The Climate Commitment
The Need for Common Agreement and Action on Climate:
Comments on the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord
I'll premise what follows with this essential read from Chris Hedges.
'The greatest existential crisis of our time is to at once accept the tragic reality before us and find the courage to resist. It is to acknowledge that the world as we know it will become harsher and more difficult, that human suffering will expand, but that we can, if we fight back, perhaps reconfigure our lives and our society to mitigate the worst savagery, dramatically reduce our carbon footprint and save ourselves from complete annihilation. The power elites will do nothing to save us.
“To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic,” historian Howard Zinn wrote. “It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”
The inability to see what is in front of our eyes replicates the blindness of all past civilizations that celebrated their eternal glory at moments of precipitous decline. The difference is that life across the whole planet will go down this time. It is comforting to pretend this is not happening, to foster false hopes and fool ourselves with the myth of human progress, but these illusions only tranquilize us at a moment when we should be rising in collective fury against those who are orchestrating our doom.'
I agree with Chris Hedges very much.
I am bored rigid with reading about ‘the end of the world’ that is certain to come. That kind of thinking bears no relation to my understanding of history and how history is made. I’m thinking of what Dante did to the fortune tellers to cheer me up on that one: he twisted their heads round and had them walking backwards for all eternity in Hell. Because that’s what that mentality is certain to bring, Hell on Earth through a self-fulfilling prophecy based on past facts, paying no attention at all to the capacity of choice, will and action to create new facts. Hopelessness breeds a sense of powerlessness and a feeling that no matter what we do, it cannot make a difference. That’s precisely the indifference that seals the doom of any civilisation, the feeling that nothing matters. It’s a mentality that fixates on ‘things’, on the physical facts, as though they, an increasingly recalcitrant nature, are the only thing that acts as time plays out, nature as external enemy thwarting human thoughts and expectations yet again. That’s the kind of mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. This revenge of an alien nature is not nature at all, it is the fetishisation of nature, our own handiwork reacting back on us, with external nature taking the blame. Anyhow, I need to focus on productive work and not engage with side-shows. Hopelessness is morally indefensible when the future depends upon our willingness to believe that the choices we make, the actions we take, the values we affirm, the viewpoints we live by make all the difference to the lived experience of whatever facts come our way. Whatever the future holds, it’s what we do with it that matters and gives meaning to the experience of life. It’s not the certainty of ‘the end’ that matters but what we do along the way that is the important thing. Say it doesn’t matter and nothing we do makes a difference, and that’s the miserable fate that awaits us – indifference. We don’t know what the future holds, but we act as if we knew, we live into mystery in a sense, an uncertain future that we are in the process of co-creating. So I don’t want to be reading ‘we’re doomed’ every day. It is surely not news that with life comes death, that we are mortal; or did we really think we could achieve immortality and eternity beyond corruptible flesh with our machines? More fool us if we did. Ruskin had a look at the emerging industrial wasteland in the 1880s and asked ‘is this what your machine gods have done for you?’ We risk becoming orphans of technology, but that’s not the fault of the machines, that’s our own fault, the product of our own estrangement from true realities. Horizontalizing the vertical, we thought we could bring Heaven on Earth with our machine gods, only to find infinity soon exhausting a planet of finite resources. In affirming the power of creative human agency, we need to set creativity within planetary realities. It is time to get back in touch with our true native land. It’s always there for us.
The lesson for climate change is this: You don’t see the scale of the problem, you set the bar on solutions too low, and sooner or later it will come and smack you hard on the head.
I call this the climate commitment, because commitment is what it is going to take, and from an awful lot of people. COP 21 commits the world to keep temperature increase to “well below 2C” and to pursue 1.5C. Let it be said that 2C is far from a safe threshold, and is a target that is based on politics rather than science. We need to appreciate, and quickly, the astonishing scale of the undertaking to meet the COP 21 commitment. We need to decarbonise our activities in a short space of time, we need substantial emissions reductions, we need technologies such as BECCS to work – we need to transition to a zero carbon world as quickly as possible.
