open Democracy News Analysis - climate change - Comments

Francesco Sinibaldi on "Ethiopia: the tears and the rains "

Francesco Sinibaldi — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:28:07 +0100

At the first opportunity...

In this period,
and in its true
light, the sound
of a picture forgets
and emotion in
the care of a faith;
a candle reappears,
a delicate silence
remembers a river
and then, at the
first opportunity,
I'll love you my
darling.....

Francesco Sinibaldi

postmaster on "Ethiopia: the tears and the rains "

postmaster — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:58:13 +0100

This is the true cost demanded by those in our society who deprecate (strongly) any perceived threat to their 'right' to drive 4x4's - etc.

Jim Monaghanin on "Ethiopia: the tears and the rains "

Jim Monaghanin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:51:30 +0100

"The government is trying. It has introduced a safety-net system"

I wonder does waging a war in Samalia detract from feeding their own people.
The ability of these poor states to wage war while their people starve is depressing. The willingness of other states to provide arms and credit to buy them makes them complicit.
After a promising start this regime is looking very similar to the old one

Climate Guru on "The global politics of climate-change: after the G8 "

Climate Guru — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:14 +0100

This is a very clear account of some of the doublespeak that comes out of G8 leaders. Well done to the ippr for bringing together civil society in this new network.

Not logged in on "The world’s water future"

Not logged in — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:18:16 +0100

I have been following the human "..race to oblivion for at least four or five decades. In your article you say :
"Something that needs to work is not working. The enormity of the challenge of (for example) sustaining the population of burgeoning cities while producing more food and more energy crops without destroying the natural environment is recognised"
WHY do you assume that the cities will continue to "burgeon", and why you do NOT SUGGEST what needs to be done to STOP this insane growth ?
The only section of humanity which "profits" from this idiotic "Shovelling Fuel to a Runaway Train" ( read the book by Brian Czeck !) are the money speculators who like any other form of PARASITES thrive on the misery of others. We must STOP any further growth, both numerically and/or "economically" and create a Steady State Economy , at a SUSTAINABLE level of Earth.
Dan Kustudich dankusti@eastlink.ca

evangelos on "Valuing a single small life in the face of global disaster"

evangelos — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:30:32 +0100

Congratulations, Mr Gabour, you have written a wonderful, touching and sensitive piece.

I too recently took in what has turned out to be a loving, sweet dog, that all she wants is affection and kindness.

Einstein was maybe right afterall - "The world is beautiful, but it has a disease called man"

srheywood on "Can democracy save the planet?"

srheywood — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:23:52 +0100

To follow up my previous post, I'm hazarding a guess that Boris Johnson's victory in London, like the slight gains of the BNP, is a small, early example of the advance of a resurgent demagogic right in the UK. Boris seems to have won on the basis of dissatisfaction with Ken and a clownish media persona, rather than any actual philosophy or policies. If I'm right, his tenure will be characterised by illiberalism and irrelevance to the real problems.

srigotti on "Can democracy save the planet?"

srigotti — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:01:37 +0100

All the previous comments are right. Its not democracy but its degree of malpractice (to the point of dictatorship), misunderstanding and miscommunication that will put the planet into jeopardy.

srheywood on "Can democracy save the planet?"

srheywood — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:32:47 +0100

with a lot of what's said here. I think "democratic" institutions have only themselves to blame for the current cynical climate. In the UK, the left complains about venality and vested interests, and the right complains about sclerotic state bureaucracy. Both are right. Our institutions were only ever semi-democratic to start with, and now amount to little more than a plutocratic oligarchy whose control of the media helps them dictate the terms and boundaries of public debate. The campaign/NGO sector responds by resorting to "mind bomb" tactics which are intended to illustrate the big picture, but in fact often obscure it - by which I mean fairly superficial, attention-grabbing gestures of the Brent Spar/-"Save Mister Splashypants" variety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace). In my view the European resistance to GM is the result of just such a gesture and it misdirects the debate, by making it look like a consumer health issue - a worry which is, not entirely without reason, given fairly short shrift by the free market right. Although GM technology isn't exactly guaranteed safe, the main problem is that it's infected with vested interests, and its real significance is as an illustration of the fact that economic problems of distribution aren't amenable to quick technological fixes, especially not those which increase the power of the current elite. There's already enough food. The problem is that some of us have too much control over how it's distributed and are, relatedly, eating too much of it. Despite these reservations, I regard the campaign/NGO sector as currently the least worst news for global governance. It's a start.

