And so the penny slowly drops, so slowly as to be too late, the masses have been mobilized by their corporate masters, allowing them to play their protest politics to the full. And now the world goes to hell on a handcart. Those who call this "socialism," both friends and enemies, have set up a false friend to support and a false enemy to rally against. And the corporate form has rode in to end both free market capitalism and private property on the one hand and socialism on the other. Talk about divide and conquer, this is an exquisite bit of social engineering. It isn't socialism you are fighting for or against, you have failed to spot the principal agent of 'climate action.' Not that I dare so anything, being an "angry white male" and all that.
None of the groups and leading figures who were at the forefront in calling for a Green New Deal, still less the more indolent members of that group who thought they were advancing socialism and system-change, are at the forefront of the UN announcement calling for a Global Green New Deal. Here is where real money and power reveals its face.
You don't need any great depth in economics to grasp this. Look at the scale of demands involved in ‘climate action’ and the proposed timescale, and just ask yourself which agencies on Earth have the power to effect such historically unprecedented transformations. Branding, marketing, and social engineering, climate alarms combined with youthful images – the exploitation of society’s moral responsibility towards children - the ecology of fear and hope, accompanied by statements prefixed with the word ‘green,’ and you have your ‘movement.’ You should know that when you are having the doors to all the top tables opened to you, and photo opportunities with Obama, the bomb, oil, and Wall Street President, that revolution isn’t in the offing. You’ll find not one reference to militarism in any of Thunberg’s pronouncements, despite its damaging climate impact. Won't her handlers allow her to speak off-message?
The UN announcement calling for a Global Green New Deal was accompanied by a 201 page report.
The word “growth” appears 392 times in this report. It’s hard to ‘greenwash’ this to conceal what it is about, an attempt to reboot a capitalist economy that is flagging. The climate system is referenced in the report as both a means and justification for global growth. ("A climate for change: The case for a global green expansion.” The marchers have marched and the strikers have struck, but is this really the ‘climate action’ they were demanding? I argued over and again about the lack of a political economy and its critique, and about the dangers of creating a political vacuum to be filled in later, by, surprise surprise, those with the institutional power and financial and technological resources.
September 25, 2019: Trade & Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green New Deal::
"The OECD estimates that institutional investors in member countries hold global assets of US$92.6 trillion and while figures for institutional investors in developing countries are harder to come by, estimates for the assets held by Brazilian pension funds exceed $220 billion and some $350 billion for combined African pension funds. Redirecting a relatively small portion of these resources to meet the SDGs should, the argument goes, be able to solve the financing challenge facing the 2030 Agenda."
"What is of immediate concern is the presence of multiple sources of vulnerability, such as unsustainable corporate debt, disrupted supply chains, volatile capital flows and rising oil prices – all of which could feed off each other and transform a growth slowdown into another recession. Not surprisingly, those who had positive assessments of the global economic situation are again turning downbeat, with increasing talk of a global recession in 2020."
"Investment in infrastructure provides a unique opportunity to transition to a less carbon-intensive, or “decarbonized”, global economy. Climate protection requires a massive new wave of investment, not only in infrastructure, reinventing energy and
other carbon-emitting sectors, as soon as possible .New low-carbon technologies must be created, installed and maintained in all countries,especially given the presence of carbon-intensive globalized value chains."
The word “nature” appears a mere 33 times in the report, and never once does the word refer to eco-systems. Most meanings refer to the “character” of something, as in "the nature of financial systems..." The word “eco-system” is used twice, one of those being the "banking ecosystem.” There is no reference to "biodiversity." The word "tree" merits no reference, "forest" gets 4, with respect to "deforestation," and "ocean" 2. To make it abundantly clear what this report is about, the word "economy" is used 217 times, “development” 781 times, and "economic" 438 times.
