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.
I dunno about “the Konstantin Question” but you ain;t asking the right question & there is a poor understanding of the scale of the problem. To reduce to 450 or 400 or 350 ppm (which would greatly slow ice melt) hundreds of gigatonnes of CO2 would need to be extracted from the atmosphere. The lowest cost way would be a bunch of nclear stations in the bit of Russia that gets down to minus 60C in winter – not difficult to extract CO2 at those sort of temperatures using compressors. Where do you put the CO2? As the late-great John Doyle remarked: storing CO2 undergorund is like holding a fart – forever. Reduce the amount of sunlight incident on the planet? Trivially doable with mass drivers to get material into space. Problem: the fossil heads would see this as a way to continue burning fossil fools. Both examples address symptoms (temp growth caused by CO2 emissions) not the emissions. Humanity faces a climate disaster amplified by the neocons & Gates/Trump/Tusk/Bezos etc. & then there is China. If the AMOC fails (see below) how would this affect China? Perhaps their gamble is: “don’t care if Europe faces an ice age” we will be Ok & it serves them right for screwing us in the 19th century” – style of & I would be immensly surprised if they had not thought of this aspect.
Note that unlike most large countries China has already succeeded in starting to actually reduce its emissions. It also provides a considerable proportion of the equipment used elsewhere to work towards that aim (solar panels, turbines, batteries, EVs, etc).
Paul
Even if climate change could be stopped that doesn’t solve the other parts of the polycrisis: resource depletion (especially soil & fresh water), pollution, and biodiversity loss.
We have transhressed seven of the nine planetary boundaries and the only solution is for the rich in the Global North to massively reduce their energy & resource consumption. The current level is estimated at 170% of global capacity.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-threshold-pushes-earth-past-another-planetary-boundary/
Agreed
That’s why this was a crass question, and I deleted the follow ups which made no more sense
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
‘Extinction Rebellion’ was, and is, right.
However, the word ‘extinction’ is rather absolute and abstract.
‘Rebellion’? Historically, ‘rebels’ are bad people.
Better words might help.
Almost everyone wants **children** to have decent life chances.
Much of western wealth is squandered. The choice is between measures (some of them compulsory) that could benefit *ALL* children – and freedom for the wealthy to possess big houses, swanky cars, abundant clothes – and to indulge in short term foreign holidays and ephemeral ‘pleasures’.
Food rations during WW2 resulted healthier children (at least for the ‘winning’ side). We walked to school. Traffic jams were rare. Air pollution from vehicles was minimal [but smoke from coal fires was dreadful – and we can do better now].
Instant gratification will be much diminished but, with determination, persistence – and luck – such measure could probably benefit the world’s children in a decade or two.
It blows my mind how little those in power seem to care about this – or am I just naïve? Earlier this year I read an article by Naomi Klein in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/13/end-times-fascism-far-right-trump-musk which scared me to death – never mind bunkers or private enclaves, are Musk et al banking (quite literally) on leaving earth altogether and letting the rest of us burn? It sounds so unhinged that I have to believe it’s some crazy fantasy just to be able to to sleep at night. I’m approaching 60 with 2 young, adult children and cannot bear to think about what their lives will be like in the next 20/30/50 years; grandchildren are feared, not wished for. I’m thankful for this space here and your continued work to highlight the issues, Richard which is one of only a few sources of hope these days.
I try…
That’s all I can do.
We should continue to press for action to tackle climate change.
But, frankly, I strongly suspect that meetings such as COP 30 have little effect, cause considerable ecological and climate dame in themselves, and are merely self serving for those who attend. The clue is in the name. If COP meetings were effective they would have already been so in less than 30(!!!!!) meetings.
But perhaps, in spite of the US rollback on climate action and the wanton disregard by states such as Russia, political action may already have had great success. By this I mean that there has been encouragement to develop renewable energy and that this has had remarkable success.
President Trump may be pushing back against renewable energy, but this will be as successful as Canute ordering the sea back (but without Canute’s wisdom). Electricity demand is set to increase significantly over the next few years in the US. This demand cannot be met by fossil fuel (the gas turbines are on years long back order, across the world, and simply can’t be built fast enough). The fastest and cheapest way to provide energy is from renewables, solar and wind. That is what is happening. No amount of action by Trump, or others, can turn back the tide.
For example, are farmers in Pakistan and elsewhere buying solar panels out of a desire to fight climate change? No, it’s because they are, significantly, cheeper than buying and fueling a fossil fuel generator.
Renewable energy is inevitable, not to prevent climate change but because it’s cheaper, quicker, and more flexible. This process is accelerating (research, learning curves, economies of scale). It has, I think, reached a tipping point. Fossil fuel is on the way out.
We do still need action to encourage this trend, but it will happen anyway. I’m am sceptical that high profile international political meetings will be effective. Whether the roll out of renewables will happen quickly enough to avoid an non-reversible climate tipping point is an open question. I am optimistic.