The underlying problem with democracy itself, however, is twofold. Firstly, democracy is historically better at conferring rights than it is at engendering responsibility. It's hair-raising to reflect that a lot of British voters find their ecological spokesman in Jeremy Clarkson. It's not that the average British voter is actually a selfish dumbass; it's just that there's a partly media-engendered right-wing culture of concentrating on your own job, mortgage, car, holidays and kids to an extent which leaves little time and energy to absorb and act on a broader perspective. A key demand of the old left used to be a short (3-day) working week precisely so that more people could participate in civic life and culture in other ways. It would be good to revive that idea.

The other, related, problem with democracy is that people tend to associate the idea with negative freedoms (the right not to get tortured without a trial, or have the state confiscate your stuff) rather than positive ones (the right to work to achieve a political vision or actively influence the world for the better). This is an error. Historically speaking, these negative freedoms are not democratic at all; they're constitutional. For example, in Britain, guaranteeing the subject's right to a relatively undisturbed private and economic life, under the rule of law, was a core function of the royalist state long before anyone outside a derided lunatic fringe would have dreamed of giving anyone the vote. Brits seem to assume that their right to vote is somehow linked with their relative freedom from the lynch-mob and the secret police. But I see no essential connection between the two, and I think the mistake is the cause of much unwarranted complacency. For example, the British state, which was only ever semi-democratic anyway, still takes negative freedoms more seriously than positive ones, apparently because the former are more compatible with the prevailing plutocratic oligarchy. At least in principle, the police are there to catch murderers and thieves, the courts are there to ensure a fair trial, and the executive even occasionally has to bow to the rule of law, much to its chagrin. At the same time there are ludicrous limitations on protest and demonstration, and if you do too much of it, you are going to get snooped on, by security services who are apparently paid to assume that your sandal-wearing secular, vegan, pacifist habit of walking around waving banners is an Islamist terrorist tactic. We're close to a situation where any form of protest which might actually get the point across is illegal on some dumb pretext, and freedom of speech is becoming the freedom to say anything you like when you're talking to yourself. In reality, by contrast, really democratic freedoms (from the vote onwards) create the responsibility to roll your sleeves up and engage actively in civic life. The last time that happened on a mass scale in the UK was in the old left context of the trade unions. Today, sadly, I see little evidence of enthusiastic take-up of the idea on the part of most Brits. Again, it's the campaigns/NGO sector where it's all happening. Insofar as it's happening at all.

Climate change demands exactly such responsible, proactive use of positive democratic freedoms, rather than simply the private enjoyment of negative and constitutional ones. It is the sort of challenge to which our prevailing civic culture is designed not to respond, or even fully recognise. When our own interests begin to suffer, more of us may wake up to the challenge, but the response may take counterproductive forms - for example, by creating a possibly demagogic authoritarian state, which will happily bash the influx of hungry foreigners whose own country has just vanished into the sea, but not seek to lower the sea-levels because voters won't countenance even the suggestion of a lowering in their material standard of living, even if the world fries to maintain it.

douglas-jones on "Can democracy save the planet?"