This is a vast undertaking. How could it not be? That should not be cause for shock or surprise? We are facing an existential crisis, and so are charged with transforming our mode of civilisation. Of course it is a large, difficult and, no doubt, expensive task. So what? The response to those who say it is impossible is that business- and politics-as-usual is impossible. I’ve no time for despair and doom. It may well prove to be beyond us, but we can’t say that we will fail. We can say that if we don’t make the attempt, we will certainly fail. And it is possible that, intimidated by the scale of the task, many foreclose the ending prematurely. It’s going to be difficult and it’s going to be expensive, the task is great, but so too are the financial, technical and institutional resources at our disposal. In the process of deploying these resources, we develop the psychological, organisational and political resources that are currently deficient, equipping us with the capabilities for final success. In other words, the situation is not static, and we should not decide whether or not to act on the basis of calculations based on current ‘objective’ facts, trends and tendencies. With a dynamic response to climate change, such objective realities are subject to alteration in more favourable directions.
To the document I have prepared concerning the declaration of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Critchley, P. 2017., The Climate Commitment: The Need for Common Agreement and Action on Climate: Comments on the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord [e-book] Available through: Academia website <http://mmu.academia.edu/PeterCritchley/Books
There isn’t too much of me in here. I’ve quoted extensively from others, letting them tell the story as they see it, lots of good quotes and good resources.
This document takes the form of a commentary on the decision of the Trump administration to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015. I provide extensive links to articles which analyse the objections raised against the Paris accord, showing how these are based on lies, fabrications, (deliberate) misunderstandings and exaggerations. I quote extensively from others, paying tribute to all involved in the attempt to address the crisis in the climate system, letting them express their concerns and commitments with their own voice. I felt the need to pay tribute to them for their efforts and express my support for them as they determine to continue this struggle to secure the basis of civilised life on the planet. I make it clear throughout that this is the real America, the authentic voice of the American people, currently assailed by forces expressing a world-hating selfishness. We need to check this, and quickly, for these are the forces 'orchestrating our doom', to quote Hedges. Against these, I quote Dante and his emphasis on 'the sweet symphony of paradise'. We need to bring our diverse voices together and sing as one on this.
I’ve quoted lots of people from the U.S. who, I’m proud to say, I can count as friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and it is to that authentic voice of America that I pay tribute.
There’s a lot of words here, and I’ve made a point of quoting extensively before adding comments of my own.
I could sum the argument up easily – to quote Aubrey Meyer, we don’t need denial, we don’t need drift and we don’t need despair – we need direction – and that means concerted action within a comprehensive framework – renewables and the transition to the zero-carbon economy as soon as possible – ‘how soon is now?’ asked that ‘charming man’ from Manchester.
There is plenty of fact-checking and correction. This is essential work but is not the main business of this document. The purpose is not to defend the Paris accord but to clarify the state of play with respect to climate problems and solutions, emphasising what the world needs to do to have a hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change, how short current actions are in this respect, and making it clear how only a radical environmental agenda can now hope to succeed. In defending the Paris accord against bogus objections, I nevertheless emphasis the flawed nature of the accord. I also show precisely why the accord is flawed by pointing to the forces at work which have consistently sought to obstruct and stymie efforts at international agreement and action on the climate. It is the politics of climate change that most interests me. I criticize the limitations of the Paris accord in order to advance the case for stronger, legally binding, global action connected with implementations at appropriate levels. The Paris Agreement is far from perfect and may well fail. That is a demand to do better, not withdraw from it, with an approach that amounts to the rejection of each, all and every climate agreement. As things stand in the here and now, the Paris Agreement is the best the human species has managed to put together in the attempt to address the crisis in the climate system, and is our best hope to stop global warming before it becomes catastrophic – but only if it is fully implemented.
