As the New York Times notes in a mail this morning:
The leaders of China, Russia and Japan won't be there. Neither will the leaders of Australia, Indonesia or Turkey. But the most notable absence is that of the United States. For the first time since countries began gathering 30 years ago to take action against global warming, the U.S. is not sending any top officials.
The premise of these gatherings is that climate change knows no borders and can be stopped only if countries come together. Can the world do it without the U.S.?
My answer is, yes, it can.
As is very obvious right now, as the real climate pressure begins to increase, the enthusiasm of some states, including the UK, for action is declining. What is more, the excuses are rolling in, with the likes of Bill Gates saying climate change won't be so bad after all.
Deep down, I always thought this might happen, although I was not sure how and when. It always seemed too good to be true that neoliberalism gave in as easily as it did. But at the time, the costs had not been rolling in; now they are. The counterattack is happening.
We have four choices as always.
- We can ignore what is happening.
- We can accept what is happening.
- We can reframe what is happening, which in some situations means walking away, but we cannot in this case.
- We can fight what is happening.
Those are usually the only options we have in any situation we face.
What is the only credible option? This, of course, is fighting what is happening. We have built up decades of awareness. That was for a reason. This fight was always going to happen. And now it is. If we give in now and pretend that Trump and others are right, the result is inevitable: we fail to protect future generations when it is our duty to do so.
In that case, whilst proceeding without China, Russia, Japan, Australia, the United States, and others diminishes immediate prospects for success, the ethics of the case demand that we carry on, making clear by example what is needed and what is possible. We owe it to our collective children wherever they are in the world.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Suppose a brilliant team of engineers came up with a machine that could solve climate change tomorrow. By switching it on it would maintain the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere within a band from 420-425 parts per million. Would you press the button?
It’s a crass question as you do not contextualise it.
Years ago it dawned on me that the phrase, “sustainable economic growth” was an oxymoron. The debt based growth model that is neoliberalism can never address climate change. Climate change is a feature of the current economic system. In the end, it will bring an end to itself the hard way, as resource depletion and the negative climate change force it to an end. Mass migrations, high death rates, rising sea levels etc will be the means by which the economic model is abandoned. Ironically this was predicted in the ea
I agree. This calculated and deliberate retreat from climate change commitments by the main neoliberal countries was predictable. Perhaps also equally disappointing was the ease and speed with which big business capitulated to Trump on matters such as DEI policies and sustainability. Whilst I, in the UK, have no purchase over Trump each of us can, in our own way, fight back against the hypocritical greenwashing of the business sector by boycotting the products of those businesses. Hit them where it hurts – in their revenues and profits. I sometimes wonder whether we should now form “consumer unions” to promote boycotts etc. or encourage trade unions to expand their horizons to include consumers as well as workers. With regard to politics, I will switch my vote to the Greens.
Thanks
“Bill Gates saying climate change won’t be so bad after all”… because he will be dead by the time significant impacts occur (= eroding/destroying civilisations).
AMOC. It has been slowing for some years, estimates suggest down by 17% & increasing. Consensus is 2050 for shutdown. Then over probably +/- 10 years (guestimate) North West Europe will “enjoy” the climate of Southern Hudson Bay. No agriculture and significant cold (Scandinavia will not be inhabitable – unless you are happy with an eskimo lifestyle). There will be a massive temp’ gradient between warm bits (southern Spain etc) and the cold bits which will probably cause “interesting” storms.
My guess is that Gates & Co assume they can retreat to enclaves. Which raises some interesting social dynamic issues – will those protecting the enclaves (one assumes, armed to the teeth) be happy being told what to do the idle rich. A cursory glance at history shows what is likely to happen.
What to do? when the rich hold all the levers of power (usually via puppets – e.g. Starmer & Reeves).
Kepp on saying it as it is
That’s all I can do