douglas-jones — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:08:51 +0100

douglas-jones
It seems to me that though writers touch on the area, lack of trust and similar, to have a democracy one needs at least a sizeable poportion of the voters to be informed. Informed with true facts or by articles which note the probabilty of reports being close to happenings or a pointof view. An example to make my point. Reporting of Israel/Palestine conflict is now not factual but partisan, as indeed until recently was climate change. (The lobby of Oil and Business who saw their profits being effected should the belief become widespread.) Readers thus are further indocrinated, since they select to read material in accord with their ideas formed perhaps from innaccurate reporting. The same might be said of the latest paradigm of economics, the market and free trade as the system providing maximum growth with distribution that cannot be altered without somebody suffering, a Pareto situation. In fact as Krugman, Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang amongst others show that the systems outcomes vary considerably yet the general tenor of the media is that it is the solution to all situations. Indeed the diffverence is great enough for common media reports to be classed as not only biased but untruthful. Since the system amongst other things produces less equality and uses resources both of the world and of society without regard to anything beyond short term profit, which ofcourse renders the operation moral.
How one solves this problem since governments are dishonest, partisan, and the public seemingly happy in the short term to accept whatever story is told, I do not know. Public here used in the sense of large enoiugh numbers to affdect democratic
outcomes.
Emphasising empathy and teaching how to detect fraud, analyse ones reading, may be part but a greater degree of honesty (empathy) and less competition may well b e features which should become central to education.
Since the time frame appewars unlikely to allow for eduation effectiveness Ireamin pessimistic. The likely outcome will be dominace by those who can command the power largely ignoring those who suffer ( in the name if not the economy then the world's future or once eternal life) combined with an ever increasinging number of odd 'religions' offering adesirable outcome if certain forms of behaviour are adopted. Currently failure to damn abortoin or homosexuality are sure ways to damnation. The urgency of the need for reaction will be so great as to obviate time for rational action.

spamlet on "Can democracy save the planet?"

spamlet — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:24:14 +0100

Before anyone analyses whether democracy can cope with what is to come, we have to have democracies in the first place.

And before we can get any democracies we first have to get rid of the Parties that have replaced democracy throughout the world, and who are determined to hold on to power just as doggedly as any 'Mugabe'. Trouble is that as immortals, the Parties are a hugely bigger problem than any individual mortal dictator, who must eventually die and be replaced.

The Parties themselves are, moreover, prevented from changing, even if they wanted to, by the 'governing' effect of the media, which holds them firmly to the establishment track of infinite growth (of both 'Economy' and populace), and infinite tax cuts.

How the demos can wrest power back from the politicians in order to create proper democratic institutions, is the real question the conference should have been asking.

At the very least there should be a strong campaign to get rid of the antidemocratic practice of 'whipping', and to reinstate and enforce the old code of practice for government which insisted that representatives' first duty is to their constituents, whatever their Party or colleagues might be demanding of them.

There will need to be a tandem campaign to decouple the media from the politicians and the Economy. While the BBC 'public service' still sees its duty as to promote 'growth' (air travel; house building/ infinitely rising property prices; 'Olympics'; immigration etc. etc.) at all opportunities, in its 'news' coverage, no matter how strongly and eloquently the dangers facing us as a result of this 'growth' are presented in its excellent documentary output, the ability for any political force to make positive changes is, realistically, zero.

The modern (UK) Parties are no more than minority self interest groups, whose membership does not compare favourably with that of a number of environmental and conservation groups. Why then, are they alone allowed to run the country? A proper democracy would have such groups relegated to the lobby with all the other NGOs, and have a proper system for electing unbiased and true community representatives, who would then be in a position to discuss rationally with their parliamentary colleagues, exactly what decisions - palatable or otherwise - need to be made to ensure maximal survival of both people and the other species we share - or should be sharing - this planet with.

As things stand, there can either be sustainability; or there can be what the politicians and planners and 'economists' (cf 'Islamists') have chosen to define as 'sustainable development', by which they mean carrying on the 'business as usual' scenario to infinity in a finite world, as it crashes down around them.

Recently there have been a few stirrings of signs that some politicians are beginning to see the cracks in the traditional economic model: the House of Lords Cttee report on the economics of immigration was one such, where several times it was remarked that if it was not taken as read that the 'Economy' was for the benefit of the business community only, then 'growth' was not necessarily a good thing. These are very slow stirrings however, and they have been pretty quickly buried by the 'normal' politicians and forgotten by the media.