In conclusion, I make some critical comments on mainstream environmentalism and the way that climate politics has come to take the form of a top-down (neo)liberal technocracy which fits the extension of the corporate form like a glove. It is easy to understand why environmentalism has come to take this shape, it is pragmatic rather than radical, it finds ways of appealing to and working with existing agents and spheres of power in the world of power, business, finance and commerce, as against the much more difficult and uncertain challenge of fundamentally transforming the ways in which we govern ourselves and do business on the planet. The latter is more difficult, because it is more substantial, it gets to the roots of the problem – and it produces solutions that are stronger and more enduring. Climate change raises questions about prevailing social arrangements and forms of governance, it challenges us to investigate our entire worldview with a view to understanding why we are so out of kilter with planetary realities. Climate change puts system change on the agenda. In this respect, successive attempts at international agreement and action on climate represent pragmatic attempts within the system to resolve a crisis generated by powerful agents and forces within that system. Can that system supply a necessary principle of self-limitation and restraint from within its parameters? We are struggling to answer that question in the affirmative. In the end, I conclude that the legislative and regulative approach, allied to market-based solutions and technological fixes, can take us so far – as far as we have come – but will struggle to take us as far as we need to go. I am interested in the extent to which mainstream environmentalism has come to be bound up with a (neo)liberal technocratic order, working within the globalisation of the corporate form, pursuing a centre ground upon which to meet dominant powers in business, finance and commerce, whilst losing touch with working people and popular social movements. That renders mainstream environmentalism vulnerable to right wing populist reaction, itself a cover for corporate interests. I argue that we need to put climate politics in direct touch with democratic demands for justice and redistribution, a genuine populism that is aimed directly at the corporate corruption at the heart of our public life, involving a climate activism that is explicitly in favour of community ownership and control as against the encroachment of the corporate form upon the global, and political, commons. The political impasse we continually reach on climate agreement and action demands it – and the physics makes it imperative.
Slowly, in presenting the climate case in terms of a number of commitments, I come to establish the case for the radical transformation of the entire social metabolic order.
I begin with the climate commitment – the facts which point to human activity driving climate change and global warming which threaten the ecological basis of civilised life on earth. I set the whole argument in within a commitment to truthseeking. That truth I take to be both scientific and moral. I also see ethics and politics as intertwined. This truth therefore also applies to public life, involving a commitment to a public order based on certain standards of respect, trust, cooperation, decency, necessary dimensions of interpersonal experience for human beings as social beings. That makes the case against a politics that is seen in zero-sum terms of competition and conflict, dividing the body politic into winners and losers. That vision of politics I take to be false to human beings and a betrayal of the best parts of human nature. I give the scientific evidence for global warming and climate change, and establish the scientific case for climate action. As part of the commitment to science, I provide extensive resources with respect to the research on this question. It is also as part of the commitment to truthseeking that I have a section on fact-checking designed to check and refute the false claims and bogus objections raised with respect to the Paris accord. This is done as part of a renewal of the climate commitment. Rather than simply defend Paris, I am concerned to avoid being trapped by critics into a bogus debate in which we have to choose between two false positions. Paris is flawed. But to reject a flawed agreement for an option that makes things worse is the plainest idiocy – begging questions of the real political purpose behind the objections. I am less concerned with defending Paris against bogus objections than with making the case for a much more radical advance beyond Paris – the kind of climate agreement and action with teeth, backed by social movements challenging private economic interests directly, that climate deniers have most to be afraid of. It’s time to end the phony war. I move to the business commitment, showing how the world of business, commerce and finance is shifting in the right direction and is becoming an integral part of the energy transition to a zero carbon economy. That shift will continue. And I show that the global commitment with respect to the need for climate agreement and action may well survive attempts by powerful forces to unravel the Paris accord – the invitation to free riding may well not be taken. I therefore affirm the international commitment, and the idea that the world is one when it comes to climate. I come next to the public commitment, stating the case for a non-zero politics moving in time to a positive sum politics of a win-win cooperation. I contrast this with the plain zero-sum view of the world advanced in aggressive terms by climate deniers and obstructionists. I link this with the political and the civic commitment to a public life worthy of the name, and worthy of the allegiance and support of an active and informed citizenry. I link this with the city and state level commitment, the statements made by mayors and governors that they will act to meet the Paris goals. The whole piece is tied together by a commitment to reason, ethics, public life and the idea of wise governance and political leadership. The worlds of fact and value are joined by the integration of the scientific reason why and the moral reason why. The commitment to science and the faith commitment to planetary health and the well-being of each and all are complementary. With the physics comes the scientific imperative, with the human commitment comes the moral imperative. I link political commitments with citizen initiatives, and I end with stories and solutions as defining the human commitment.
