obviously it is not a vote winner.
Why have I approved this?
Not because I believe the comment is real – it is certainly trolling
But on the other hand it does also reflect a viewpoint I hear
It’s as if some think this extinction is going to be fun
It will be anything but
It will be much, much worse than. the struggle for survival
@Shin Zhen : ” We might as well make life for everyone as comfortable as possible until it all ends by continuing with policies that have lifted so many out of poverty in such a short time.”
Out of interest, would those be the same policies that “in such a short time” have created the need for so many food banks ?
Or the policies that are heaping extra helpings of fuel poverty on many this winter ?
How do you equate that with “mak(ing) life for everyone as comfortable as possible ” or “lift(ing) so many out of poverty” ?
Well said
It’s a grey damp morning…. like my mood. Last night, as I watched TV news journalists putting a “glass half full” spin on COP26 I wondered whether I was missing something. Alas, your blog this morning has disabused me of this notion.
There is only one solution – I will go and shovel compost. It won’t solve climate change but it will mean that my grumpiness will not be inflicted on anyone else…. at least not until lunchtime.
I am also grumpy
And am going bird watching to think about it all…
Sir David King (former Chief Scientific Officer) has said we have 3 to 4 years in which to make drastic reductions in CO2 emissions. Most climate scientists agree but have been afraid to speak out in case they lose their jobs, such is the evil power of the corporate energy vested interests. People worldwide know this and will see through the race to ecocide that business as usual is offering. Major uprisings are inevitable unless there are urgent economic changes now that you suggest.
Of course I understand why you refer to “petty interests “ in the sheer frustrated anger we should all feel but, in truth, their interests are the opposite of petty. How can anyone with a functioning brain not place the phasing out of fossil fuels at the centre of everything? There is absolutely no argument left that this is not the core issue. Yet the UK has a 27 billion road building programme and a raft of oil and coal proposals awaiting the end of COP26 before being waved through.Blind pursuit of profit by an elite too locked into short termism to be able to believe the obvious that even their billions will not protect either themselves or their heirs from global environmental catastrophe is not petty. And, of course we must not forget that we simply can’t afford to make the required fundamental changes to our economy. That is to say, we can’t unless we accept the subversive tenets of MMT.
Morning Richard,
The COP news prompted me to take time out and read your posts today, as I expected they reflected what I suspect is the reaction of anyone with half a brain cell…
There is a lemming-like quality to the climate change issue. We have obviously created the present crisis and it would seem that we don’t have what it takes to take corrective action fast enough. We gallop towards the precipice focussed on exploiting short-term gains. In fact, the more publicity that is given up to underlining the downside risks of climate change, seems only to add to the desperation of those who will be financially disadvantaged by the changes required.
I suspect we will have to find ways to engage with a deep-rooted need to follow the money before any real impact can be made to reduce emissions and pin temperature rises to an acceptable level.
When I woke this morning I wondered if an existing global bank, the World Bank(?), could issue a few trillion dollars of stock, and the cash influx be used to support poorer countries managing climate change and offer investment capital to private initiatives to combat global warming? Tax payers and companies who subscribed could be allowed to deduct their investments from taxable earning and thus shift some of the cash impact from share investors to their national governments?
I take heart from the fact that lemmings are not yet extinct and that their annual migrations have not involved them in large-scale plunging from cliffs. Its a small plus… What we need now is someone or some institution on the global stage to come forward with a scalable action plan. Without this, we may be reduced to wailing into increasingly stormy weather in the coming years.
For me, I will turn over more limited garden space to growing vegetables, eat less meat, consume less fossil fuels, and support my children and grandchildren to leave planet Earth a better place; something I muse, that my generation has failed, and is failing to do.
That idea was one I was already playing with
Be interested in seeing what you come up with. Keep in touch.
And stay well…
Bob
No Richard, you don’t have to apologize to anyone even your sons. You are a one who is writing, talking, blogging to make people realize there are alternatives to the neoliberal thieves. Thank you for that! I am a pre boomer and have involved myself in recylcing, reducing, reusing only to find that the recycleing was a scam and that less than 10% of plastics are actually recycled, the rest was dumped in the landfill, shipped to third world countries and ended up in the oceans killing so many creatures. The petrochemical companies keep on spewing out plastics. Also, tried to reduce energy consumption, but the power companies are still dishing out dividends and bonuses and generating power with coal, oil, biomass (ie cutting down forests to feed the generators). Many people in Nova Scotia deplore the clear cutting of our forests but the logging companies are only focused on profit and are not governed by science no matter what we tell them and the government just hovers. Like you I am so furious at these practices and the system which supports them. But I am complicit also in that what little money I have is at the mercy of the stock market even though it is not is oil and pipelines. However, I have tried to interest my friends in your ideas and passed around books such as The Deficit Myth, Doughnut Economics etc. Your blog and ideas do give me and people hope. I just keep emailing the politicians, signing petitions etc. What else? Hope you see some lovely birds and do adopt another dog. Hector would be so pleased!
Thank ypu
Spoonbill was the bird of the morning – although they all work for me – even if comm0n
I need to get out for the perspective it provides
As for another dog – this was discussed this week – and the answer is ‘not yet’, and ‘we’ll see’
Rosemary.
On the subject of logging in Nova Scotia, have you ever read Barkskins?