Lose your critical faculties and moral autonomy, and you've lost the lot. The trick is emotional investment and the cultivation of blind allegiance - "unite behind the science." And once people have their fears incited and hopes raised, they are reluctant to see the horrible truth under their noses. Raising a political emergency stampedes people quickly into a political necessity, manacling people by their own, extraneously mobilized, consent.
I made my criticisms of the delusions of green politics clear a long time ago. Their "scientism" and technocratic elitism, disdaining politics, ethics, people and political economy, evading material relations and system dynamics, has effectively betrayed environmentalism to the corporations. And they can't plead ignorance. I, for one, told them time and again and was either ignored or criticized. There's a price to be paid for wishful thinking in politics.
And there's a price for falling for the old political trick – as neatly summarised by cultural theorist Stuart Hall in 2012: “Politicians always think they know what people feel. It’s a fallacy, because there is no such thing as ‘the people’. It is a discursive device for summoning the people that you want. You’re constructing the people, you’re not reflecting the people.”
You're constructing and not reflecting the people. Current politics is deploying that technique to engineer a public for the corporate form: slower (ten years or more of social engineering), dumber (infantilism as the appeal to emotion, image, identity), more anxious (the alarm and fear), angry (the presentation of various targets for legitimate grievances), and intense (the constant campaigning in protest mode).
I had thought to leave this question alone now, because it seemed like a political and intellectual cul-de-sac. The protagonists seem entrenched in their views and positions, not merely not budging, but incapable of reading the situation in anything other than their own terms. But here and there, as in the ‘anonymous’ message above, there are signs that people are beginning to look further than the surface. There are legitimate concerns, not merely with respect to corporate influence, but with respect to the status of politics and the legitimacy of the citizen voice. The former concern is beginning to be recognized – the corporate involvement is too obvious to be overlooked for long. The latter concern is my particular concern, and it is hardly noticed at all. There seems to be a complete devaluation of politics, very probably building upon the low estimation of existing politics as a result of long-standing failure to secure the public good. Be that as it may, the solution to bad politics is not no politics, it is good politics.
T he following text has been offered and shared widely as a ‘debunking’ of the criticisms of Greta Thunberg. These debunking points aimed at critics were made by Professor Julia Steinberger in a series of tweets. Julia Steinberger is Professor of Ecological Economics at the University of Leeds. I take the points to be well-intended with respect to the scientific credentials of Thunberg’s pronouncements, but missing the real points of controversy.
1. Greta is a kid, a teenager. A nerdy kid who read up voraciously and researched climate change, already since years now, because she cared about it from a young age.
2. Greta is not a climate scientist, in the sense that she is not someone who goes out onto glaciers and gets data and runs models and publishes papers on new discoveries or that kind of thing.
3. Greta writes her own speeches, and she has a circle of climate scientists that she asks to re-read and comment on them, to ensure accuracy.
I know some of these people personally or by reputation. They've not made a secret of the fact that this happens. This is not, like, a secret society or the illuminati or whatever.
Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate is one, Glen Peters @peters_glen is another, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele @JPvanYpersele a third.
These are top climate scientists, careful with their facts, well regarded, IPCC Lead Authors or better, etc. This is something that real leaders do, btw: take advice from trusted experts. Note to most PMs, presidents and many others I could think of these days.
4. So the next time someone says Greta Thunberg @GretaThunberg is a teenager and hence her speeches cannot be scientifically accurate, you can be satisfied with telling them to take a long walk off a short pier, and move on with your life.
5. They can't take the message, so they are attacking the messenger. But both the message and messenger are exactly on point. Link to Greta's epoch shaking speech for good measure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=TMrtLsQbaok
Ok, this is getting echo?”
Yet again, nothing on politics, economics, social systems. A complete blank. The word ‘echo’ is apt. Because all I seem to read are the echoes of people repeating themselves. And people like me, who raise questions as to the political implications, can join every other dissenter from "the science" and "take a long walk off a short pier."
