Three articles jumped out at me for various, but it seemed related, reasons when reviewing this morning's papers.
The first was an article in the Guardian on what it calls 'The Great Abandonment'. This is how it describes the process of people withdrawing from the habitation of areas that previously supported human occupation. They noted:
Since the 1950s, some scholars estimate up to 400m hectares – an area close to the size of the European Union – of abandoned land have accumulated across the world. A team of scientists recently calculated that roughly 30m hectares of farmland had been abandoned across the mainland US since the 1980s. As the climate crisis renders more places unliveable – too threatened by flooding, water shortages and wildfires to build houses, soil too degraded and drought-stripped to farm – we can expect further displacements.
This does, of course, highlight my concern about climate migration. But, it also makes clear just how significant the process of climate change already is. Change is happening.
Another was also in the Guardian. This was headlined:
‘By 8pm it is time to head home': whatever happened to the big night out?
The article notes that people no longer seem to stay out late. Clubs are shutting or starting in mid-afternoon and closing by 9 pm. Bars are seeing their peak business on Saturday afternoons and not later on Saturday evenings. People want to go to bed because they know that is good for their well-being. And the phenomenon is not only observed among older people. Younger people are also changing their lifestyles. The night is dying.
The link between the two articles is that the way we are living is changing. That's not, as yet, been imposed on us. It's been chosen, in the main. But, as the third article shows, there is a massive resentment amongst the far-right, who would much rather that the opportunity to profit that they once enjoyed was maintained. The FT has noted that:
Texas and 10 other Republican-led states are suing BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, alleging they conspired to curtail coal supplies to further “a destructive, politicised environmental agenda”.
The federal antitrust lawsuit accuses the three largest US index fund managers of using their holdings in the coal producers to constrict supplies and drive up prices in pursuit of net zero carbon emissions goals.
You could, of course, argue that this has nothing to do with the first two articles, but I think there is a link.
BlackRock and others have looked to the future and seen that unless they back away from coal and other carbon-producing assets, all they will be buying by investing in them is stranded asserts that will, before too long, have no value because they will be unusable. They are not noted for their green agendas, whatever they might like to claim in their PR. They are making cold-headed decisions to avoid wasting money on buying things that will not be used, and the far-right hates that because their own political agenda requires that it be pretended that what exists now will always be the way things are.
Reality and the far-right are in conflict then, and those (in this case, investment managers) who have smelt the coffee are caught in the crossfire.
Who will win? I have no idea what the court will decide in the US because US law and reality appear to be increasingly out of touch with each other, but reality will win.
If people need to move because of climate and other changes, they will.
If people want to change their lifestyles to be kinder to themselves, they will also do that.
And if people will not buy toxic products then there is nothing a court can do to require them to do so.
This is reality. That is the common theme here.
The Right might not like it, but the instruction has been heard, and it's 'All change, please'.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Climate change is going to be fixed not because of the people who want it fixed but because SWB (solar, wind, batteries) is the cheapeast for of electricity and the “electrification” of transport and business will make it happen. We are going to be entering a new age of cheaper (carbon neutral) goods, it’s just not recognised properly yet. Sell any fossil fuel assets you own, today.
What was it Sharon Stone was talking about recently – and she isn’t the only one, the level of ignorance in the US.
I won’t say we are better but perhaps less worse
A 4th article to consider:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/28/the-message-to-democrats-is-clear-you-must-dump-neoliberal-economics
by Joseph Stiglitz.
I was struck by the open challenge to “neoliberal economics” that even made it into the headline (because headlines come from the paper’s sub-editors/editors, not authors).
The article itself is better at describing the bad EFFECTS of neoliberalism rather than critiquing the theory, and it certainly doesn’t describe the detailed refutations of neoliberal economic theoey contained in MMT, but it was nice to at least see neoliberalism challenged in an MSM publication.
Drip, drip, drip…
Stiglitz always says what is wrong, but rarely what to do about it
The Charles Dickens of his age?
A very thoughtful blog Richard.
Texas long term is facing a threat to the no income tax, low everything else tax and climate change denying formula in their school books.
Trump took California to court for having much tougher vehicle emission controls than the Federal government.
Where California leads on the environment the rest of the states eventually follow.
California has introduced controls on the drugs pumped into livestock.
“Reality and the far-right are in conflict then” – I think this statement pretty much sums up the right and far-right in general. Whether people want to change/evolve is irrelevant, it’s a natural part of life.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” and Richard’s linkage shows people are changing it, both for good and bad.
I am concerned though that some who wish to offer us “electrification”, as per Allan Paterson’s comment, are doing so to enrich themselves using offshore countries.