So, democracy and sustainability compatible?
Both strangled at birth I'm afraid.

timbirdmm on "Can democracy save the planet?"

timbirdmm — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:31:53 +0100

Can't comment at length, but ...

(a) Have you considered getting hold of a camera? Not meaning to be rude, it is possible to upload footage of events like this, which would save you time and make the event a bit more accessible to us. Would also make comments more relevant, and hopefully better informed.

(b) The latest scientific data suggests that an 80% cut by 2050 is probably not going to be sufficient. We're more likely looking at a 100% cut, if not more, if not sooner.

(c) I'm increasingly frustrated by the way we talk about democracy as if [a] it's inseparably yoked to this fictitious entity called the "free market", or that the latter is somehow a natural reflection of the former, as Gore makes out; [b] that countries in which people are generally disgusted by their political system, and don't believe they are actually in control, whose political system and media are dominated by corporate interests, often to the wholesale exclusion of the public on fundamental issues, are actually worthy of the title "democracies". Climate change is a crisis of democracy, but largely because it has revealed that many of our prized democratic institutions are simply not functioning. The glaring democratic deficit at the global level is basically indisputable, but it is combined with, exacerbates, and is exacerbated by, a glaring democratic deficit at the national level. We're either going to have to sort out both, which stikes me as rather difficult within the timeframe we're facing; or try and work our way around them - also difficult given the effective "economic capture" of our dominant institutions. Either way, there isn't really an alternative.

Overall, though, it seems to me that we're not really talking about a problem with democracy - we're talking about a problem with the current lack of democracy.

http://www.memory-hole.blog.co.uk

vee_artemis on "Climate change and the public sphere "

vee_artemis — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:48:51 +0100

Andrew Dobson's comments are thought provoking. His assertions match with my own thoughts that for some time we have been living in a "why don't they...? society, where too many people expect someone else to do everything. A perfect example : a Friends group, dedicated to looking after a local nature reserve were seen clearing brambles and were asked if they worked for the Council. "No" said their leader. "Then why are you doing that ?" was the response. "Because we take a pride in our locality and want it to look pleasant " said the leader and - hoping to recruit more help asked "Would you like to join us ?" The reply ? "You must be joking"

Happily there are still folk around who are willing to put themselves out in many similar ways, but at the same time clubs and societies cannot find anyone to take over from aging committee members; scouts and other youth groups are closing because no-one will volunteer to become leaders; charities can persuade people to give cash but not to help out for a few hours - and so it goes.

Despite our labour saving world, our days are overflowing with too much activity, we are overloaded and too busy to care about things other than to ask "why don't they.....?" As Andrew says, there is not much to be gained by replying "why don't YOU ? " A few people setting an example does not appear to have any effect on the free-riders. It is not surprising therefore, if carrot and stick becomes the chosen way of trying to influence public behaviour.

I agree that a change in attitude is needed, and would be interested to find out just how this is to be achieved.

Vee

joatsimeon on "Democracy and climate change: a story of failure "

joatsimeon — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:54:06 +0000

The author seems to think democracy has "failed" because he and his faction haven't been able to get the populace to support them, with an addendum that they're being "constrained" because they can't stop people who disagree with them from organizing and speaking.

(I suppose by re-education camps and secret police? Nothing like a beating with lead-lined rubber hoses and a diet of grass soup to convince people, in Mr. Shearman's little Gulag.)

Ah... can we say "madness" and "hubris"? Yeah, thought so.

Dude, learn to assimilate the idea that your opinions are just your opinions and don't get any special privileges. You have a vote like everyone else, and that's IT.

Shearman's argument is profoundly dumb even on its own (fascistic) terms -- authoritarian governments are notoriously bad on environmental issues. The words "Aral Sea" come to mind; or the fact that China is currently adding 8MW of new coal-fired power generating capacity -every day-, mostly of older and highly inefficient and polluting types, and has not the slightest intention of stopping.

