Hi everyone,
It would seem to me that the parameters of
this debate are becoming clear. Analysis of current trends provides
overwhelming evidence that we are either at, or may well have already
breached the tipping point on climate change. We are well set on the path
toward a rise in global average temperatures of around 4C by mid-century
(heading toward as much as 8C if not higher by the end), let alone the
disingenuous “2 degree limit” our governments pontificate about in public
while collaborating to make the situation far worse in private.
Simultaneously, for the last six years
world oil production has been flat. Instead of vindicating the futility of
industrial civilization’s over-dependence on fossil fuel resources, the
spectre of the end of the age of cheap conventional oil is driving a manic
bid to continue business-as-usual by diversifying the kinds of fossil fuels
we use, with greater investments in natural gas, coal, and worst of all, oil
shale and tar sands – whose carbon output despite its miniscule EROI is
magnitudes higher than that of conventional oil. We are also seeing a focus
from governments on nuclear energy, even though uranium production is likely
to peak within the next three decades (and thorium though available in
abundance is dependent on uranium to secure the chain reaction); has serious
EROI issues; and retains a relatively high carbon output to boot.
The climate crisis arises indelibly from
the totality of our relationships with one another, and with nature – the
very nature of our civilization, its ideology of nature and life, its value
system, how these are inherently linked to its socio-political, economic and
cultural forms. We are already seeing the death-throes of this overarching
civilizational form in the form of multiple converging symptomatic crises -
the global financial crisis, the global water crisis, the global food
crisis, the crisis of terror, war & militarization.
Amidst this maelstrom of civilizational
crisis, we are also witnessing a number of quite unexpected phenomena – the
Arab spring in the Middle East, where popular outrage and resistance toppled
the rule of two long-standing dictators friendly to Western interests, and
where struggle now continues with immense work still to be done, but a new
civic public consciousness growing fast; the Occupy Wall Street protest,
which has spiralled into a decentralised global protest movement, the likes
of which have not been seen before (there have of course been past
parallels, but the global Occupy movement is distinctive in that it is
genuinely leaderless and spontaneous). These two phenomena already are
facing immense challenges in the form of the increasing militarization of
state-power and the tendency to securitize every perceived challenge to
state-power, that Steve rightly observes seems to be the primary way the
powers-that-be are responding.
But it would seem to me that these
phenomena are symptoms of the other dimension to this crisis hinted at by
Alastair – that we are not simply facing a process of civilizational
collapse, but are also undergoing a process of civilizational
transition, the outcome of which remains to be seen. We can debate how
far gone we already are in terms of ecological apocalypse – admittedly, I do
lean toward the view, noted by Graham, that there is a great deal of
credible evidence that a catastrophe is already inevitable. That of course
remains a matter of debate, and there are uncertainties that might give us
leeway. Either way, catastrophe is quite literally in the pipeline on a
business-as-usual scenario, and doing nothing is simply not an
option.
Faced with this stark reality, it would
seem to me that it would be a grave mistake to simply reject geo-engineering
approaches as one option that should be seriously investigated. The argument
that we should reject geo-engineering simply because it implies more use of
interventionist, instrumentalist human industrial technology, which is
precisely what got us into this mess, is compelling. However, it overlooks
how deep we are into this crisis, and I think the evidence for the
inevitability of catastrophe due to positive-feedbacks already underway is
overwhelming. John Nissen is right, and so is Torsten, when they point out
the evidence that we are most likely past the tipping point on dangerous
global warming at current concentrations (about 445ppm), and we really need
to remove carbon from the atmosphere to avoid devastating eco-system
collapses that could lead to runaway warming. So I don’t see very strong
grounds to remove geo-engineering from the debate as utterly impossible to
consider. That position can only come from a lack of appreciation for the
scale and gravity of our current ecological predicament.
