The argument the article makes is that we used to externalize the cost into the future. However, we’re now at the point of the climate breakdown when extreme weather is becoming a significant cost itself. This affects production of goods, their distribution, and so on. Therefore overall costs of production are necessarily becoming higher.
I think that is a very generous summary and much more coherent than the article itself :)
While what you are saying makes some sense, the article really didn’t present any detail on this, which would have been important. The energy angle, as said, was presented in contradicting ways.
Further, I do think that any critique of the impacts of climate change should focus on the impact of people most affected by it, rather than abstract impacts on supply chains and production.
Capitalism has shown to have enormous resilience and a capacity to adapt to all sorts of situations. It does so often by making life worse for many people. And the latter part is where I believe the focus should be if you want to be convincing. Saying “capitalism will burn in its contradictions” and then having to explain rising stock prices and GDP increases simply isn’t a way to win hearts or minds.
I do believe that showing, repeatedly, the current impact of climate change on people across the globe would paint a much more impactful picture. Climate change is already causing significant impact on how people live, be it due to slow and persistent weather change or due to natural disasters or other ways.
A factory that is damaged by a storm will be rebuild. If need be relocated. Production can occur in any part of the world where business conditions are suitable. The impact will show up once in the quarterly statement, followed by continued stock growth because you “capitalise” on the next “emerging economy”.
On the other hand, you won’t relocate your family on a whim. You may not get funding tomorrow if you have to rebuild your local school that was damaged in a disaster. You won’t be able to get a quick fix to a broken water supply that might be poisonous until it is fixed.
Sorry, I think I did get carried away. In any case, I think calling doomsday has been tried for centuries and simply hasn’t worked ever. I feel the article falls in that trap.
I agree that impact on humans and nature is what ultimately matters, and I think most people understand that already. I disagree that the article falls into the trap of doomerism.
The problem is that people in the west are accustomed to their current lifestyle and aren’t willing to change it. The west consumes an order of magnitude more energy per capita than developing countries, and even around three times as much as China where the west outsourced most of its production. Consumption in the west must reduce drastically in order to avoid disaster going forward.
Unfortunate reality is that most people aren’t willing to change their habits as long as they don’t think there will be any personal impact. Explaining to people that the shortages they’re now seeing are a direct result of their lifestyle helps people understand that they’re personally affected by climate change. This is no longer a problem for other people that they can externalize.
I just wanted to highlight where I believe we disagree, which is that climate change is caused by the decision of “societies” at large. According to this article, climate change is largely the result of the operations of 100 companies. The article is from 2017, and so perhaps is my argument.
According to this, the companies that cause climate change are basically the largest coal, oil and gas conglomerates, which makes sense. No level of individual behavioral change will cause these companies to stop operating. They are way too embedded in the overall economic system.
The solution to climate change is to wind down the operations of these companies. This will be impactful and the negotiations around it would be utterly complicated. However, as a goal this would be about as well defined as it gets.
I don’t believe that Meat free Mondays, Green Buildings and focusing on your individual climate footprint will do anything to curb global heating (even if those might still be good ideas for other reasons). The problem is way too intrinsic and the first step would be to engage directly with these companies to wind down their operations.
I don’t think that you as an individual can do anything to prevent climate change, unless you have the opportunity to negotiate the shut down of the operations of those companies. The way to wind them down is to mandate it and negotiate the associated interests. We are not doing that.
I feel that telling people (bottom 90%) that they are consuming too much or the wrong thing is like telling them they are sinners and must repent for virtually zero benefits. We should focus on people’s suffering and show compassion, not blame them for participating in a system they haven’t voted for, have limited insights in and from which they generally don’t reap any benefits.
I agree that the problems are systemic and that we need to focus on heavy industry and energy production first and foremost. However, the only way that can happen is if there is public pressure to do that. So, I’m not advocating individual action in terms of reducing personal footprint, but mass action to force the governments to start acting and forcing these companies to start cleaning up.
What I was saying earlier is that 90% of the people at the bottom need to understand that unless their governments act, then they will be personally impacted. Right now this understand simply doesn’t exist, and without this understanding there is no pressure on the governments or the companies to act.
