Yves here. We’ve been decrying Green New Deal unicorn/hopium as wildly inadequate responses to greenhouse gas emissions for some time. We are now past the point of no return. We’ve featured sobering warnings, such as Preparing for Collapse: Why the Focus on Climate/Energy Sustainability Is Destructive. Richard Murphy warns of what comes next on a more personal level, such as “devil take the hindmost” efforts to find relatively safe havens. Yet Helene illustrated that that may well be futile, since North Carolina was ranked by many as less vulnerable to climate change bad outcomes than most of the US.
By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future
As the Guardian noted yesterday:
Many of Earth’s “vital signs” have hit record extremes, indicating that “the future of humanity hangs in the balance”, a group of the world’s most senior climate experts have said.
More and more scientists are now looking into the possibility of societal collapse, says the report, which assessed 35 vital signs in 2023 and found that 25 were worse than ever recorded, including carbon dioxide levels and human population. This indicates a “critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis”, it says.
They added:
The temperature of Earth’s surface and oceans hit an all-time high, driven by record burning of fossil fuels, the report found. Human population is increasing at a rate of approximately 200,000 people a day and the number of cattle and sheep by 170,000 a day, all adding to record greenhouse gas emissions.
I believe those scientists. All the available evidence is that they are right, given that everything that they have predicted so far, including extreme weather conditions and the threat to the survival of life on some parts of the planet, does seem to be happening.
I was eavesdropping on a conversation yesterday. I know I shouldn’t, but the two people of about my age who were partaking in it in the coffee shop where I was working were doing nothing to stop me from doing so, and such was their volume that they gave me little option but to take note. They were discussing all the places that they had been in the world – and few tourist hotspots from Hawaii to every place you can think of closer to home – had seemingly been missed by them. Despite that, discussion was being had on where to go next, with the Himalayas seeming to be high on the agenda.
Why was I interested? I also listened to their discussion about their grandchildren, for whom they very obviously cared. I then wondered whether those grandchildren were really going to thank these two for having helped burn their planet for no good reason. A cocktail is a cocktail the world over – and they seemed to have a liking for them as well. Their ‘making memories’ tours of the world are very clearly part of the problem of excess consumption that is driving our world to the brink of chaos, and beyond. But they either did not know, or did not care, or could not make the link between their own excesses and the crisis that we face.
I fear societal breakdown. It will come because of that thing that most people in this country claim to fear most – which is the movement of people. That is going to happen now. Hundreds of millions of people, or more, are going to have to move in the decades to come if they are to have a chance of survival. That is not an opinion; that’s a fact. And you can be sure that those who will move will do so because they are not going to sit still and die where life has become impossible, through no fault of their own.
In that case, what can be done to manage this risk of societal breakdown through the mass movement of people? What follows are incredibly simplistic suggestions, but in the face of a crisis of epic proportions, which is where we are, simple solutions might be required.
First, we will have to accept the reality of migration. Our narratives have to change. We embrace what is going to happen, or the turmoil of conflict will end what we have, come what may.
Second, we have to accept that our consumption is going to change radically. We will not, for a start, be aimlessly globe-trotting the world, but that is only the tip of the required change in behaviour.
Third, we might have to overthrow the powers that seek to prevent change from happening – most of whom are represented by the current power elites who have, for example, now decided that when the choice is between short-term profits and human survival, profits win. Alternatively, they are those who have decided that balancing the books should win. In either case, those priorities have to go, and those seeking to uphold them will have to lose power – however uncomfortable that might be for them.
And for the record (and in case anyone in the security services might be looking in), I am not for a moment suggesting revolution or anything so absurd because that would itself represent societal breakdown. I am suggesting that democracy – real democracy – has to deliver this. In other words, the will of the people to survive will, eventually, have to prevail at the ballot box.
Let’s not pretend we are going to be living comfortably for some time to come. What has already happened might well prevent that from happening. The only hope we have is for changed attitudes, changed priorities, and the will to live. With them, we might survive climate change. Without them, breakdown it is.
By real democracy I hope Richard means something other than electoral politics.
By the way, to anyone interested in the topic (how anything less than dramatic and radical deindustrialization won’t stop climate change) I would recommend Derrik Jenson. Also, ‘The Ministry of the Future’ by Kim Stanley Robinson. The latter touches on the topic of tourism, in particular. Eco-terrorists start shooting down passenger planes and overnight the airline, travel and tourism industries collapse, also leading to a return of the days of sail and travel between landmasses becomes a month(s) long affair but the world adjusts to the slower pace, for the better.
