Hi RobertT, 'It may be possible'. I wonder. Neoliberalism extols the
primacy of markets in the allocation of resources. Neoclassical
economics is mostly about the behaviour of Homo economicus, and
idealised human who always acts rationally to optimise his/her wealth.
Steve Keen has pretty convincingly debunked both these mythical
viewpoints in relation to climate change.
I'm a Chartered Accountant/CPA not an economist so this is where I
venture into shark infested waters. I'm hoping that those more
knowledgable will be able to rescue me if I stray too close to danger.
Capitalism is at the heart of the problem. Here let me be clear that
I'm talking about the relationship between capital and labour in which
those with capital invest it with view to making a profit and purchase
labour from those without capital to do the work necessary to generate
the profits. That is a gross oversimplification but hopefully
sufficient for now. I'm not talking about trading for a profit or free
markets or many other economically relevant factors, just the
relationship between capital and labour.
Capital will only be invested in projects expected to make a profit.
Making a profit implies growth because without growth demand is limited
and commercial activity becomes at best a zero sum game. Note that in
the last several decades, GDP growth has become the single most
important measure of economic performance. Growing GDP is good.
Shrinking GDP is bad. In effect, capitalism is structurally dependent
on growth. On a finite planet never ending growth is the definition of
unsustainability.
In a message just received, you comment 'Trying to take down capitalism
in order to fix the climate makes no sense. Far better to seek
constructive partnerships with industry for cooling.' I think this is
confused. It begs the question as to who is the master, the capitalists
or those seeking constructive partnerships with them. I could accept
the first sentence if in the second you replace 'seek' with 'enforce'.
To close, capitalism won't be dismantled and replaced by something else,
it'll gradually morph into something more appropriate for the needs of
the future; that's how it emerged from feudalism and mercantilism. The
critical issue right now is that capitalists are mostly motivated by
short term profits and not by the need to accelerate AE R&D if they
consider that not to be the best way they can generate profits. If
governments enforced a regime in which companies were obliged to act in
a climate responsible manner, things could be very different. But they
don't for all manner of reasons that I won't go into here.
Regards
Robert
On 09/04/2023 20:32, [email protected] wrote:
It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
worldview to adapt to the need for climate stability.
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Robert Chris
*Sent:* Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM
*To:* H simmens <[email protected]>; [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; geoengineering
<[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>; via NOAC Meetings
<[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance
<[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Herb, thanks for the further explanation.
David, the two statements are totally consistent. Your confusion is
unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal
neoclassical worldview. But it's run its course and we all need to
recognise that and move on Not doing so will just bring the system
collapse forward..
Regards
Robert
On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
Another way to articulate what Robert said is to quote Keynes:
“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to
achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value
based and politically mediated.
It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect
to the climate crisis:
Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature
increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed
that goal-
Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature
increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to
well below 1° C
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris
<[email protected]> wrote:
David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always
economically realistic.
So long as global warming is mediated through an economic
lens, the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?
--
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/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/b0c9aad6-40db-cd43-332b-3fd718a16064%40gmail.com.
