Author: davidajepson

by

From Denial to Delay

Michael E Mann is one of the scientist who came up with the hockey stick graph which graphically displayed the increase in the earths temperature over the past century and in doing so sparked a rapid increase in the political temperature around the causes of that increase. He has personally felt the flames of the debate he helped trigger as the bots, trolls and pseudo academic mouthpieces, funded by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels, have challenged and denigrated his professional integrity, threatened his livelihood and indeed his life.

Given this, you can understand he is something of an impassioned advocate on the climate change crisis facing the world. His passion does not overwhelm his intellect however. He is profoundly committed to the scientific method embracing evidence based theories, peer review, replicability and open debate. His front line position in the debates over the reality of climate change has provided him with some unique insights into how that debate has been conducted by those who are not so keen on evidence and often prefer “alternative facts”.

His latest book”The New Climate War” is an interesting insight into the lessons he has learned and into how the nature of the debate has evolved over time. He believes the outright denial strategy is now very much a minority sport played on the fringes of society in the realms of places like the world of QAnon.

However, this does not mean those with enormous wealth and power invested in fossil fuel have given up. Denial has given way to deflection. Campaigns designed “…to divert attention from – and dampen enthusiasm for – calls for regulatory reform to reign in bad industry behaviour…” A key part of this strategy is to focus the debate on the role of individual as opposed to collective, government sponsored action.

To support this approach sophisticated social media campaigns focus on the individual’s responsibility for climate change and work to sow division within the groups advocating state action. Trying to undermine the credibility of leaders focusing on the “hypocrisy”of those flying around the world to attend conferences about the impact of international travel on C02 emissions.

The aim is to shift blame for the crisis to the level of the individual consumer, if they did not travel, eat meat, heat their homes excessively, demand infinite amounts of consumer goods, demand cheap food etc we would not be in the mess we are in.

Mann dissects the various deflection tactics and calls on fellow campaigners to avoid being drawn into divisions and debates which are promoted to undermine the effectiveness of collective actions. He considers a whole series of proffered non-solution solutions.

Geo engineering with sea algal blooms, and cloud seeding to counteract the effect to C02 warming. The use of bridge fuels like “clean coal” to manage the move away from the worse dirty coal. Various carbon capture strategies to suck the C02 out of the atmosphere. Variously these solutions rely on unproven technology and the hope it will emerge over the next few years and the risks they generate not proving more catastrophic than the climate based risks they allegedly solve.

The other strategy is that which focuses on adaptation and resilience. This is often underpinned by another deflective narrative, that of the doomsayers. The claims that things have already got beyond the point of no return or that the real politic of corporate vested interests or the complacency of the general public mean that action will not be taken until it is too late. Given this we need to prepare to live in a new, more hostile environment. One where food scarcity, coastal inundation, super storms, droughts and floods promote global migrations and international strife.

Against this Mann calls for balance. Recognition of the seriousness of the current situation but also recognising the progress that has been and continues to be made in terms of sources of renewable energy, changing farming practices, fossil fuel divestment campaigns and much more. Not least a growing popular awareness of the urgency of climate change and the political response to that. There remains much to be done but it is in our hands to change things and hold the increase in temperature to below 2 degrees centigrade of its pre industrial average.

Whilst throughout the book Mann warns of the divide and rule tactics of the opposition he is not averse to making clear the errors his colleagues are falling into. He certainly does not think the linking of climate change and the radical reform or overthrow of capitalism is helpful. He takes issue with those like Naomi Klein and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who have little faith in the role the market might play in addressing the use of fossil fuel via carbon pricing.

Mann on the contrary sees industry and market based solutions, including subsidising renewable energy sources and carbon pricing, as being helpful aides to bring about real change. He believes, when the market is properly structured it will naturally channel investment into new green investment bringing the innovation and entrepreneurship of the private sector to the battle.

In arguing climate change is a battle which requires a coalition of all the talents, Mann is probably right. The solutions of the current crisis do not lie in the hands of the captains of industry alone, not in the hands of the political elites. Rather, there has to be a partnership forged around a common aim of saving the planet. A partnership in which the wider population also needs to be actively engaged.

No one should be under any illusion about how difficult it will be to forge that alliance. It would be wrong to accuse Mann of that. The procrastinators, the delayers, the doomsayers generously funded and aided by corporate and state promoters will not dissolve in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. The battle to overcome their misinformation and diversions will have to be relentless and multi faceted.

