from climate progress
A study published 28 years ago by James Hansen and others and entitled “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” shows that evidence of the warming that could have been predicted since the greenhouse properties of CO2 were discovered in the 19th century was in the public domain long before anyone decided to DO anything. The study was also reported in the New York Times - Study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels,
What is clear is that greenhouse warming was always likely, no matter what the economic and social system, but that the systems in place throughout this period (mostly capitalism and some state socialism) were, and still are, particularly incapable of taking prompt action preferring denial and delay. This is partially due to the inherent competition (within capitalism and between capitalism and socialism) that meant there was no benefit to be the first to act but also on the huge scale of organisations within the system that separates those in power from those more likely to suffer from any consequences and also provides such large benefits from trying to squeeze out just a bit more business as usual. Systems based more on cooperation and containing organisations on a smaller, more human scale would surely have realised and started to act sooner - not that much sooner probably, but would be at least 10 years ahead of where we are now, and if they had also been less obsessed by economic growth we would be less far down the road. In summary, capitalism didn't cause climate change, but it did make it a hell of a lot less likely that we would stop it in time.
Journalistic whiplash
from realclimate
"This phenomena occurs with the more uncertain parts of a science that are being actively researched and where the full story is only slowly coming together. In such cases, new papers often appear in high profile journals (because they meet the 'of general interest' test), and are often parsed rather simplistically to see what side of the fence they fall - are they pro or anti? This leads to wide press interest, but rather shallow coverage, and leaves casual readers with 'whiplash' from the 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' messages every other week.
This is a familiar pattern in health reporting (is coffee good for you/bad for you etc.), but in more recent times has started happening in climate science too. Examples picked out in the article include the hurricanes/global warming connection and the state of Greenland's ice sheet."
"This phenomena occurs with the more uncertain parts of a science that are being actively researched and where the full story is only slowly coming together. In such cases, new papers often appear in high profile journals (because they meet the 'of general interest' test), and are often parsed rather simplistically to see what side of the fence they fall - are they pro or anti? This leads to wide press interest, but rather shallow coverage, and leaves casual readers with 'whiplash' from the 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' messages every other week.
This is a familiar pattern in health reporting (is coffee good for you/bad for you etc.), but in more recent times has started happening in climate science too. Examples picked out in the article include the hurricanes/global warming connection and the state of Greenland's ice sheet."
nuclear option
lets get it right - we shouldn't rule out nuclear. if we do manage to push back the RCC tipping point beyond 2020 by investing in renewables and make changes such as the extended electrification of our transport system, then it really might have a role to play. Of course it must be safe and not prevent the necessary investment in renewables.
In fact licenses to continue building them must be dependent on companies investing a minimum amount on renewables in the next 5 years, if they fail to keep this up construction should be halted.
In fact licenses to continue building them must be dependent on companies investing a minimum amount on renewables in the next 5 years, if they fail to keep this up construction should be halted.
monbiot on a similar theme to reform vs revolution
monbiot on similar theme to reform vs revolution
maybe i was over optimistic to say that i thought the urgency of action on climate change had put an end to left wing dogmatism. I was in the audience when monbiot spoke at climate camp about taking all means to defeat RCC - whether that's state action, trading or nuclear power, and many were uncomfortable. Partly because this kind of pragmatism has a tendency to be misused by people whose ends are not the same as ours - such as the pre-existing nuclear lobby who are celebrating monbiot's grudging acceptance that their industry might have a role to play.
The answer is that it isn't an either or - either we're pragmatic or idealist - we MUST be both. We must work to ensure any carbon trading scheme actually works (something i think is very unlikely) or make sure that nukes only return if they meet a stringent criteria including not taking investment from renewables (again, not likely). and do this at the same time as planning and working for our ideal society (partly because this is also part of the pragmatic solution)
And remember, if pragmatism is uncomfortable for you, you've only got to do it for 100 months, just hold your nose and work with these people and systems for that time in an 'emergency coalition', after that.....
maybe i was over optimistic to say that i thought the urgency of action on climate change had put an end to left wing dogmatism. I was in the audience when monbiot spoke at climate camp about taking all means to defeat RCC - whether that's state action, trading or nuclear power, and many were uncomfortable. Partly because this kind of pragmatism has a tendency to be misused by people whose ends are not the same as ours - such as the pre-existing nuclear lobby who are celebrating monbiot's grudging acceptance that their industry might have a role to play.
