13 votes

The empty radicalism of the climate apocalypse: What would it mean to get serious about climate change?

6 comments

  1. [3]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      bbvnvlt
      Link Parent
      Is the article (haven't read it yet) specifically concerned with US policy/politics/developments? (because you say 'the network of politicians and business elites we have right now'). As a...

      if you think state power under the genuine democratic control of the people could actually do some good

      Is the article (haven't read it yet) specifically concerned with US policy/politics/developments? (because you say 'the network of politicians and business elites we have right now').

      As a European, this seems not really up for debate. It's an established fact. See public housing (however flawed), universal healthcare (unequivocally a success, I'd say, even if now in decline), environmental regulations, much of the actual land in my country (the Netherlands), the absence of floods in the rest of it, vaccination programs, a functioning justice system, etcetera, etcetera...

      And even in the US, state power has been successful in establishing a number of public goods, no?

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. bbvnvlt
          Link Parent
          Agree. Although I'm a bit more hopeful (perhaps against my better judgement) for things to still turn around here on the North Sea coast ;). On the other hand, I'm currently watching Years and...

          The good things that state power provides were things that the people had to fight tooth and nail for, and as time goes on the system dismantles those things bit by bit to make the wealthy even richer. Although things are probably better in Europe than they are across the pond, the same kind of process of slow extraction is occurring in both regions, and they seem to be reaching a breaking point.

          Agree. Although I'm a bit more hopeful (perhaps against my better judgement) for things to still turn around here on the North Sea coast ;).

          On the other hand, I'm currently watching Years and Years (seen two episodes) which deals with this development in a very well done and frighteningly plausible way. Makes me and my partner think we shouldn't perhaps have made a kid who'll have to live through the coming century :-/

          2 votes
  2. joelthelion
    Link
    Thanks for posting this excellent article! I think everybody can witness the shortcomings of environmental policies around the world, but this article does a very good job of explaining why things...

    Thanks for posting this excellent article!

    I think everybody can witness the shortcomings of environmental policies around the world, but this article does a very good job of explaining why things are the way they are. Hopefully a better understanding of political issues could bring us to better policies...

    3 votes
  3. [3]
    Diet_Coke
    Link
    I am almost of the opinion that Democracy is not going to survive the climate crisis. The article doesn't even fully go into everything we need to do. Are Americans ready to give up the military,...

    I am almost of the opinion that Democracy is not going to survive the climate crisis. The article doesn't even fully go into everything we need to do. Are Americans ready to give up the military, one of the largest users of fossil fuels in its mission to secure the supply of more fossil fuels? Are we ready to give up meat for the most part? The conveniences of worldwide shipping? For decades, with no immediate benefit?

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      spctrvl
      Link Parent
      I disagree. Fundamentally, the climate crisis is a problem of insufficient democracy as much as it is of excessive carbon emissions. Namely, it stems from the fact that our economy is mostly run...

      I disagree. Fundamentally, the climate crisis is a problem of insufficient democracy as much as it is of excessive carbon emissions. Namely, it stems from the fact that our economy is mostly run by large, undemocratic bodies and unelected corporate autocrats, with no social obligations beyond maximizing profit, meaning they're always looking for another externality to dump onto the public. If we don't fix that, even if we survive climate change, our society is just going to keep lurching from one crisis to the next until one of them eventually gets us.

      As such, in order to build a lasting solution to these sorts of problems, I think we need to expand democracy into the economy. In the specific case of climate change, nationalize the big polluters and utilities, and require democratic corporate charters for the rest, with compensation structures such that the C-suite isn't making enough to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Then use the resources of the nationalized entities to build the infrastructure we need for a carbon free future.

      Besides, think about who takes over in the event that democracy dies, it's not gonna be some Green Junta. I don't think anything good is going to come of turning over the keys to a group of self appointed technocrats who are, through their decades of fighting against government oversight, the ones primarily responsible for letting things get this bad in the first place.

      As an aside, Nordhaus mentions this point of view, or at any rate that some people view the climate crisis as a crisis of insufficient equality, but dismisses it out of hand by claiming that people espousing it aren't willing to do what's necessary to avert the crisis. Probably the weakest part of the article, as I definitely think asserting democratic control over the economy is worth fighting for in any case, and is a surer bet for beating climate change than waiting for a technological miracle. But given the overall fatalistic tone of the article, I can't say that being his position was surprising.

      3 votes
      1. bbvnvlt
        Link Parent
        In my reading, the author was claiming "that people espousing it aren't willing to do what's necessary to avert the crisis" as a fact. He spends quite some words on this, not just dismissing it...

        As an aside, Nordhaus mentions this point of view, or at any rate that some people view the climate crisis as a crisis of insufficient equality, but dismisses it out of hand by claiming that people espousing it aren't willing to do what's necessary to avert the crisis.

        In my reading, the author was claiming "that people espousing it aren't willing to do what's necessary to avert the crisis" as a fact. He spends quite some words on this, not just dismissing it out of hand. It's a major part of his thesis, no? And it certainly seems to hold for the environmentally concerned, small-scale minded, ecological farmer's market visiting liberal left.

        Probably the weakest part of the article, as I definitely think asserting democratic control over the economy is worth fighting for in any case, and is a surer bet for beating climate change than waiting for a technological miracle. But given the overall fatalistic tone of the article, I can't say that being his position was surprising.

        He agrees with you on the desirability of this, he just doesn't see it happening. He doesn't even see it as feasible enough to fight for, it seems. There, i agree with you he throws in the towel somewhat prematurely.

        1 vote