Whilst occasionally Mann seems to be a little too critical of those who are essentially on his side, but don’t sign up to all the elements of his battle plan, you have to respect someone who has been basically on the front line for the whole of his professional career.

The book is clear, informative and motivating. It also communicates an authentic passion to prevent the amazing planet we live on being turned into a far less beautiful and much less habitable home. Very much worth a read.

The New Climate War: the fight to take back our planet. Michael E Mann, Scribe Publications, 2021.

by

Rethinking Economics

There are a number of really excellent books around at the moment where the assumptions of both classical and neo-liberal economics are reviewed and challenged. Northern Comment has considered some of these in earlier posts on the Dismal Science. One of the really excellent books on this is Doughnut Economics Kate Raworth.

It is a root and branch critique of some of the basic tenets of Econ 101 and comes up with a model of economics that put people at the centre or rather in the ring of the doughnut. The model sets economic theory in the context of a finite planetary system. It does not simply bracket out as “externalities” issues which have existential implications for the habitability of planet earth.

As part of a Coursera MOOC there is a link to a lecture that Kate Raworth gives which is an excellent overview of her thinking on economics. It is a solid overview of the discipline and some of the more pernicious applications of a fundamentalist interpretation of the laws of economics. Worth watching.

by

The Ricardian Science of Political Economy

This morning’s In Our Time was about one of the founding fathers of economics, David Ricardo. Part of the programme dealt with his theory of comparative advantage which is still taught in economics departments today and is a founding pillar of the benefits of free trade. His exposition of the theory used as an example the economies of Spain and England.

In his thought experiment he assumed that Spain’s economy had an advantage in the production of wine and England in the production of wool (avoid thoughts of hot sun and wet grass). He then applied some made up production numbers assuming no trade.

Then using these “magic numbers” and some algebra he demonstrated the total amount of wine and wool produced would be increased if the two countries traded with each other.

It was interesting in two respects.

Firstly, in his exposition used maths to demonstrate the truth of his theorem. This sat well with his broader drift away from the economics of Adam Smith which were always set within a political and social context. Ricardo wanted to identify the natural forces driving the economy stripped of any moralistic assumptions of what ought to be the case.

This may have been the first steps towards trying to make economics a science, a process that later economists pursued even more self consciously as they aimed to achieve the successes of the physical sciences and notably physics at the start of the twentieth Century.

The second respect was the “random” choice of Portugal, wine, England and Wool. In fact this trade had been subject to a treaty for circa 100 years which was much to the detriment of Portugal. In essence producing a commodity, wine has much less potential for the development of a manufacturing industry than the production of wool and all its potential for spin offs (ignore pun).

I doubt Ricardo was engaged in some Machiavellian plot to create an intellectual theory to justify advantageous terms of trade. He may have been one of the first to consciously or otherwise provided an intellectual framework to justify terms of trade which advantage the strong and disadvantage the weak.

The theory of competitive advantage may well be true, and the sum total of wealth may well be increased by trade. However, the question that needs to be asked is, cui bono? To whom does that additional wealth go? Increasing global GDP is all very well but it needs to think how this will impact on real people. Specifically, following Ricardo, wine makers in Britain and sheep farmers in Spain. The fact that “the economy” is better off is of little comfort to them.

In Our Time is consistently interesting and stimulating. The link above takes you to this episode, it is worth a listen.

by

Alexei Navalny’s Health Declining in Russian Prison, Aides Warn His Life Could Be in Danger

Aides to opposition leader Alexei Navalny said Wednesday that his health is deteriorating in a Russian prison and warned that his life may be in danger.”We suppose that Navalny has possibly been transferred to the prison hospital, and the [prison] colony administration are trying to cover it up. We believe that Navalny’s life is in danger and demand immediate access to him for his lawyers,” Maria Pevchikh, the head of investigations at Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, tweeted Wednesday.

Source: Alexei Navalny’s Health Declining in Russian Prison, Aides Warn His Life Could Be in Danger

 

 

 

Northern Comment– Navalny is clearly seen by Putin as his most credible challenger at the moment. He is responding as he has with other challengers in the past, he tries to eliminate them. If Navalny dies in prison there can be no doubt who is responsible. Natural causes it will not be. The West should take a stand in those circumstances and apply personal sanctions against Putin. Every time he gets away with another murder he becomes emboldened. There must be co-ordinated push back.