The answer is that it isn't an either or - either we're pragmatic or idealist - we MUST be both. We must work to ensure any carbon trading scheme actually works (something i think is very unlikely) or make sure that nukes only return if they meet a stringent criteria including not taking investment from renewables (again, not likely). and do this at the same time as planning and working for our ideal society (partly because this is also part of the pragmatic solution)
And remember, if pragmatism is uncomfortable for you, you've only got to do it for 100 months, just hold your nose and work with these people and systems for that time in an 'emergency coalition', after that.....
growing destruction
It's worth reminding ourselves of the real cause of climate change - the growth economy, and just how much more destruction it could cause in a relatively short time
from monbiot
"In a lecture to the Royal Academy of Engineering in May, Professor Rod Smith of Imperial College explained that a growth rate of 3% means economic activity doubles in 23 years. At 10% it takes just seven years. This we knew. But Smith takes it further. With a series of equations he shows that "each successive doubling period consumes as much resource as all the previous doubling periods combined". In other words, if our economy grows at 3% between now and 2040, we will consume in that period economic resources equivalent to all those we have consumed since humans first stood on two legs. Then, between 2040 and 2063, we must double our total consumption again. Reading that paper I realised for the first time what we are up against."
It's worth reminding ourselves of the real cause of climate change - the growth economy, and just how much more destruction it could cause in a relatively short time
from monbiot
"In a lecture to the Royal Academy of Engineering in May, Professor Rod Smith of Imperial College explained that a growth rate of 3% means economic activity doubles in 23 years. At 10% it takes just seven years. This we knew. But Smith takes it further. With a series of equations he shows that "each successive doubling period consumes as much resource as all the previous doubling periods combined". In other words, if our economy grows at 3% between now and 2040, we will consume in that period economic resources equivalent to all those we have consumed since humans first stood on two legs. Then, between 2040 and 2063, we must double our total consumption again. Reading that paper I realised for the first time what we are up against."
Volunteers are surprisingly committed
From BPS research digest
Despite the obvious value of volunteers, managers often have reservations about hiring unpaid staff because of doubts over their commitment. There's a sense that they can leave at any time and there's no paid contract to keep them in line. But a new study turns these ideas upside down, finding that volunteers are actually more committed than their fully paid up colleagues.
Mark van Vuuren and colleagues surveyed hundreds of paid and volunteer workers at a Dutch charity for the blind and partially sighted. Questionnaire items tapped three aspects of organisational commitment, including the employees' emotional commitment ("I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation"); their sense of obligation and loyalty ("Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organisation now"); and what's known as "continuance commitment" - their sense that leaving isn't an option ("I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation").
It transpires the volunteers were more emotionally committed (especially if they felt there was a close fit between their values and the values of the charity) and also felt more loyalty and obligation to the organisation than did the paid staff. The researchers were particularly surprised at this latter finding, which they said could have to do with the fact the volunteers tended to be older. "Older people are motivated to volunteer because of their wish to fulfil an obligation or commitment to society," they said.
Van Vuuren's team said these results have several implications for managers. For example, it's important for organisations wishing to attract volunteer staff to "communicate how their goals, values and culture are congruent to the individual's beliefs..."
"This study showed that the absence of the 'stick of paid work' does not lead to the situation that volunteers leave their tasks very easily," the researchers continued. "As indicated by their commitment, there seems to be an interdependence, even though volunteers are not paid for their contribution. They may need the organisation as much as the organisation needs them."
_________________________________
van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M., Seydel, E. (2008). Commitment with or without a stick of paid work: Comparison of paid and unpaid workers in a nonprofit organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 315-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701693175
Author weblink: http://www.ibr.utwente.nl/
Despite the obvious value of volunteers, managers often have reservations about hiring unpaid staff because of doubts over their commitment. There's a sense that they can leave at any time and there's no paid contract to keep them in line. But a new study turns these ideas upside down, finding that volunteers are actually more committed than their fully paid up colleagues.