Having said that, the reality is that it’s
far from proven beyond doubt that geo-engineering solutions exist which
won’t have their own negative environmental effects. The literature is
replete with debate about every possible geo-engineering technofix under the
sun, so the conclusion that more research is needed to close up the areas of
uncertainty as much as possible, is clearly urgent. Even if that is
done, and perhaps there are specific technologies where it has been, the
problem that Nissen, respectfully, just doesn’t seem to get, is that the
reason governments and policymakers and so on are unwilling to act on
climate change, let alone consider issues like geo-engineering, is not
purely a psychological phobia of death. It is due to the socio-political and
economic system in which policymakers operate, the short-term material
interests which this system elevates, the reductionist ideology that this
system presumes to be an accurate vision of life and reality, and the
corresponding capitalist/consumerist value-system that follows from this
vision. The bitter irony of our predicament is this – without fundamentally
transforming the defunct political structures which are embedded in this
dysfunctional civilizational complex, we will never get our politicians or
anyone in power to take seriously not just the idea of measured, careful
environmentally-sensitive geo-engineering (assuming this is possible),
but the necessity for fundamental social structural transformation in
pursuit of more sustainable and equitable civilizational models.
This, of course, appears to be a
Catch-22.
The other issue of course is that
recognising the possibility that geo-engineering might be necessary for
species survival in no way obviates the wider recognition that fundamental
social structural transformation remains necessary to ensure a civilization
that is capable of functioning in harmony and parity with its environment,
rather than in an exploitative and ultimately self-destructive relationship.
Either way, the question of civilizational transition is forefronted.
This gets me back to Alastair’s insightful
framing of our predicament as an opportunity, I agree with this. For the
first time in human history, we face a civilizational crisis of truly
planetary proportions. With it we are witnessing the self-destruction and
decline of an exploitative, regressive and harmful industrial civilizational
form within the next few decades, and certainly well within this century.
Simultaneously, this process of decline brings with it a real danger of
species extinction; yet a danger that, I think, most of us agree is not yet
written in stone. Yet.
So we also now have a historic
opportunity, as this regressive civilizational form undergoes its protracted
collapse, to push for alternative ways of living, doing and being –
economically, politically, culturally, ethically, even spiritually – which
are far more conducive to human prosperity and well-being than hitherto
imaginable. So this is, also, an unprecedented opportunity, and the scale of
the opportunity I think is manifest in the kinds of spontaneous outbursts of
popular resistance we have seen across the world in the last year, outbursts
which could be incredibly powerful and transforming IF they were directed in
the right way.
Compared to ten or twenty years ago,
public opinion has converged massively. The majority are now sceptical of
the Iraq War; and a slimmer majority want troops out of Afghanistan;
everybody hates the banks; most people are now aware of ‘green’ issues, more
than ever before, even if many remain confused by corporate media
promulgation of absurd ‘sceptic’ (non)arguments; most people are wary of
conventional party politics and disillusioned with the mainstream
parliamentary system, due to the continuation of scandal after scandal. In
other words, on a whole range of issues, there has been a massive popular
shift in public opinion toward a progressive critique of the current system.
It is, of course, largely subliminal, not carefully worked out, and I’m
probably overstating the case a little anyway – but it has happened. This,
for me, is the evidence of humanity’s capacity to overcome what we’re
facing.
People are increasingly fed-up and
disillusioned with existing socio-political and economic structures, and
they are hungry for alternatives. Yet they see none readily available,
remain somewhat confused about why we're in this mess and who exactly is
responsible, and this gives them limited options beyond simply occupying
public space in an effort to, somehow, reclaim power.
In my view, the way forward is this:
1)
We need to popularise our discourse on the diagnosis. The discourse
that we have developed here, the ideas, the change of consciousness that
comes with it, needs to be disseminated as widely as possible. The greater
the dissemination, the greater the shift in consciousness, and the more
organised and focused the work and direction of protestors and activists.
Only by popularising the discourse can we, in my view, effect sufficient
pressure on the system to begin soliciting systemic change.