In the main body of the text I comment briefly in the main, sticking to the issues and quoting extensively from expert testimony and from the articles cited. I keep my commentary at a minimum here in order to unfold the controversy in its own terms. I conclude with a thirty page essay that makes my own commitments explicit. One critic justifying U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord directed a criticism to me that Paris will not meet its goals. To which all I can say is that we well know how far Paris falls short, and we well know the forces at work which have made sure that all the international community could hope for at Paris was a weak agreement lacking implementation mechanisms. There are people who have made it their business to obstruct and stymie climate action for decades now. And this document identifies them, reveals them for what they care, and suggests how the rest of us should deal with them. My case, it should be clear, is not that Paris is perfect and will be sufficient to save civilisation. It wasn’t designed to be such a document – those who crafted the framework knew precisely the forces ranged against effective international action – and it is now high time we blew their cover and work to keep the governments of the world to the principle and the spirit of Paris, and step up on implementations, transformations and transitions. And that means identifying the free-riders and obstructionists and moving them out of the way, a point that applies to those who still think these are points to be ‘debated.’ We are past such debates. The age of denial is over.
I touch on the argument as to energy infrastructures, whether 100% renewables is possible, whether we need a full toolkit (including nuclear) – I leave that to energy experts and let them fight it out. It's an almighty row. I tend to look at why we need so much energy (get rid of the ever-expanding economy and its accumulative dynamic, I say). I like Mark Jacobson, though. 4 Reasons Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Supporters Criticizing 100% Renewable Energy Plan Are Wrong
https://www.ecowatch.com/pnas-jacobson-renewable-energy-2444465393.html
https://t.co/elWrDLDxKS
https://t.co/6sCNvlZbnX
https://t.co/b0JzBBHWPU
https://t.co/ILGsO0rPwV
"A circular economy can play a crucial role in improving the design and management of our material world. But can we meet our ultimate objective of a sustainable society by improving on the current system, or must we transition to a new system? Any approach which is aligned with or dependent on an economic system based on perpetual growth and the pursuit of more, or one where value is created by many but captured by a few, does not offer the structure that can deliver the changes we need to address our environmental and social challenges. A real circular economy would expand the definition of the circular economy to one where its operating system is regenerative not extractive not only towards nature, but people; one where wealth is equitably circulated and shared. A truly circular economy would mean that the circular ethos is also reflected in our social systems, including our financial services, our business structures, and the political frameworks and cultural norms that influence human behaviour."