The argument the article makes is that we used to externalize the cost into the future. However, we’re now at the point of the climate breakdown when extreme weather is becoming a significant cost itself. This affects production of goods, their distribution, and so on. Therefore overall costs of production are necessarily becoming higher.
I think that is a very generous summary and much more coherent than the article itself :)
While what you are saying makes some sense, the article really didn’t present any detail on this, which would have been important. The energy angle, as said, was presented in contradicting ways.
Further, I do think that any critique of the impacts of climate change should focus on the impact of people most affected by it, rather than abstract impacts on supply chains and production.
Capitalism has shown to have enormous resilience and a capacity to adapt to all sorts of situations. It does so often by making life worse for many people. And the latter part is where I believe the focus should be if you want to be convincing. Saying “capitalism will burn in its contradictions” and then having to explain rising stock prices and GDP increases simply isn’t a way to win hearts or minds.
I do believe that showing, repeatedly, the current impact of climate change on people across the globe would paint a much more impactful picture. Climate change is already causing significant impact on how people live, be it due to slow and persistent weather change or due to natural disasters or other ways.
A factory that is damaged by a storm will be rebuild. If need be relocated. Production can occur in any part of the world where business conditions are suitable. The impact will show up once in the quarterly statement, followed by continued stock growth because you “capitalise” on the next “emerging economy”.
On the other hand, you won’t relocate your family on a whim. You may not get funding tomorrow if you have to rebuild your local school that was damaged in a disaster. You won’t be able to get a quick fix to a broken water supply that might be poisonous until it is fixed.
Sorry, I think I did get carried away. In any case, I think calling doomsday has been tried for centuries and simply hasn’t worked ever. I feel the article falls in that trap.
deleted by creator
I agree that impact on humans and nature is what ultimately matters, and I think most people understand that already. I disagree that the article falls into the trap of doomerism.
The problem is that people in the west are accustomed to their current lifestyle and aren’t willing to change it. The west consumes an order of magnitude more energy per capita than developing countries, and even around three times as much as China where the west outsourced most of its production. Consumption in the west must reduce drastically in order to avoid disaster going forward.
Unfortunate reality is that most people aren’t willing to change their habits as long as they don’t think there will be any personal impact. Explaining to people that the shortages they’re now seeing are a direct result of their lifestyle helps people understand that they’re personally affected by climate change. This is no longer a problem for other people that they can externalize.
Sorry for the late reply.
I just wanted to highlight where I believe we disagree, which is that climate change is caused by the decision of “societies” at large. According to this article, climate change is largely the result of the operations of 100 companies. The article is from 2017, and so perhaps is my argument.
According to this, the companies that cause climate change are basically the largest coal, oil and gas conglomerates, which makes sense. No level of individual behavioral change will cause these companies to stop operating. They are way too embedded in the overall economic system.
The solution to climate change is to wind down the operations of these companies. This will be impactful and the negotiations around it would be utterly complicated. However, as a goal this would be about as well defined as it gets.
I don’t believe that Meat free Mondays, Green Buildings and focusing on your individual climate footprint will do anything to curb global heating (even if those might still be good ideas for other reasons). The problem is way too intrinsic and the first step would be to engage directly with these companies to wind down their operations.
I don’t think that you as an individual can do anything to prevent climate change, unless you have the opportunity to negotiate the shut down of the operations of those companies. The way to wind them down is to mandate it and negotiate the associated interests. We are not doing that.
I feel that telling people (bottom 90%) that they are consuming too much or the wrong thing is like telling them they are sinners and must repent for virtually zero benefits. We should focus on people’s suffering and show compassion, not blame them for participating in a system they haven’t voted for, have limited insights in and from which they generally don’t reap any benefits.
I agree that the problems are systemic and that we need to focus on heavy industry and energy production first and foremost. However, the only way that can happen is if there is public pressure to do that. So, I’m not advocating individual action in terms of reducing personal footprint, but mass action to force the governments to start acting and forcing these companies to start cleaning up.
What I was saying earlier is that 90% of the people at the bottom need to understand that unless their governments act, then they will be personally impacted. Right now this understand simply doesn’t exist, and without this understanding there is no pressure on the governments or the companies to act.