2)
We also need to develop the discourse further by developing a
meaningful prognosis, and with it, a coherent alternative framework of
action – we, and certainly I, have a penchant for delving into the nature of
the problem ad nauseum. We need to go beyond this, work concertedly to
demonstrate the efficacy and potential superiority of alternative social,
political, economic, cultural, and ethical models of life. Not only do we
need to develop our thinking and action on this, we need to show-case it and
popularise it too.
3)
We also need to develop ways to enact the discourse, to
implement the ideas, here and now, rather than simply waiting for power to
catch-up, wake-up and listen – which, it probably won’t. The Transition Town
model is one, but only one, way we could do this. In any case, we need to
find ways to empower communities to actually embark on that transition
process, to facilitate people pooling their collective resources and
changing their lives for the better now. Transition is definitely a leading
example of this, but I think more needs to be done to show-case the work
being done, but we need to go beyond that too, to start thinking about
concrete transformative actions, that are viable and accessible for average
people, that can allow them to start going off-grid, growing their own food,
and working together to create resilient local economies. Specifically, we
need to find ways to make Transition far less bourgeoisie - it is currently
largely irrelevant to the vast majority of working class people in this
country, and even less relevant to ethnic minorities who tend to be the most
marginalised. The challenge is how to make models like Transition meaningful
where they really count - where unemployment is high, where young people are
vulnerable to crime, and where opportunities for social mobility seem slim.
Until we do that, Transition will remain irrelevant to wider social
movements such as Occupy.
4)
Simultaneously, we do need to continue to use gains made in these
areas to lobby the establishment. By popularising the discourse, and the
implementation of the discourse in concrete social changes at community
level, it will become increasingly difficult for power to not take notice.
At this point, there is a possibility, even if a slim one, of effecting
political change.
As scholars, scientists, activists and, in
effect, ‘leaders’ (and I don’t mean that in a traditional top-down sense,
but in terms of simply people who are taking a stand and doing something
about the crisis, what we can, within our means), we have a responsibility
to link-up and communicate with the emerging protest movements around the
world, and to help increase their understanding of what is at stake, and
what needs to be done. It is imperative, in other words, that we step down
from our ivory towers and find innovative ways to communicate to the public.
I really appreciate what Nicholas Maxwell has spoken about repeatedly here,
on that note - the need for academia to be focused on development of
wisdom about how to actually live life, not simply to maximise
'knowledge'. We cannot underestimate how critically important it is for
us, people on this Forum, to find ways to communicate and disseminate our
work outside of the academy. Focusing on communication and
community education may well open up novel opportunities for funding as well
outside the traditional academic institutions like the ESRC etc., although
to my mind, the important thing is not to agonise about funding but to get
on with acting, while we're still alive and able.
Right now, the Occupy movement represents
a fantastic outburst of legitimate public anger against what are, in
reality, fundamental systemic failures. It is imperative to ensure these
popular energies develop the right diagnosis of our predicament, so that
they can be pointed in the right direction – not simply at the 1 per cent,
but at the system which enables the 1 per cent to exist in such parasitical
fashion, and which thus enables the dysfunctional pathway on which we are
now set, and of which economic and financial crisis is merely one
symptom.
I wrote my last book, "A User’s Guide to
the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It" (Pluto/Macmillan, 2010), as
an attempt to develop a holistic and systemic diagnosis of the problem,
because one can’t develop meaningful solutions without really understanding
the problem. It offers a prognosis and the basic conceptual outlines of an
alternative civilizational model. I’m plan to start work on a second book
which will attempt to elaborate on the question of alternatives. In both
cases, the idea is not to say something radically new, but rather to bring
together research in multiple fields into a single framework of
understanding. I think I’ve only generated a step forward in that direction,
and much more work needs to be done. It would be great to see how we
Forumers could explore ways that we could begin to bridge up
disciplines.