http://wiki.commonstransition.org/wiki/The_Real_Circular_Economy
And if criticisms of the Paris Agreement look too critical (Hansen denounced it as a 'fake' and a 'fraud', I'll go with Kevin Anderson on this) then that begs the question of what we have that is better, and now. Full and immediate implementation now and we'll have to raise the bar later (and sooner) on carbon emissions. We need a big turnaround in CO2 emission and quick. And if I get tetchy with the legislative and regulative approach of ‘mainstream environmentalism’ at the end, it’s because I see a failure to set environmentalism within the context of a substantial and widespread social transformation, attaching the ideal to its means of realisation – and democratic legitimation – through social movements (as well as other media, which will of course include the legal and governmental - integrating top and bottom, it's a good thing indeed that litigation is underway in a number of countries in an attempt to force national governments to seriously address climate change and preserve life and life-support systems, I'm all for it). And if substantial social transformation sounds like too radical a politics ... I hope I make it clear that radical is the only realistic and pragmatic road for us to take. I read the Trump false prospectus of ‘jobs, growth, investment’, see it striking a chord in working class communities starved of these things, and wonder why we can’t make more of what is called a ‘just transition’ to the new economy by giving working people a material stake through jobs and investment. I read Kevin Anderson saying we can guarantee full employment for thirty years by seriously addressing climate change through building renewables, retrofitting our houses or electrifying our infrastructure. I read Naomi Klein arguing that tackling climate change is an issue of social justice, giving people a direct material interest in tackling climate change. They are right. It’s no secret, but I am an ecosocialist from way back when. I don't know what happened to the "Socialist Movement Networking", but glad I joined them, I got taken away by events. I got my copy of "What On Earth Is To Be Done?" “For a green, feminist socialism” (Manchester, Red Green Study Group) from Pat Devine back in 1995 in my Manchester days. It was cogent then, and it’s cogent now – and available for free here:
http://redgreenstudygroup.org.uk/what-on-earth-is-to-be-done/
http://londongreenleft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-tragedy-of-liberal-environmentalism.html
And we need to uproot the growth imperative at source - the accumulative dynamic at the centre of the capital economy. That's what degrowth implies - a transformation of the entire social metabolic order. One of the world’s leading climate scientists, Tim Garrett, has argued that our economic system cannot bring about the emissions reductions to the extet necessary to prevent adverse climate change. Economic activity and carbon emissions are too closely linked. "If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," he said, adding that it would be "too bad" if civilization pursued avenues for climate change that ultimately backfired. "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705346695/University-of-Utah-professor-Tim-Garrett-says-conservation-is-futile.html
I'd argue this slightly differently in terms of the growth imperative at the heart of the capital economy, an economy that reproduces itself through the continuous expansion of values. Based upon the systemic drive for capital accumulation, the commitment to growth is embedded in the social and economic system. And the corollary of that is that we cannot target carbon emissions without targeting the imperative of economic growth itself. Here is the political question that climate scientists are really posing is this: if the economic growth we have had since the start of industrial civilization only serves to bring not 'progress' but an ecological degradation and destruction that reverses all notions of progress in the long run, isn't it time to abandon notions of growth and progress and the way that they are tied to human happiness and freedom? And if that's a loaded question, it's a loaded world we are living in - loaded with the damaging effects of human economic activity. The Paris climate deal won’t save us – our future depends on de-growthThe success of the Paris climate deal depends on ‘negative emission’ technologies that have never been proven at scale
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jul/03/paris-climate-deal-wont-work-our-future-depends-degrowth
"The climate science recognises a clear de-growth imperative"
So why is nobody sounding the alarm about this? Why is nobody freaking out? The Paris agreement assures us that everything will be OK. But scientists are not so convinced."Here’s the backstory. The Paris agreement relies on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the past couple of decades, the IPCC has been busy devising hundreds of different scenarios, or “pathways”, for how much we need to cut our emissions if we want a decent chance of averting catastrophic climate change. But as they were running the numbers, they stumbled upon a rather inconvenient fact. The necessary emissions reductions turn out to be so steep that getting there requires that we slow down and gradually reverse the pace of economic growth."This conclusion did not go down well with politicians and industry bosses, and everyone knew it would be a tough sell in international negotiations. So the IPCC fudged it and began devising pathways that relied on the assumption that sometime in the near future – by around 2020 – we will have “negative emissions technologies” up and running, which will pull carbon out of the atmosphere."Speculating on the hope of future technology, suddenly the IPCC was assuring us that we can get by with much more relaxed emissions reductions. We can keep our existing economic model intact, it said – and rich countries can maintain their high levels of consumption – so long as we can figure out a way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere."There are lots of ideas out there for how to do this, like seeding the soil with pulverised rocks, or pouring iron into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth (now discredited). But the IPCC relies on one in particular, which it considers the most promising. It’s called Beccs, which stands for “bio-energy with carbon capture and storage”. Basically, the idea is to develop enormous tree plantations that will suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Then we harvest them, turn them into pellets and ship them around the world to power stations to be burned for energy, capturing the carbon emissions and storing the gases deep under the ground, where they won’t have any impact on the climate. Voila – an energy system that pulls CO2 out of the sky. What’s not to love?"Beccs features in more than 80% of the IPCC pathways, which means it sits at the very centre of the Paris agreement – even though it is not mentioned in the text. But there is a growing consensus among scientists that Beccs won’t work. The technology has never been proven at scale, and there’s no way it will appear in time to save us. Even if it did, it would require that we create plantations equivalent to three times the size of India, which would eat up one-third of the planet’s arable land, according to Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. This would make it impossible for us to feed the world’s population. And transforming that much land into bio-energy monoculture would trigger ecosystem collapse that could be disastrous for all of us."