Recently it was announced a very large Solar Power Farm (840 football pitches) is proposed on Romney Marsh – Kent. Those putting forward the proposal are in part based offshore in Jersey, a country Richard has written much about in the past. Yes one get’s clean energy, but the money flows offshore. It is a double edge sword,, some people want this electrification, others don’t. One thing is for sure, if it goes ahead the way we live will change, as we’ll receive green energy, but money will flow offshore to Jersey. Is that acceptable?
“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose “
I promise you, there will be no activity in Jersey.
That will just be a tax conduit.
It’s heartening to see investors pulling out of doomed fossil fuel assets.
They may indeed build solar/wind farms, and sell EVs, but without massive government investment in the National Grid, or a significant government-enabled policy shift to neighbourhood energy networks, all that new generating or consumption capacity can’t even CONNECT to the grid. There are VERY long delays in getting new generation or storage facilities connected to Grid, sometimes up to 20 years!
https://haush.co.uk/1100-renewable-energy-projects-stuck-in-grid-queue-breaking-down-the-delays-in-the-uk/
Plenry of articles on this.
With domestic solar power I would not have thought there waqs much flow to or from the National Grid but I am not an expert
I am not sure I follow
RobertJ said “all that new generating or consumption capacity can’t even CONNECT to the grid. There are VERY long delays in getting new generation or storage facilities connected to Grid, sometimes up to 20 years!”
I am suggesting that with solar panels and batteries to store the surplus for night use, there is not going to be much extra flow to and from National Grid and so no need for much expansion of it. In fact surely solar panels means less use of the National Grid?
I think Mike Parr would answer that, but as I understand it, at least local connectiins are vital.
My post is about new medium to large scale generation and storage projects (such as developed by my renewables generator/supplier, Ecotricity) and also, increased demand nationally through LARGE increases in EV sales/leases & heat pumps & electric cookers (not to mention server farms for AI).
I was NOT referring to domestic installations (I have had 2.59kWp PV panels, & 8kWh of storage for 4 yrs now & have generated 12.5MWh since then & exported about 5MWh ) although even installations are licensed before you can export to the grid and there are legal limits to domestic inverter capacity.
There are limitaions relating to local substations, and for communities wanting to develop local neighbourhood energy generation & sharing projects, the bureaucracy is formidable. https://thebristolcable.org/2021/03/can-community-energy-projects-help-bristol-get-to-net-zero/
There are also grid restrictions (and consequent long delays) on connecting traditional housing developments to the grid, either because of local substation infrastructure incapacity or more general grid capacity issues.
If we are serious about electrification, our Grid must transmit huge amounts MORE energy than before – for all the EVs, heat pumps and electric cookers out there. It can’t do that without hefty gov’t investment using real created money, which means Reeves/Treasury will lie again to us & say, “we can”t afford it”.
I wonder what difference “Great British (venture capital risk-averse) Energy” will make to the National Grid IN 4 Yrs? Almost NONE.
Rather than answering each and every comment relating to renewables. I offer the following, realities.
1. At any location there needs to be a blend of solar (PV), wind and storage (batts and electrolysers). PV & wind work well together (PV summer, wind other times of the year).
2. The aim should be to maximise local energy consumption (which then minimises impacts on the regional electricity power network – which in turn reduces the need for reinforcement – which in turn eliminates rises in network charges paid by UK serfs).
3. PV/solar developments are largely driven by private equity – this was the case in 2012 (when I made that point to Ofgem at a “DNO meets the developers” meeting) & is the case now. Keep in mind – Uk serfs pay for the network reinforcement needed by the PE bandits.
4. There is little/no UK policy on storage (apart from batts providing frequency support). This is partly because the mind set in Dept Energy (or whatever it calls itself now)/gov is wrapped up with “markets” and the assumption is “markets” will sort it. They won’t cos they are functionally incapable of doing so (they are cost optimisation mechs’ that’s all).
5. Much of rural UK and smallish towns and villages could be decarbed fast using PV/wind/batts/electrolysers, network impacts would be minimal. This won’t happen because “minimal network impacts” means that Nat-Grid and the other DNOs (Nat Grid owns the biggest UK DNO) would not increase revenues.
The easiest pray for the opportunistic elite that ironically uses populist rhetoric as a marketing tool to gain more power to nepotist elites, is a disillusioned population. Another irony in all this is that even though we experience people as being closed in their own bubbles and collective hallucination, the advent of the internet has probably opened us up a lot more to new ideas than ever before.
I don’t know what the best antidote to this is but appealing to the openness we share by repeating and presenting better stories and a better narrative is probably one way. It might all be a question of who is better at marketing?
You are right – change is coming, but the kicking and screaming going on is going to do its own damage as well unfortunately.
What has happened to the usual responders today?
Have they all been rounded up and taken to the gulag?
No – I have been elsewhere all mnorning
There is a day job to do still
That will change next year, but not yet.