On the basis of the book, as I informed
the Forum a while ago, we have made a feature-length documentary film, "The
Crisis of Civilization". You can learn more about the film, how it was made,
and watch the trailer on our website at
www.crisisofcivilization.com. The film is now finished,
and we’re in the process of getting it out there. The world premiere of the
film took place in October in Graz, Austria, at the Elevate Festival, and we
just had our UK premiere at the Leeds International Film Festival last week.
We’ve also just sent out notice of our Gala London premiere which will take
place in the form of 2 screenings over 2 days, at the Whirledart Cinema near
Brixton (
http://www.whirledart.co.uk/cinema), on
29
th/30
th Nov, 7pm. The screenings are free and open
to all, so you’re all most welcome to come and bring friends/family –
however, demand is very high and is already getting booked up pretty fast,
so if you do want to come, it’s best to book your seat asap by RSVP-ing at
[log in to unmask].
It would be really nice to meet some of you there, as I think you would all
see the film as a potentially very powerful educational tool.
We see the film as a way of communicating
the findings of the book to a wider audience, and particularly of getting
the message out to activists working in very different areas, to encourage
them to start talking to each other and working together to develop more
joined-up ways of activism in pursuit of more concrete goals for social
change. We really believe that this is a film that could have a strong,
positive catalysing effect on the social movements that are now emerging. As
such, we’re encouraging anyone who wants to screen it in their own
community, university, etc. to just get in touch with us and we can work
with you to make it happen very easily.
I recall a number of you got in touch with
me just under a year ago when we were still producing the film to ask about
organising screenings – if you’re still interested in doing so, or if anyone
else is interested, please do get in touch with us on
[log in to unmask].
We will be essentially looking to start community/public screenings outside
London next year, but if you’re based in London and want to organise a
screening, there’s a chance we could get it done sometime in December.
Apart from the film and other things, I'm
really keen to explore creative ways to not just communicate academic
research to the public, but to also communicate effectively to policymakers.
I set up the IPRD to do that, but have never had the time to really make it
happen beyond a few small things. I'm not bothered about the vehicle, but I
think we need to do something here more effectively, and it seems to me that
there's more than enough expertise on this Forum to provide scientific
credibility - we simply need to think about how to harness this expertise in
a way that we can talk to the right people involved in policy. I wonder if
perhaps we can see the Crisis Forum doing this, or if we can imagine new
partnerships and collaborations that could help us to start reaching out to
policymakers more concertedly.
Many thanks
Nafeez
--
Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed M.A.
D.Phil (Sussex)
Executive Director
Institute for Policy Research
& Development
Suite 301, 20 Harewood Avenue
London NW1 6JX
On 10 November 2011 11:12, Omega
Institute
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
hi Torsten,
Even more excellent. You are clearly stating
the reality, we have all faced, up until now.
Graham Ennis
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Torsten Mark Kowal
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011
12:48 AM
Subject: Re: The dangerous limits
of dangerous limits
Forumers:
My output yesterday midday
was not as impressive as it could've been, given that I sent the message
without completing it....
How I meant to conclude was by
re-stating the construction from Climate Code Red (on page 64) of the
opposing or contrasting attributes of societies that are
defective versus
healthy, in psychological and social
terms. This is what I referred to (in a post about 6 weeks ago if you
recall) as the level of "pyscho-social maturity" of people within
societies and their institutions, that are capable of facing fully the
challenge of stopping GHG emissions and bringing atmospheric
concentrations down to safe levels.
The collective lunacy of
American Republican candidates for the US Presidency chimes strongly
with the immaturity of some attitudes in China that are evident in the
astonishing report from Oliver Tickell "
concerning China’s outrageous
threat to vent huge quantities of super greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere unless other nations pay it what amounts to a climate ransom
of billions". How this peculiar "abatement industry" has developed,
and is now taking the turn towards actual deliberate release of CFCs (if
the CDM's financial taps are turned off) is literally mind-numbing
http://www.eia-international.org/china-threat-to-vent-super-greenhouse-gases-in-bid-to-extort-billions
.