So that’s where I’m going with this with the sharp words at the end on 'mainstream liberal environmentalism' (trying hard to avoid caricature). In the end, it’s the nature of things that matter, not the names of things. You can call it what you like, but there are no non-radical options left. I’m interested in questions of politics as the 'art of the possible,' in compromise, in ‘moderation’ – and in the space where politics and the real world meet. I’m interested in what such ‘moderation’ in climate politics could mean in light of Aristotle’s Golden Mean – something appropriate with respect to the action the situation we face requires. A true moderation is the right course of action to take given the scale of the problem we face, not some passive cooperation and vapid compromise in the cause of common agreement. That said, I am reading Dante (again), and I see how he emphasises law as an embodiment of common good and objective truth. Dante denounced the greed for money and possessions as the sin of avarice, the which endangers and destroys cities, regions and individuals and which, as we now see, the ecological conditions of civilised life on earth. Avarice inspires ever increasing desires for greater and greater wealth, which cannot be satisfied without injury to other humans, other beings and bodies, the planet itself. I'm with Dante. He found the safeguard against this most life-threatening evil stated in the texts of canon and civil law: "[F]or what else were they designed to remedy so much as that cupidity which grows by the amassing of riches? Certainly both branches of the law make this sufficiently plain when we read their origins, that is, the origins of their written record." In law, Dante found a structure for the well being of society. Avarice could be checked by civil law if a righteous common power could be constituted so as to declare and enforce the common good. By such means, evil could be eliminated from the world. I need to finish my little book on Dante and climate accord to establish these points at length. I value climate litigation in that it ascertains the truth of the case prior to political controversies over a case. It gives us the bedrock truth and certainty with which we can criticise politics and actions and hold people, business and government to account. 'Law, an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community.' (St Thomas Aquinas). Here’s something else I comment on. 'Laudato Si' Pledge seeks mass Catholic climate mobilization ahead of encyclical anniversary
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/laudato-si-pledge-seeks-mass-catholic-climate-mobilization-ahead-encyclical
The pledge, accessible at LiveLaudatoSi.org, reads:
"Answering Pope Francis' urgent call in Laudato Si', I pledge to: Pray for and with creation; Live more simply; Advocate to protect our common home."
I’ve taken the pledge. I notice amongst the signatories are the eco-theologian Columban Fr. Sean McDonagh and former U.N. climate executive secretary Christiana Figueres. That’s good company to be in. Pope Francis has the moral framing right. To those American Catholic conservatives who think the Pope is going too far ... I say – in light of the inequality and injustice in the world, put your political ideology and sectional interests to one side, get back to first principles and do some soulcare and Creation Care. “There is still a window of time. Nature can win if we give her a chance.” Dr Jane Goodall. We need to identify those who think their politics of selfishness can fool Nature and stop being fooled by them - learn the lesson of earthcare voluntarily as an internal identification rather than having Nature deliver it involuntarily as external force.