Mark van Vuuren and colleagues surveyed hundreds of paid and volunteer workers at a Dutch charity for the blind and partially sighted. Questionnaire items tapped three aspects of organisational commitment, including the employees' emotional commitment ("I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation"); their sense of obligation and loyalty ("Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organisation now"); and what's known as "continuance commitment" - their sense that leaving isn't an option ("I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation").
It transpires the volunteers were more emotionally committed (especially if they felt there was a close fit between their values and the values of the charity) and also felt more loyalty and obligation to the organisation than did the paid staff. The researchers were particularly surprised at this latter finding, which they said could have to do with the fact the volunteers tended to be older. "Older people are motivated to volunteer because of their wish to fulfil an obligation or commitment to society," they said.
Van Vuuren's team said these results have several implications for managers. For example, it's important for organisations wishing to attract volunteer staff to "communicate how their goals, values and culture are congruent to the individual's beliefs..."
"This study showed that the absence of the 'stick of paid work' does not lead to the situation that volunteers leave their tasks very easily," the researchers continued. "As indicated by their commitment, there seems to be an interdependence, even though volunteers are not paid for their contribution. They may need the organisation as much as the organisation needs them."
_________________________________
van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M., Seydel, E. (2008). Commitment with or without a stick of paid work: Comparison of paid and unpaid workers in a nonprofit organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 315-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701693175
Author weblink: http://www.ibr.utwente.nl/
reform Vs revolution
From my point of view there's never been a contradiction between trying to gradually make things better (reforming) and working towards a radically different future (revolution).
I was talking to a revolutionary socialist last night and I realised how much more similar their actual programme is to mine now in the context of climate change, despite apparent differences. Both have an ideal future that they are working towards but are using their principles and ideas to tackle current problems in a more pragmatic way. I think the climate crisis has made this necessary because any socialist that so dislikes the idea of 'reforming' to the point of not campaigning for action to avoid climate change must surely lose any credibility simply because of the timescales involved.
I was talking to a revolutionary socialist last night and I realised how much more similar their actual programme is to mine now in the context of climate change, despite apparent differences. Both have an ideal future that they are working towards but are using their principles and ideas to tackle current problems in a more pragmatic way. I think the climate crisis has made this necessary because any socialist that so dislikes the idea of 'reforming' to the point of not campaigning for action to avoid climate change must surely lose any credibility simply because of the timescales involved.
climate camp magic
I went to Climate Camp film night at the rampART last night. It was great to catch up with stuff I'd missed during the week and also meet up with a few people. However, the really incredible thing was the atmosphere. I've been involved with the rampART collective for a couple of years and have been to many great film nights and other events, but last night just seemed to have a special buzz and atmosphere - there were only a handful of people who i recognised from the camp there but the fact that it was a climate camp night brought a special energy and feeling of shared purpose and community, I don't know exactly what it is, but climate camp has a unique magic.
see the films on youtube
see the films on youtube
Just so you know where I’m coming from – here’s a quick sketch of how I think we can stop RCC and, failing that, build a society that can withstand it.
- To realise that most of things we take for granted are in fact luxuries that we can still continue to enjoy as long as we are sensible, aware of the real costs and make choices between them that are necessary to be sustainable.
- Live in small (3-500 people) autonomous, truly democratic, communities that put people first and produce much of what they need, but are still connected to other communities by trade and electronic communications networks.
If RCC does happen
This model will be the best way of maintaining a good society in the face of severe pressure from shortages, poverty, extreme weather, human desperation, migration, state reaction, reactionary attitudes. And will only survive if communities are open, continue to be democratic, co-operate with each other, remain connected.
I'm working on slightly more detailed idea of how this might be acheived, which i'll post when it's finished.
- To realise that most of things we take for granted are in fact luxuries that we can still continue to enjoy as long as we are sensible, aware of the real costs and make choices between them that are necessary to be sustainable.
- Live in small (3-500 people) autonomous, truly democratic, communities that put people first and produce much of what they need, but are still connected to other communities by trade and electronic communications networks.
If RCC does happen
This model will be the best way of maintaining a good society in the face of severe pressure from shortages, poverty, extreme weather, human desperation, migration, state reaction, reactionary attitudes. And will only survive if communities are open, continue to be democratic, co-operate with each other, remain connected.
I'm working on slightly more detailed idea of how this might be acheived, which i'll post when it's finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)