They -can't- stop; the government would be overthrown if they tried, and they know it. It's sort of why no democratic government will do anything of the kind either, only enforced with guns and street-riots rather than votes.

Plato suggested a corps of trained, expert "guardians" to run the state. Cicero demolished this with one immortal piece of dry wit: "Who will guard these guardians"?

The people are the -source- of political right and wrong; their voice is the voice of God. And every individual knows their own interests, and is the only legitimate judge of them. No "experts" need apply.

You can try to convince people that they should love lower living standards and more bureaucrats telling them what to do.

And others can tell them that you're full of it and spouting anti-human nonsense.

Three guesses as to which the people will chose. And no, you don't get to silence your critics.

Oh, and someone above thinks people in Cuba are "better off". This would be news to the hordes who stampede for the exit every time they get a chance. Before Castro, Cuba was the richest country in the Caribbean; now it's barely above Haitian levels, besides being a noxious dictatorship. Che Guevara was of course a mass killer, who ran the Cuban secret police before Castro sent him off to get (thankfully) killed.

alunanderson on "Climate security: the new determinism"

alunanderson — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:06:43 +0000

Having recently attended a briefing in Washington DC given by senior US military figures about future threats, climate change very much among them, and new strategies and alliances needed to meet them, let me see if I can add to Hulme’s argument as well as criticising it. Much of what Hulme says is aimed at the “naïve” and the “mischievous” which sounds suspiciously like a group of straw men; certainly the US military strategists I listened to have long passed beyond a view that is “crudely deterministic, detached from the complexities of our world” regarding climate change. I don’t buy two important parts of Hulme’s argument. First, I don’t agree that the world is growing more peaceful in some inevitable trend so it is wrong to talk up future military threats. In fact the most recent study, published just last week from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program at the Uppsala University Department of Peace and Conflict Research, shows that the trend towards a more peaceful world appears to have ended. There was indeed a decline in the number of conflicts up until 2002, as Hulme contends, but it has not continued. Second, I don’t agree with his view that climate change isn’t a very important factor in triggering conflict. The reports from Darfur that Hulme mentions, but dismisses without providing any reason, do provide convincing evidence that deteriorating agricultural conditions related to climate change have helped trigger conflict. To deny that shortage of resources which that we can reasonably predict will happen as a result of climate change will not a cause of conflict is foolish. To argue that it is the only cause of conflict in some deterministic way is certainly wrong too but that is a view that can only be attributed to straw men. Nevertheless I very strongly agree that we should be worried about the “militarization” of climate change. The world cannot make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions without US leadership. But within the US there are a number of forces that might divert efforts in another direction. Many in the US who back energy efficiency programs do so less because they care about climate change but because in the post 9/11 world they regard “energy security” as the overriding issue and want to be free from dependence on overseas energy sources. The US military, as I discovered at the briefing, is looking ahead to the new conflicts that might emerge as a result of climate change, with Darfur being seen as the first of the new class of climate wars, and is planning the military means and strategic partners as well as the new equipment it will need to ensure that these conflicts do not impact the US or the world trading system. That of course is what the military is paid to do and their thinking is anything but naïve. But add together the desire for “energy security” and “military preparedness” for climate conflicts and you end up with some troubling temptations for a new US leader. A future US leader might just decide that America will continue to put economic growth before tackling climate change: that is, its focus should be on making sure that the nation can adapt to climate change (well within America’s potential), and planning security of energy supply and military response to conflicts that affect the global trading system. Leadership in tackling greenhouse gas emissions would never appear. The language of “security” does provide some frightening alternatives to the preventative action of tackling greenhouse gas emissions. The future depends very much on who wins the US presidential race and whether they’ll be the kind of person the world needs. At the beginning of 2008 there were eight Democrats and seven Republicans pursuing the presidency. Six of the eight Democrats and two of the seven Republicans support “cap and trade” schemes and vigorous reductions in US greenhouse gas emissions, although none have provided detailed plans of how this is to be achieved. Of the remainder there is much stronger emphasis on “energy independence” and free market solutions.