'At such a time it is worth returning to Laudato Si, Pope Francis' passionate exhortation to care for the environment. The most significant insight of the document is that the environment is not something outside ourselves that we possess and with which we must deal. We are part of the environment.When we speak of the environment we are speaking of ourselves. When we respect or exploit the environment, we are respecting or exploiting ourselves. When we safeguard or put at risk the future of the world, it is our own future and that of our children that we risk or protect.Pope Francis' assertion builds on the Catholic understanding that we are not individuals who sink and swim, rise and fall by ourselves, but that we live and die through the quality of our relationships. We depend on one another to be born and educated, for the technology we use and for the institutions that keep us healthy and safe and enable us to prosper.We also depend on the world around us for air, water, warming and cooling, for food, clothing, beauty and music. If we are to flourish enduringly we need to shape a world in which everyone and every thing flourishes.Our welfare depends on respectful relationships with other people and the natural world, and especially the most vulnerable. If competition and exploitation dominate, individuals and groups will become wealthy and powerful at the expense of others and of the natural world. But eventually the damage caused by gross inequality to relationships between people and the world will fracture the trust on which economic growth depends. They will leave to their children a divided society and a damaged world.'
'Pope Francis devoted much of his exhortation to insisting that the protection of the environment and the shaping of economic settings go together. Both are human activities, and must be regulated so that economic activity respects the environment, and serves the common good and particularly the most vulnerable.
'Care for the environment demands a vision of one another and of the world as inextricably linked so that we take personally the exploitation of the environment and of vulnerable people.This vision calls for a conversion from competition to cooperation, from exploitation to respect, from disregard to attentiveness, and from greed to thankfulness. It has consequences for personal habits as well as for national priorities. Personal conversion will create public attitudes that will prevent self-interest from shaping public decisions.
'The Pope is right to appeal for an intellectual conversion: to imagine ourselves as interdependent members of a community and world in which all our personal decisions affect other people and the natural world. That conversion both enables us to recognise the reality of our situation and gives us hope in addressing it.'
The scientific and ethical case for climate collaboration and action is unanswerable. As for the politics of all this ... the word is troubling.
'Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord apparently because he thinks that global warming — a scientifically proven fact — is a hoax. His speech announcing the pullout demonstrated that he has no understanding of what the Paris accord actually is — a nonbinding compact that does not impose any costs on the United States.
Trump failed to affirm Article V, a bedrock of NATO, during his visit to Brussels, apparently because he labors under the misapprehension that European allies owe the United States and NATO “vast sums of money.” In fact, NATO members are now increasing their defense spending, but the money will not go to the United States or to the alliance; it will go to their own armed forces. Trump has since said he supports Article V, but his initial hesitation undermines American credibility and may embolden Russia.'
This article points to Trump's ignorance and stupidity. I think the issue goes much further than ignorance and stupidity - there is a consistency in the claims that gives evidence of a political rationale. It is, of course, delusional.
Good article here from Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
'Even for a president whose administration has quickly earned a reputation for reckless and morally bankrupt policies, this appalling decision stands out, and the reaction both here and abroad has been withering.For the rest of the planet, the message is clear: Donald Trump has zero interest in being the “leader of the free world,” much less in international cooperation to solve global problems. In the dark and self-destructive world view of Steve Bannon and Donald Trump, the U.S. has no allies—only competitors. We don’t win unless other nations lose. That isn’t foreign policy; it’s Lord of the Flies.'
'The most important thing to remember is that although Trump can try to slow climate progress in the U.S., he is powerless to stop it. It’s true that the anti-environmental ambitions of his administration have exceeded almost everyone’s worst expectations.'
'Every day, more U.S. cities, states, and corporations are committing to reducing carbon emissions and adopting clean, renewable energy.'
'At the state level, climate leadership is nothing new, but Trump’s actions have given it new urgency and significance.'
'Trump’s withdrawal also provoked a response from corporate America, which correctly sees climate disruption as a serious economic threat.'