“You are the messenger, my friend, and do not deserve the blame.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
But blame there is. Will anyone ever have the guts to get to the roots of the problem instead of exchanging scientific information on the symptoms?
As a counter to those in denial of the findings of climate scientists, of the need for climate action, and of the need of politics and policy to be informed by science, the statement is fine. Kevin Anderson is a fine fellow, I have frequently cited and shared his work. He’s a man to be trusted and to be listened to. Stefan Rahmstorf has also met and advised Thunberg. He is also a fine fellow and top scientist, a German oceanographer and climatologist. I am honoured to have him as a friend on FB. There are no figures being fiddled, no science being made up for political reasons, no case for standing in the way of ‘climate action’ … other than the lack of details, debates, and decisions with respect to the precise forms that action takes.
And it is the latter that bothers me. In demanding climate action, I would like more clarity on climate agencies.
The truly baffling thing about a statement like this is the extent to which environmentalists still think that this is an issue to be decided by ‘the science.’ They still don’t see the importance of ‘the politics,’ by which I mean not merely bringing scientific truth into the world of practical reason, nor framing government policies. On social media I have persistently raised these points, only to be met with the statement ‘it is for science to decide such questions.’ No it isn’t. The temper of politics is judicious. It can draw on scientific expertise, but such expertise can decide nothing. By politics I mean offering political platforms based on ‘the science’ for public contestation, debate, and support, the framing of laws and policies, yes, but also engaging the citizen public in an active sense. This is lacking in climate politics, with citizens seen as merely passive by-standers, their role being merely to say ‘yeah’ to the proposals framed above their heads. We can take it as read that it is inadmissible for anyone to say ‘nay,’ of course, given that such action will have been framed by ‘top climate scientists, careful with their facts, well regarded, IPCC Lead Authors or better, etc.’
How on Earth could we, the people, express a contrary view? Quite easily, actually. Because, as usual, the point at issue is being missed – we are not just talking science, we are talking politics, and the popular view matters a great deal in politics (or at least it is supposed to and ought to). What value a person’s opinion on a statement of fact? None, if we are doing science. But politics is not science. Steinberger rightly comments that real leaders, politicians, ‘take advice from trusted experts.’ But advice is advice, not orders. The temper of politics is judicious. That’s the part that is always missing. Because the question is not merely a matter of experts advising politicians, but of politicians representing the represented and giving recognition to their legitimate claims.
'This is something that real leaders do, btw: take advice from trusted experts. Note to most PMs, presidents and many others I could think of these days.’
'These days?' You mean that there is a "populist" revolt against decades of misrule by a technocratic and neoliberal elite giving us a globalisation of economic relations over our heads, dividing societies, bankrupting economies, unravelling communities, degrading ecologies? You'd better offer more than elites and experts to redirect this revolt in more positive ways.
I would say that the word ‘most’ indicates an impatience on the part of clever, qualified, certified people with the fact that politicians have to consider the views of the whole people. ‘It needs a whole society to give the symmetry we seek,’ observed Emerson. The error made by those who enter politics as philosopher-king experts is to seek this symmetry in only one part of society, that part that qualifies as expert or as subservient to expertise. Entirely lost is the democratic principle of self-assumed obligation. And it is lost on account of the failure to respect the dignity, value, and worth of politics and people. The opinions, beliefs, values, and social stakes, interests, and concerns of people count. Not in science, but in politics.
Understand that, and you may start to have some idea as to where my criticisms are coming from. I don’t doubt for a second that the climate scientists have got their sums right. Had they not, I would be sure another scientist would be pointing out the error.
I am very interested in this defence:
“3. Greta writes her own speeches, and she has a circle of climate scientists that she asks to re-read and comment on them, to ensure accuracy. I know some of these people personally or by reputation. They've not made a secret of the fact that this happens. This is not, like, a secret society or the illuminati or whatever.”