I know we’re not going to get it from our current government, but the UK should resolutely stick to trying to both minimise the UK’s contribution to climate change as well as build as much resilience as possible to the effects of climate change. Whether that affects the big picture or not without the participation of other large countries is actually a secondary matter. Just because others are not prepared to do the right thing doesn’t absolve the UK of responsibility. Someone has to show leadership: WE have to try. Our leaders behave as if a green transition is something that would be harmful to the people of this country, only to be reluctantly participated in if we can get other countries on board to share the pain. Nothing could be further from the truth: only the shortsighted interests of the fossil fuel cabal and those financial interests still bound up with them are threatened by such a change. Embracing a green, sustainable transition would be good for the vast majority of people of the UK regardless of its actual impact on the global climate – we’d have more food and energy security for a start.
So you have upwards of 50,000 people flying into somewhere where they cut down the rainforest to create the venue and roads to get to it.
Hmm.
I am sure a large Zoom call would have sufficed.
From my PhD Thesis on the bleeding obvious………….
1. All our ‘energy using and producing kit’ eg power stations, cars, gas boilers etc has a finite life, SO there is a cost to replacing it all even under a ‘business as usual’ scenario. Yes as renewables cost more to build – but less to run there might be more ‘up front’ costs but thats balanced by lower running costs
2. Then what about the ‘strategic’ issue and with Armistice Day falling tomorrow think of all the seamen who lost their lives in two world wars bringing oil to the UK from abroad and delivering coal from the North East and South Wales to keep the Country running. We no longer have any coal mines and the North Sea oil and gas is running out so where will we get our future energy needs from? In an increasingly unstable world do we want to rely on the ‘Kindness of Strangers’ in particular when you look at who the major oil and gas exporting nations are?
Renewablse
Todal power
The sun.
Nuclear, if you insost (but I don’t)
Throw in some batteries and I have solved your problem.
Richard, so you’ve identified some energy sources. You’ve “thrown in some batteries” and then claim to solved it. I guess you were being flippant for humour’s sake.?
As I’ve stated several times here, unless these things are enumerated, people can be overly complacent. Please take the time to read McKay’s “Sustainable Energy without the hit air”.
Are there solutions that can achieve a net zero, sustainable energy solution for the UK? Yes. But they are far from simple. They all need land. Industrialising the countryside is required. Its all about energy yield per m2. And we’ll want food security.
We don’t even have the political capital to implement a high speed railway of a couple of hundred miles. A net zero energy solution for the UK doesn’t have “easy” solutions or choices.
I beg all of you to acquaint yourselves with McKay’s work. It’s possible … But we should very much not be complacent.
I am inclined to disagree.
Politically it is nigh on impossible right now.
That’s the battle front. Technically could it be done? Yes, of course. I am not saying there would be no disruption or fights; damming The Wash is nigh on essential. But could it be done? My point was not flippant; of course it could.
I don’t want to distract from your major thrust — but I do want to ensure folk know (including Ian) that we do need to be realistic and have a solid foundation.
You said that the Wash is essential: Well …. it kind of is and it might also help stopping to flood Ely. But it’s contribution to our energy needs (assuming storage) is only 1.5kWh/d/person. Assuming efficiencies we are close to out future (ie much more efficient and reduced) energy needs are 68kWh/d/person. The Wash just doesn’t cut it. It’s good .. just not that important. Every BIG matters so much more!
The Wash is small beer. That is the importance of putting in the numbers and not just the emotions. Though, I understand, on this issue and all others, the emotions matter. So does the engineering. In a previous post, Ian cited the solar energy radiation — but the realisable power was only 1/10 of what he cited. We also need to to do the Maths. In this issue it really is important. Then we can get a perspective. I beg you all … yet again .. yadayadayada…
How are we going to survive without most of our best farmland? Managing climate change is not just about energy.
You said: “How are we going to survive without most of our best farmland? Managing climate change is not just about energy.”
I agree 100% — that is why I had said previously in the same thread: “[Sustainable solutions] all need land. Industrialising the countryside is required. Its all about energy yield per m2. “.
I just don’t want people to assume that the solutions are simple — there is a huge discussion to be had.
A theme from elsewhere today was that folk seem to avoid the more technical aspects of what you post. This seems a case in point – also for you! And all of McKay’s analysis is based on Newtonian physics (not that quantum stuff)! We really aren’t or shouldn’t be at loggerheads here. Nor should we be complacent.
I am not sure we are at loggerheads.
I am seeking to understand.
Is it right to lump Bill Gates in with Donald Trump on the issue of climate change? His point last week was that he doesn’t believe anymore that climate change will be an existential crisis for Earth. Whether one agrees with that or not, that ‘s way past Trump, who is a denier and calls climate change a hoax, surely?