'So, yes, progress on achieving our emissions reduction goals will continue. In fact, progress may actually be faster as a result of Trump’s decision—because we all just got a big bucket of ice water dumped over our heads. For the next four years, it’s up to us to provide the leadership that Donald Trump won’t.'
Trump's strident - and, frankly, childish - anti-environmentalism is now clear and when combined with his thoroughly corrupt kowtowing to Big Business and Fossil Fuel interests, can only spell disaster for American democracy and our common future.
"Insane, ill-considered, unwise, dangerous, childish," are a few of the words Bill Press uses to describe Trump pulling the US out of the Paris climate deal.
America took the lead in this agreement, and seven months later bail out. It makes America ‘look like flakes’. So why did Trump pull out? His supporters say it has to do with his base – withdrawal from Paris is what he promised to do during the campaign, and he can’t disappoint his base.
‘Well guess what, I gotta tell you, I care more about my kids and my grandkids than I do about Donald Trump’s stupid base.’ (Bill Press).
Well guess what, I gotta tell you, I care more about the pigeons in my garden than I do about Donald Trump’s stupid base.
https://www.facebook.com/freespeechtv/videos/10154367961090981/?hc_ref=ARS0JgJMzsLE28UdZ6ppmp5koJEsI0hf0xXMFil0IgmrQOBnRIR-dvensfY3DOnyvsI&pnref=story
American voters voted in the icon of greed and stupidity to lead them. They are free to walk over the edge of the cliff. They are not free to take the biosphere and all who care for it with them. Goodbye and good riddance to that crowd, America First can become America Alone as far as I’m concerned, and remove itself from the affairs of other people and countries – and take its armies and navies back too. And I hope the rest of the world grows the backbone enough to tell this kind of America to go home – and put sanctions on them as a rogue state.
I have not commented much on Trump this past year. It is easy to be drawn into his game and make him appear more powerful than he is. I would have said it's like intruding on private grief - except that this character and his supporters have a taste for giving the rest of the world the finger too. I can't say I care for it. I shall keep on wishing American friends who remain in touch with fact, value, reason, logic, sense and sensibility all the best in the rocky times to come. There is a quote from Alice in Wonderland which is apposite (no, not 'mad as a hatter.') "The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well." I wouldn't go down there by choice. The heads of some folk are in some very strange places. That said, I should make some fine distinctions here. Rather than focusing on the strange places that the minds of some have gone to, let’s identify and uproot the plutocratic propaganda machines feeding and exploiting prejudices and hatreds, deliberately diverting the search for the real causes of economic decline into sterile and destructive channels. Some out there are credulous and confused, but may well be searching for their sources of their misfortunes. And some are deliberately dissembling and confusing. These are the ones to target. Backed to the tune of billions of dollars each year, right-wing echo chambers tap into popular desperation and divert it into the culture of scapegoating and science denial. It’s ugly. With public education hit by underfunding, the billionaire class eroding the pay and conditions of educators, people are crying out for some light and leadership. And a genuine politics and public community.
by Jeffrey Sachs
'President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate agreement is not just dangerous for the world; it is also sociopathic. Without remorse, Trump is willfully inflicting harm on others.
'Trump’s announcement was made with a bully’s bravado. A global agreement that is symmetric in all ways, across all countries of the world, is somehow a trick, he huffed, an anti-American plot. The rest of the world has been “laughing at us.” These ravings are utterly delusional, deeply cynical, or profoundly ignorant. Probably all three. And they should be recognized as such.'
Trump's complaint of the 'draconian' burdens that Paris places upon America bears no relation to the reality:
'The Paris climate agreement requires each country is to do its part with “common but differentiated responsibilities.” America’s differentiated responsibilities start with the fact that the US is, by far, the largest cumulative greenhouse-gas emitter in the world. As such, the US has contributed more to ongoing climate change than any other country. And US per capita emissions are higher than in any other large country, by far. The Paris accord does not victimize the US; on the contrary, the US has a world-beating responsibility to get its house in order.'
And that means getting politics and the public realm in order.