I had no expectation that Cop 26 would delivery anything other than hot air.
In a way, politician’s hands are tied.
I’ve come to realise that the economy, in fact the whole of our way of life, is dependent on and abundance of energy. It is the foundation of everything. Energy that has a low energy input in extraction cost.
Oil has been the best provider. At its peak, oil provide huge amounts of usable energy with low energy inputs. For every KW of input (extraction) energy used, over 100KW of usable energy was created.
This figure has been declining as the most accessable reserves have been used up and will only decline further.
Without those kinds of returns, the economy really starts to struggle to keep growing.
The really difficult truth is that renewables, at their very best, can not even come close to the 1KW in-100KW out scenario.
To cut our dependency for fossil fuels and go renewable, means that there isn’t going to be anywhere near enough energy created to maintain our existing infrastructure/economy/complexity. Even if we could continue burning fossil fuels, (which we can’t), fossil fuels are soon not going to be able to deliver the “surplus” energy levels that we meet to maintain present levels of economic activity.
The upshot of all this is that the economy is going to go through a massive contraction and then stay there. The complexity of our society is unsustainable. Huge job losses are inevitable as the discretionary parts of the economy become unviable and energy is conserved for the most vital applications.
This is the uncomfortable truth that politicians and environmental activists are not telling us.
COP 26 was always going to fail because no politician is going to bring in policies that are going to be electorally unpopular, and the public aren’t being informed about the realities of our situation.
Do you have anything to say on this Mike Parr?
Mike Parr.
I too would be interested on your thoughts on EROI and the points I made above.
The link below is a far better explanation of the argument than I can make.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Actually it’s much worse than that Vinnie – they ARE being informed about what is going on however, in an agnotological fashion i.e. truth is being mixed up with lies or ‘alternative facts’ to confuse and sow doubt about the scale of the problem. They are being misinformed and confused on purpose and at scale.
PSR.
I agree but would add to that, that the environmental movement isn’t telling people the whole picture.
“Transitioning” to renewable energy isn’t a straight swap with fossil fuels, but it is being portrayed as such. Cake and eat it, when in fact, the world post-fossil fuels is going to be unrecognisable to the world we live in today. There just isn’t going to be enough available energy to go around.
It is not going to be unrecognisable
Sorry – that is not true
Richard.
I hope you are right.
I think that a contracting economy will have profound effects on the way we live.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
It will – but not as catastrophically as you like to predict
With the price of oil and gas shooting up, I suspect that fracking on the Fylde may be a thing again too.
Meanwhile, the British military is far more interested in war with Russia, according to the Guardian (always ready to wave the flag at official enemies). Jonathan Cook’s excellent article about the huge amount of damage done to the environment by obscenely over-resourced armed services on all sides underlines the irony of this statement, coming on both Remembrance Sunday and the final day of COP.
Inga Horwood.
The price of oil in itself isn’t the issue.
Fracking has higher energy inputs than a conventional oil well.
A rise of the price of oil on the markets may increase the viability of fracking, but as I mentioned above, the price isn’t the important factor.
Fracking uses too much energy in the extraction process. The energy return on investment ROI is not high enough.
The days of 1KW in-100KW out are long gone.
Fracking just doesn’t produce enough “surplus” energy to drive the economy at its present level.
Tar sands is even worse. Something along the lines of 1KW in – 5KW out!!!!!! (That’s 5KW out, I repeat!!!!!)
It might make a profit but it isn’t going to supply the global economy with enough energy.
Plus oil at $200 a barrel may make fracking “economical” to extract for the companies doing the extraction but it is way too expensive for a healthy economy. Who will be able to afford energy costs that high? Either domestic or industrial consumers.
This is the real issue at the core of our problems.
The only way forward is a massive contraction and simplification of the global economy.
We either get our heads round this problem and manage the contraction or it happens anyway but in a uncontrolled way.
I repeat. Renewables done NOT give a high enough EROI to meet our present energy needs, never mind the needs of future economic growth. Contraction is inevitable with the available technological options.
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
The uncomfortable truth is that we have forced our climate out of its natural pattern, and the question is simply how bad things get. Even if we were to stay below 1.5 degrees of temperature increase – and that seems less likely than two weeks ago – it is not some magic level below which everything will be fine. We are already seeing adverse weather events that are more severe and more frequent, and things will only get worse as increasing CO2 levels drive up the temperature.
And we are only at 1.1 degrees now
What is people’s opinion on the proposal for a 32 hour 4-day working week, with no salary reduction? It is claimed that it would make a major reduction to UK’s carbon output, equivalent to the emissions of all private cars, and achieve most of our promised carbon reduction. Getting past any possibility of it actually happening, could it really have such an effect?
It could
The claim on productivity may well be true
Personally I have my doubts that there is much scope for introducing a 4 day week until we have completed the transition to a de-carbonised economy and way of life – there is just too much to do. The transition will require a massive reallocation of resources (including human labour) as well as a major restructuring of production by a shift towards localisation. We simply cannot fix the problem through technology and without decentralising power, production and the financial system, applying the principle of “subsidiarity”. I expect localisation will reduce the distances that goods and people need to travel which could significantly reduce energy demand in the process. Reducing the shipping of goods across the globe would benefit our marine environments too.