Here in Devon I have read about a scheme to receive electricity from solar and wind generation from Morocco where, in the Sahara Desert there is plenty of space, wind and sun. Apparently Spain does not need to be supplied because their climate can produce enough for itself and the cables would run under the Atlantic Ocean to either Cornwall or Devon. Perhaps there is a way forward for the future.
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/morocco-uk-power-project-morocco/?cf-view
Bonkers stuff ref Morocco. Swapping energy dependency on… middle east for energy dependence on a state fighting an on-off war (& not a nice state either). Windy & sunny place Devon & Cornwall. problem is that the Windsors don’t like wind turbines & they do have a tendancy to call the shots in that neck of the woods.
I was involved with Isles of Scilly – trying to cook up a renewable system that kept the then Prince of Wales happy – cos he does not like wind turbines and tends to call the shot in the Isle of Scilly no wind – no renewable system – PV only gets you part of the way.
I used to get upset at all this – now I just shrug and mark it up to a country of forelock tuggers run by imbeciles
The Duchy is a curse on the Scillies – a place I have known well in my time with a number of long term friends and clients there.
Thanks, Mike – I thought you would have an opinion on this. I assume that there would be a significant power loss on such a long undersea cable route, also if we think of the Nordstream gas pipelines, the cable may well be vulnerable to a similar attack.
I would argue that one of the main reasons that the night is dying is that younger people just can’t afford to go out! My 19 year old nephew has a decent job (barman at a holiday park) and he goes out boozing with his friends in a similar way to what my group of friends did when younger. That said, they all have money. Relatively speaking, it was a great deal cheaper to have a nightout back in my day (30-odd years ago now!). Even friends doing relatively lowly-paid summer jobs could afford to go out for a couple of nights a week (and we all did).
I do wonder how many of the young adults today instead get together with friends at home to drink/smoke/whatever there?
They seem to get the dopamine hits in other ways
I assume that government decisions in the US and the UK depend on which energy firm is paying the most. Which sounds cynical of me but I think the evidence is quite clear.
It also seems significant that large solar farms are being proposed for rural areas all over Britain,yet businesses and householders would welcome financial help to be able to install solar panels on their own roofs. Producing their own energy and releasing them from the trap of paying inflated prices to large energy corporations.
So successive governments have had a decision. Support large private firms and allowing acres of farmland to be covered by panel or support the citizens to produce their own power. So far they have chosen the big firms.
We can do both
You might like to look at the Bristol Energy Network which is working on “neighbourhood energy”. https://www.bristolenergynetwork.org.uk/
We need both large & micro projects. Many high rise flat dwellers or skyscraper business tenants have no access to sufficient roof space for PV.
New high rise flats in Bristol city centre are supplied with heat energy using hot water mains, from anaerobic digesters via a district heating system laid under roads during construction.
https://www.sustainable-energy.co.uk/projects/low-carbon-district-heating/
One neighbourhood is building, as a community level project, the largest wind turbine in the country (for 3,500 homes). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-54736218 , but the big boys are also building a large battery farm, https://www.power-technology.com/marketdata/lockleaze-battery-energy-storage-system-uk/
My local 1930’s estate has acres of empty south facing pitched roofs (and fuel poverty). The solar kit for a 3 bdr semi (PV + batteries) is about the same price as an air source heat pump. I know because I have some, which has returned 25% on investment since installation 4.5yrs ago. The state could have started installing this stuff on rented properties years ago, but of course, their excuse was, “we can’t afford it!!!”
We need a very diverse distributed network, big generators via a beefed up grid (that can survive storm & flood), and neighbourhood systems too. Smart metering & AI make all sorts of clever things possible – we’ve hardly got started.
It will need government planning and government investment.
These are real examples of action, & they are a MIXED bag. We need variety and a level playing field.
Sometime in the 19th Century in the interests of long term good health it became compulsory for new housing to be connected to drainage systems. In the 21st Century it should be compulsory for new housing to be equipped with solar panels and batteries in the interests of the health of future generations. The cost of installation on new housing is a small fraction of their total cost.
Agreed
That aforementioned wind farm on Romney Marshes sounds horrendous! The solar equivalent of open caste mining! As a Green I’m all for appropriate solar, but covering huge amounts of valuable natural environment is neither green or sustainable.
Actually, the sustainability of the land is little impacted
Depending on how the solar panels are located a field of them can still provide land for feeding livestock and even remain for use as arable.
Agreed
“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi
This is normally reduced to “Be the change you want to see in the world”.
Although I’m fully aware of the cynical origins of the concept of a person’s “carbon footprint”, I do believe it could eventually come back and bite BP, and the entire fossil fuel industry, on the arse.
Call me naive, but I still have some faith in humanity choosing the right path.