I thought throwing paint and blocking major roadways was the limit. That’s terrifying!
I look forward to reading those sources. The author is suggesting an electoral solution, but I suspect he’s merely backpeddling after having advocated overthrow of the powers that be, then considering the consequences; it’s a signal of submission to the security services he mentions. It’s an interesting feature of the internet, where political radicals who understand the urgent necessity of profound change also understand tacitly the implications of using the medium, and who owns or functionally controls it. I’ve argued that attempting to organize on the internet, a military project given over to consolidated capital, grants the status quo home-field advantage. It’s a great medium for disseminating information, but it would be better if it weren’t for both the ownership aspect and the concommitent degrading of the attention span with the ephemera of web 3.0 or whichever model we’re on. Place-based grassroots stuff may have more potential.
Yeah, the idea that our government structures, which are already threadbare now, will somehow emerge from the climate crisis in one piece is in some ways even more naive than believing we can outrun climate change. Of course they won’t. Governments are going to topple, extremist movements of the sort we thought we left in the 20th century will come back, vicious civil wars will be fought, and a whole lot of people will likely die.
The far right is bigger in Europe than it has been for decades, and this was mostly from a trickle of immigrants relative to what climate change will produce. Very dark days on the horizon.
Every time I yearn for a holiday abroad this reality stings me – haven’t been away since 2019 just before Covid hit. Gave away my flight vouchers to my sister last week. I could book, pay and jump on a flight tomorrow but what future am I leaving to the young people around me. I don’t buy into it’s just me / 1 person trope, everyone has to take responsibility, not light up an excuse. Until there is a sustainable option to travel abroad, and only then initially very short distances, I don’t feel I have a right to do so. That flies in the face of every advert, colleague, passenger numbers and security queue currently coursing all around me. How many holidays should we allow, 1 per year, 1 per 3 years, none?! Allow only the rich, which is what any carbon travel tax curbing will undoubtedly result in? Never mind the narrowing path available to traffic between Europe and Asia – who knows will any be left next year with ballooning conflict. Think I’ll just drive down to my local sea shore and recall childhood days decades before I flew anywhere at all!
As to is there anywhere safe to live at all, it’s going to be scary living and our current crop of political leaders aren’t anywhere ready for this or capable of dealing with it in my opinion. Let’s hope younger, better minds prevail.
Yes stop pretending for us. But those controlling our government? Stop pretending? Willing to wager many an elite Neocon influencing US policy has no pretence at all and sees climate change as onother opportunity to extend the empire. This headline at Sputnik – “Over 5.5Mln People Have to Evacuate From Florida Due to Hurricane Milton – Reports”. What might such a report do to a neocon mind? My bet is, trigger them to think of leveraging similar events (if not this particular event but similar others in poorer areas) as an opportunity for recruiting bodies for foreign adventures/wars. They couldn’t car less about the impact on people – beyond weather it affects how they will vote November…they care only about their wars. The only things US officials seem to spend time on is all their wars. And MSM dutifully never asks the leaders much or at or, questions that most of us care about that affect our lives.
Mr.Timbers, to your point about the MSM and elites not caring, I listened to a show on public propaganda radio yesterday, 1A.
Interviewing retired Admiral
James Stavridis on subjects like climate change, all the good that defense spending can lead to, mentioning things like the pier in Gaza for example and our ability to deploy troops anywhere to help out after weather/earthquake disasters, like say Haiti.
What a complete joke, no pushback on anything, maybe the host could have asked about how much carbon emissions are produced by out military antics around the world,etc. (i think the elites think they can and will buy their way out of the consequences of climate change.)I also think I am likely banned with all the messages I sent asking the host to challenge the Admirals assertions. Almost like a porno without the video.
Solidy pessimistic on this subject but we are on our own and besides reducing what we can we should develop our own networks for subsistence and survival for each other and our children.
It would be Admiral Stavridis. Here is an article describing who he is and how he got so far-
https://spoilsofwar.substack.com/p/admiral-fabuloso-thumps-his-tub
The guy should have a nice, tall mug of STFU.
