So, where are Stalin and Mao when we need them to accomplish these lofty goals put forward by the Euro Greens? Very interesting perspective on this, although I think the real answers (is there any chance of keeping temperatures below 1.5 or 2 degrees) depend on science. Well, I guess, politics and sociology too.... Or does this Green Party agenda lend more fuel to the violent white supremacists?
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:01 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://legal-planet.org/2020/12/17/we-cannot-keep-global-warming-within-1-5c-without-geoengineering/ > > We Cannot Keep Global Warming within 1.5°C without Geoengineering > A new report from German green left groups heroically try do so, but fail > I emphasize the importance of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies > and solar geoengineering research because keeping global warming within the > internationally agreed-upon 2°C goal through reducing greenhouse gas > emissions alone is extremely difficult, and limiting it to the 1.5°C > aspirational target is now essentially impossible. All options to reduce > climate change that are consistent with widely held norms should be on the > table. Notably, strident opponents of CDR technologies and solar > geoengineering (sometimes collectively called “geoengineering”) rarely > offer any details as to how dangerous climate change could be otherwise > prevented, besides handwaving toward “agro-ecological peasant farming > systems.” > > Societal Transformation Scenario report cover > Last week, the Heinrich-Böll Foundation, an arm of the German Green Party > and one of the leading opponents of geoengineering, along with Konzeptwerk > Neue Ökonomie published a report A Societal Transformation Scenario for > Staying Below 1.5°C. Accomplishing this without CDR technologies and solar > geoengineering requires rejection of what is popular and beneficial, > patently unreal assumptions, radical social and economic reorganization, > and implicit authoritarianism. Such a strong claim on my part warrants > substantiation. So let’s dive deep… > > To begin, the report authors reject economic growth. Although unabated > growth is open to reasonable critique on sustainability grounds, greater > economic activity is empirically correlated with many desirable outcomes: > longer life expectancy, lower child mortality, more years of schooling, > better human rights, greater gender parity, happiness, and even fewer hours > worked. Given this, it should not be surprising that almost everyone wants > economic growth. That’s why all politicians promise it and those who are in > office during growth are more often reelected. And developing countries > arguably have a moral claim on economic growth similar to what > industrialized countries have enjoyed. > > Instead, the Societal Transformation Scenario (STS) assumes that > industrialized countries will degrow their economies, while those of > developing countries largely stagnate, all in a planned manner. This is not > measured by “crude” gross domestic product (GDP) but by consumption > parameters, presented in the table below. (“Annex I” roughly means > industrialized countries, from the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate > Change.) > > Consumption parameters and how they change in the STS up to 2050 > To summarize: Industrialized countries will economically contract while > developing ones will grow in some ways but remain constant in others. In > fact, in this scenario, some of the industrialized countries’ parameters > contract to less than the developing ones’ current levels. For example, > despite what the table says about reducing food waste, the report expects > that residents of industrialized countries will reduce their daily caloric > intake by 24%, which would be to a level lower than developing countries’ > current average. In developing countries, urban passenger transport by cars > will decrease; car occupancy, appliances per person, caloric intake, and > meat consumption must remain constant; and all other parameters are capped > at levels well below the current average among industrialized countries. > (For what it is worth, all of the report’s authors are European.) > > Yet despite rejecting growth, the STS assumes that there will somehow be > plenty of money. In fact, it explicitly provides “No cost estimates” of the > proposed societal transition. The report calls for “ambitious increases in > efficiency and renewable energies… basic incomes [and] a reduction of > working hours (e.g., to 20 to 30 hours/week)” and insists that “education, > health care and culture… should be strengthened and flourish.” However, > technological improvements, incomes, and social services must somehow be > paid for. > > Second, the report makes unreasonable assumptions for its model. For one > thing, while the UN forecasts that the global population will be about 9.6 > billion in 2050, the STS says 8.5 billion, which is even way below the UN’s > range of probable values. And the report’s tiny increase in industrialized > countries’ population allows for very little of the ongoing migration from > developing countries to continue. > > For another thing, the STS model uses a discount rate of zero. This value > indicates how much we reduce a future benefit or cost at the present > moment. For example, most people would prefer a $1000 gift now rather than > in a few years because, at the very least, it could be invested in the > meantime. Because discounting compounds like bank interest, it is usually > the most important value when making long-term forecasts. While > intergenerational and high discounting do raise legitimate ethical > questions, the implications a discount rate of zero indicate that it is > nonsensical: If we did not discount the future, then we would each consume > only enough to stay alive and invest the entire remaining wealth for the > future. > > Third, the report demands not only that climate change be limited without > geoengineering but also that society be revolutionized. This is most > evident its vision of social and economic relations. It requires > > comprehensive socio-ecological transformation that involves radical > redistribution