It’s a major shift from Gates to accommadate Trump. I think that worth noting. The only reason for the change appears to be appease Trump, and that’s worthy of condemnation.
Here’s the lyrics to Radiohead’s song ‘The Numbers’ with a debt of gratitude to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. Radiohead have written a number of truly revolutionary evoking songs over the years and this one seems rather apt for this post, talking about mother earth, having a dig at the tyranny of numbers and extolling the virtues of fighting the good fight with patience and fortitude.
“The Numbers”
‘It holds us like a phantom
It touches like a breeze
It shines its understanding
See the moon is smiling
Open on all channels
Ready to receive
Cause we’re not at the mercy
Of your chimeras and spells
Your chimeras and spells
Mmmhm
We are of the earth
To her we do return
The future is inside us
It’s not somewhere else
It’s not somewhere else
It’s not somewhere else
(One day at a time)
One day at a time
We call upon the people
The people have this power
The numbers don’t decide
The system is a lie
A river running dry
The wings of butterflies
And you may pour us away like soup
Like we’re pretty broken flowers
We’ll take back what is ours
Take back what is ours
One day at a time’.
https://youtu.be/Ti6qhk3tX2s
Here, the link is for the stripped down version, but it was from the ‘Moonshaped’ Pool album.
Thanks
I like it
Dealing with climate includes trying to stop it advancing and mitigation, dealing with the consequences. I am reliably informed that realistically we have failed in our attempts to stop serious climate change, although this does not mean we can’t do more to stop further degradation.
However, we have to date done very little with regards to mitigation and it is many of our poorest countries who are most affected, so yes COP without many of the traditional main players remains worthwhile. And within the UK we must do more to protect our vital infrastructure from flooding etc.
And the elephant in the room which no political party including the Green Party will say out loud is that we cannot carry on living in the consumptive way we are. Electric cars will not replace petrol a d diesel cars. We will need more public transport and to travel less. We need to fly less etc. Economics not environmental consciousness will probably drive this.
https://t.co/3EwPufVdyB
Very interesting article by Jason Hickel , outlining what we are all up against . It is so depressing that our governments are capitalist and that so much time , effort and money is used in convincing us all that there is no other way ……
Steve Keen said recently we had a choice between a command economy and a mad max world. The rulers of the West and Middle East have chosen the latter. None of them has read London’s The Scarlet Plague or Doctorow’s Masque of the Red Death, let alone Sartre’s Huis Clos. They’ll just have to learn the hard way with the rest of us.
And then you have ‘specialist’ academics like ‘sir’ Dieter Helm at Oxford – who is now almost polemical about the ridiculously high priced long term contracts for renewables the government is putting in place, and says UK cant run on solar and wind plus batteries.
He makes valid points on the difficulties of rejigging the electricity supply network but shows little or no interest in reducing CO2 emissions or reconfiguring renewable investment such as networks of community owned mini systems, as he argues for continuing oil and gas .
With ‘independent’ experts like that there seems to be little hope
Young people are much more attuned to the disastrous consequences of climate change than the gerontocrats who run the world’s govs. You would expect them to come to the fore in the next decade, sweeping away the oldies who contest climate change, only because they don’t want it to be true, even if they suspect that it is. It is 100% true, by the way.
I dont believe there is a Generational divide Alan , far from it . I am into my 60’s and i would hazard a guess most people that post on here , along with Richard , are getting on a bit ! Read that article by Jason Hickel , Capitalism has been cultivated for a long time and he clearly paints the picture that it is Profit before People and the Planet .
He writes ….” The key thing to understand is that the climate crisis — and the ecological crisis more broadly — is 100 percent a problem of the production system. It has everything to do with who controls output, what they produce, and how they use energy and resources ” and ” Production is controlled overwhelmingly by capital: the big banks, the major corporations, and the one percent who own the majority of investible assets “.
Watch it! Getting in a bit? I am much refreshed this morning. But you are right. And my generation trouble me. Many are so selfishly complacent.
I am in my 60s and there definitely is a generational divide. Unfortunately there is a lot of ignorance in those 60+. Of course there are exceptions and many, but in general as Richard states many are selfish and unaware of the implications of their life style. You only have to look at the figures for Green Party voting to see this. It is dominant in the under 25s and barely present in the 65+ age group. The MSM media is partly responsible for telling us net zero is unaffordable etc.
Agreed
This 79yo has switched to voting Green as the best available option.
Paul
Excellent, sparkling analysis of a wide range of perspectives on climate change by Nick Clay for Labour International last Saturday. Will try to get you the Summary and/or Recording or you can get them from Nick directly .
Please do, Tim.
My experience of 25 year olds is that they see everything as disposable, especially electronics.
Having just had my 60+ year old amplifier repaired, it is something I struggle to understand. Probably because I am also 60+!
🙂