I’m not sure who’s more the fool — anyone who uses the Gaza pier as an example of success or anyone who believes a word such a person says.
For every beginning, there is an end.
I’m all in favour of stopping pretending.
But that surely must include stopping pretending that the current political system is the source of the problems which confront us, and that those problems cannot be addressed, much less solved, without first overthrowing the current political system (including, of course, the current university system which is part of the “ideological state apparatus” as identified by Althusser).
In fact, stop pretending that the nineteenth-century Marxists were wrong. They were just ahead of their time.
O god. Stopping pretending the current political system isn’t the source of the problems which confront us.
And it seemed such a nice rant until I noticed that.
Murphy’s observations on the conversation he overhead is all too common and very real. Unfortunately, its human nature that even when we accept the reality of what we are doing to the planet, we always think its someone elses responsibility. And yes, I know that fossil fuel companies usually push the ‘everyone is responsible’ like to avoid anyone thinking that they are most responsible. And its not just a generational thing – I was recently asked – in genuine curiosity – by a number of young (mid 20’s) people, all highly educated, as to why I ‘don’t like’ flying (I was casually mentioning how hard it was to book a train trip to connect with ferries when visiting the UK). They were genuinely surprised when I said it was all about carbon emissions.
>And its not just a generational thing – I was recently asked – in genuine curiosity – by a number of young (mid 20’s) people, all highly educated, as to why I ‘don’t like’ flying (I was casually mentioning how hard it was to book a train trip to connect with ferries when visiting the UK).
Anecdotally, my niece and many others of her generation ( ages in the late 20s/early 30s), have remote work jobs. Apparently good paying ones at that as she and her cohorts are traveling to destinations in the USand abroad numerous times a year while logging in to work. It’s no big deal to them and along with doing their part as superspreaders, they don’t make the connection on to all their contributions to climate change with this vacation travels.
I’m not saying no one should take a vacation, but just think about options in travel and destinations.
Eric Schmidt: Build more AI datacenters, we aren’t going to ‘hit climate goals anyway’
60 comment bubble on white
Perhaps the power-draining tech is the solution after all, posits former Google CEO
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/08/eric_schmidt_speech/
Essentially he wants to worsen our climate problems, to build a god to solve our climate problems.
Perhaps the real purpose of AI is as the ulitmate copium for our oligarchs who can’t accept any solution where they give up anything.
They will prolong business as usual for as long as possible. We’ll probably get some half-baked stratospheric aerosol injection project within the next decade, or some other hare-brained SRM attempt.
Mother Nature will ultimately win, but the Machine will start violently thrashing about shortly. Just like when a corpse spasms after death.
I’ve long thought that instead of fleeing for perceived ‘climate havens’ if people are going to migrate elsewhere to better deal with climate disasters they should choose a place that already regularly fields natural disasters successfully and where the local infrastructure and disaster response is set up and the emergency services are regularly drilled in reaction procedures. There are a number of different types of natural disasters – fires, floods, hurricanes etc so if one does this they have to choose their preferred disaster with risk calculated (like Florida and California’s lack of home insurance) – but I spent a lot of time over the years in tornado alley during storm season and especially in the areas that regularly see F5’s carve a path through densely-populated areas you also see a very strong and practiced disaster response at the community planning, first responder, and personal level.
Also it’s shocking to me that people travel recreationally so much these days! I’ve only traveled for work the past 5 years (and only a few times at that) and prior to the pandemic it was even only a once a year max thing. Tourism isn’t even that fun! It’s baffling.
The climate change movement has always been about hopium and Bandaids because to truly address the reality would mean a radical change in all our arrangements and most especially the imperatives of consumerism and capitalism. And one should be clear that those latter are themselves not necessarily irrational given the ultimate human urge to be fruitful and multiply. 8 billion people can’t go back to being hunter/gatherers so we are going to have to deal with the reality of what is and get on with it. And that will mean in part dropping all the irrational impulses that we can most easily do without such as the US urge to dominate a planet in which we are all increasingly in the same boat.
Of course to the elites wars may simply seem another way of addressing the population problem via wet work but there too–given the reality of nuclear weapons–we are all in the same boat. The meek are indeed necessary for us to inherit the earth–if we can live that long.
I dread resource wars of extermination “because markets.”
Perhaps some new wisdom can emerge from the wreckage after the conflagration.