So, of course, the speeches contain scientific statements that are accurate. She writes her own speeches. They are perfectly crafted to communicate the need for climate action. They are perfectly vague on the political implications, hint at a radicalism that is never backed up with analysis, heavy on the emotional charge and moralism, and general statements certain to command common assent. It is that combination of explicit scientific statement and political, socio-economic, and ethical vacuity and evasion which I highlight. It creates a vacuum into which those with the financial, organisational, and technological capabilities can step, invited in by government mandated by popular mobilization and pressure. That combination also betrays the devaluation of public life as secondary, marginal, passive. The comments levelled against politicians apply also to the individuals who compose the demos. I fear not merely an environmental authoritarianism as in the offing, but also a spectacular failure of environmental politics precisely on account of its disconnect from the people. This is an era which has seen the liberal establishment and technocratic elites stand helpless and clueless in front of a populist backlash against the effects of policies they have been the architects of. This is not a route to go down.
“So if you're interested and haven't read it yet, here is a really lovely interview with Greta Thunberg which explains a lot of her commitment and also her family's dedication. I learned a lot from it and think about it often.”
That’s the interview in which Thunberg talks about her Asperger’s, saying that “all my life I have been the invisible girl.” “All my life” she says, at the venerable age of fourteen or fifteen. That there are people falling for this exoticization of Asperger’s tells me how deep a mess the modern world is in. They are having their buttons pushed and can only feel it and respond exactly as they are supposed to respond to it. They can’t see it, though. I’ll tell those who are so thrilled at having a young girl repeat their views back at them something about Asperger’s – Aspies can speak out of turn, be blunt and direct, and appear very rude. The folk who are praising Thunberg’s ‘superpower’ on account of its ability to ‘speak truths to power’ really need a reality check. The ‘truths’ she is speaking are truths that have been spoken to power by others for many years now. There has been no shortage of people speaking these truths to power. There has been a real shortage of people prepared to look further and go deeper, and speak social and moral truths not merely to power, demanding government action and legislation, but to the people, so as to mobilize them around a truly radical agenda. But we’ve been there and done that, haven’t we? All those noisy demanding working class people taking politics to the extremes, putting ‘moderate’ voters off, and losing centre-left parties elections. We moved such people out of politics, to the margins of culture and society, and dominated the centre-ground, all moderate folk do. But now such folk find they lack the social, structural, and organisational power to make their politics effective in face of collective forces.
I’m now seeing Thunberg being pictured with Obama, a picture shared with delight by climate campaigners. That would be Obama, the bomb, oil, and Wall Street president. That’s interesting company to be keeping. I'm trying to remember how many bombs were dropped by Obama in his last year in office, 2016, just under 30,000 I think. System change, rebellion, strikes? Speaking truth to power? I have yet to hear a word on militarism, particularly US militarism, despite its hugely damaging climate impact.
So I am inclined to see this current wave of 'environmentalism' as being an extension of the original alienation, something which takes our terms and turns them into their opposites, and then succeeds in having us march behind them in the act of misappropriation! It’s liberal activism as a conformism to general slogans, with the corporate capture of nature behind it. It's impressive how loyalty to the wrong ends has been built through soliciting an emotional investment that goes so deep that you feel guilt in having break with it. You feel like you are breaking with your own hopes and dreams, and with friends. This is social engineering of a most sophisticated, and cynical kind, mobilizing people into supporting their own enslavement to a system which brings about the final exploitation of nature. "Saving the planet" is the pretext for "saving the system" - or having one last dip of the till whilst there is something left to make money on. Climate action requires action of such a scale that only the corporations bankrolled by government could do it. "Survival?" (On account of life to lose the reasons for living - Juvenal, Satires).
The truths that Thunberg is speaking to power are so perfectly crafted – taking such expert advice from others - that they have nought to do with Asperger’s, so do me a favour and knock it off with the exoticization and romanticization, because I’ll speak some truths to you here: you haven’t got the first idea.