I have taken the short descriptions from Page 64 of Climate
Code Red, and expanded these, based on my judgement.
- Normal “political paralysis” and immature mode
(when crises are constrained within business-as-usual mode)
- Spin, denial and “politics as usual”
dominate the debate, with the evidence-base from science downplayed
and mis-stated
- Crisis is not perceived as an urgent threat
but characterised as not yet serious enough to justify what are seen
as costly mitigation actions
- Time of response is seen as not important;
"it can always be tackled later"
- Crisis is seen as one of many issues, not
as existential for the human species in the long term
- Normal development of labour markets are
seen as the only option for developing and supplying the human
resources to manage the problem
- Budgetary “restraint” is always highlighted
as an imperative in resource allocation decisions
- Communities and markets expected and
managed to function as usual; only weak and ineffective incentives to
foster change are put in place
- Slow rate of change, due to systemic
inertia, lack of synergy and unresolved conflicts between the media,
the political classes, electorates, scientists, civil society, the
public sector and businesses
- "Market needs" dominate thinking and
response choices - "trading away" the problem is seen as the
acceptable option
- Targets and goals are determined by
political tradeoffs; and are not based on effective internalisation of
the policy implications of findings from science
- Culture of compromise in which lowest
common denominators usually win out
- Lack of political and national leadership,
adversarial politics in which manipulation of information prevails
over honesty
- Ethical and value systems prioritise
gratification of the wants of present generations and immediate
constituencies, arguing that if problems occur, future adaptation will
suffice
- Emergency "mature" mode (when societies engage
productively with crises — not in panic mode)
- All actors assess the situation with brutal
honesty, seeking out early new information and acting on it;
maximizing the efficient exposure of that information to their policy
constituencies
- Crisis is visualized as a threat to life,
health, property or environment according to real levels of
vulnerability (degree of exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity)
- Crisis is understood to feature a high
probability of escalation beyond control if corrective actions are not
taken, implying the consistent application of the strong precautionary
principle during policy-making
- Speed of response seen as crucial, due to
the effective internalisation of future costs into present day
calculations (not the use of standard discounting)
- Highest priority is assigned to
problem-solving in all areas of low-carbon development
- Emergency project teams and labour planning
are seen as imperative to manage the ambitious projects that are
required to respond quickly, at the scale of the problem
- Decisions are taken globally by all past
and current contributors to the problem, to devote major volumes of
resources, borrowing heavily if necessary, even if this imposes
current costs
- Non-essential functions and consumption may
be curtailed or rationed in order to apply resources to the major
social and economic changes needed
- Rapid transition, and scaling up, is built
into all the programmes that show results in stimulating real
mitigation of, and adaptation to, the crisis
- In-depth planning and the fostering of
green innovation is heavily prioritized and resourced
- Targets and goals are not compromised, but
seen as mandatory obligations to be fulfilled
- "Failure is not an option" is taken as the
ongoing maxim for all efforts
- Heroic leadership and bipartisanship are
shown in all areas of society and economy, by successfully applying
long-term thinking and positive vision to overcoming critical problems
- Ethics and values are based on concern for
the critical impacts on future generations; and current damages to
exposed populations with limited ability to adapt
- Adapted from http://www.civicus.org/new/media/climatecodered_1.pdf
The presently-effective responses of the Human Species to
global warming by and large display the virtual paralysis of an immature
"organism", that is unwilling and incapable of recognizing the real
long-term threat it faces.
How can we shift social responses
from one paradigm to the other?
I attach a presentation made by
a colleague Dr Richard Pagett on the subject of the
Big Society -
Securing the future, that develops the Big Picture from other
angles, and asks if Big Society thinking under current UK government,
really can contribute to solving all these problems, at scales large and
small.
Kindest regards,
Mark Kowal
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.comVersion: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database:
2092/4597 - Release Date: 11/04/11