of wealth [including a maximum wage] and labour [and power] > and a change of welfare systems, economic principles and lifestyles… > economies that are more extensively built on cooperative action, sharing, > swapping and donating products and helping people to help themselves… > STS is not primarily about producing and consuming less; it is about > organising society differently… based upon the conviction that the current > underlying values and paradigms of political and economic decision-making > need to be re-thought… > Many basic goods are no longer traded on markets; their production and > distribution are arranged through democratic processes… > The economy of the future will be run by cooperatives, community-supported > businesses, from small local and regional firms and other forms of > collectively administered common properties (such as houses and companies). > I suspect that this extremely egalitarian and communal vision is not > (merely) a means to limit climate change but the authors’ desired end > itself. > > The report’s underlying ideology can also been seen in its rejection of > other technologies. They phase out power because it is a “high risk… > technological solution… that lead[s] to disproportionate environmental > degradation and destruction.” Digitalization such as “transport system > centred around electric and driverless cars, fully occupied and running > efficient, safe and without congestion” is also dismissed. And the scenario > “assumes a shift away from industrial agriculture with its negative > consequences… toward sustainable and organic farming practices,” although > it somehow keeps agricultural productivity consistent. > > Fourth, and most disturbing to me, the report is vague as to how its > proposed revolution in what billions of people want and do would come > about. It is easy, of course, to call for “cooperation, care, solidarity > and sustainability to achieve a good life for all.” The use of the passive > voice–e.g., “Consumption and production in the Global North must be > reduced… society can always be reshaped”–neglects how these steps would be > accomplished. At one point, the authors dodge this central issue: “The STS > prescribes [no] concrete toolkit of environmental and social policy > instruments for doing so.” > > At the same time, for each parameter, the report offers some policies and > measures. However, I am doubtful skeptical that the modest ones (e.g. > “reduced share of meat-based dishes in public institutions”) would achieve > the dramatic changes that they assume, while the more assertive ones (e.g. > prohibitions on short-haul and night flights and high fines “for > misappropriated living space”) would be politically unpopular. > > It is likewise to insist, as the authors repeatedly do, that “that > different sectors of production and consumption will be reduced as [and the > other changes will be] the result of democratic deliberation [that] is > developed bottom-up.” Yet they simultaneously say, “there is no alternative > [to these changes] since the politics of growth are an obstacle not only to > reducing consumption and production but to change itself.” The obvious > question is: what if the report’s “inclusive democratic processes” rejects > these structural transformation and instead endorses economic growth? After > all, that’s what existing democracies, albeit flawed, have generally done. > > Unsurprising to anyone familiar with the real-world implementation of such > unconstrained utopian visions, authoritarianism would, in all likelihood, > be necessary to “limit[] global production and consumption” and for > requisite “changes in governance, culture and individual behaviour [and] > reshaping society to the benefit of all.” > > Sometimes the requisite authoritarianism is evident. For example, the > report cites a study that “non-coercive measures could reduce national > traffic levels by about 11% in the UK” but also demands that, in > industrialized countries, road-based passenger transport fall by 37%. Would > the remaining 26% require coercive measures? > > As another example, consider the report’s reduction of the residential > floor space per person: > > We assume a doubling of people per house [in industrialized countries and] > we increase household size by 20% [for developing ones]… > while many elderly have become attached to their homes, there is no reason > why they could not be shared with others… > We imagine the increase in people per household as a voluntary cultural > shift… we understand that this change will not be for everyone… «push» > policies are needed for social classes that feel entitled to large living > spaces just because they can afford them and capital investors that build > large, expensive apartments. > Some concrete measures are: … * high fees for misappropriated living space > * socialisation of living spaces through expropriation when market signals > fail to lead to affordable and sustainable apartment sizes > (Unmentioned is the fact that, because population in industrialized > countries will be stable, this in packing most buildings with more people > while leaving almost half of them vacant). > > I believe that this sort of watermelon politics (“green” on the outside, > “red” on the inside) is one of the central reasons that some on the far > left oppose CDR and solar geoengineering. After all, preventing climate > change through aggressive emissions cuts would shackle the industrialized > economies, while international funds for adaption would transfer wealth > from rich to poor countries. Yet CDR and solar geoengineering could reduce > climate change without this redistribution. > > I predict that the Heinrich-Böll Foundation and its allies will soon point > to this report as proof that ambitious climate change goals can be met with > neither CDR technologies nor solar geoengineering. Such claims would, in > all likelihood, be wrong. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05eSEf-58_HroYTHY6BJYmR1-mvcumqi7LBLv8ABDK%2BiQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-05eSEf-58_HroYTHY6BJYmR1-mvcumqi7LBLv8ABDK%2BiQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAP8ASOmjhEypxQU7p17CuqDOLrUz0XBRAqODSt0jPjqRg%40mail.gmail.com.
