yep, i said the exact same thing about the global fossil-fuel-based order at the start of this discussion. which is why i linked a bunch of contemporary ecological writing on 'fossil fuel fascism' too, as the squeeze from the climate crisis produces nationalistic, you-before-me fervour and an attempt to preserve geopolitical hierarchies.
Larssen wrote:It's not as simple as a relationship between state enterprise and corporations, it's that the entire national economies and the geopolitical power of these countries often depend on fossil fuel extraction, refinement and sale. Asking the saudis, australians, russians for example to cease all resource extraction is asking them to enact very wide ranging economic reforms (and to give up crucial political/international power). These reforms are sure to put a lot of people out of work, diminish these countries' control of their regional partners, and unsure of providing suitable alternatives. In the best case, countries like these will commit to very long term, slow, gradual shifts. In the worst case they'll actively work against you. Not just because of practical & coldly rational reasons - ideology will follow suit or even act as a starting point. The argument will be that western powers mean to undermine the economic/political prosperity of these countries, that it's a new attempt at colonialism, that climate change is either a hoax, not that bad or uncontrollable anyway, that it won't affect them, that they may even gain from it, etc. Disinformation and even manipulation of energy pricing will follow suit.
You'll also find countries that will make empty promises. Sign the document, and either structurally underreport emissions & do some accounting magic, or ignore the deal and move on. Fact is coal and oil can still be profitable for a very long time.
Honestly these agreements will be about as respected & honoured as most UN dictated international norms/laws/rules are. Considering the stakes, no chance we'll reach the Paris accords' lowest target, probable we'll also miss the second target.
there can be little question that there needs to be a reckoning between the global north and south on this matter. we essentially are a bunch of rich, industrialized, high-polluting nations deciding how best to not tackle a problem that is going to wipe out hundreds of millions of people in poor, pre-industrial, low-polluting nations. when people like dilbert start ranting about 'the dark advancing hordes and their uncontrolled breeding', it leaves a slight tang in the mouth. this is our mess and we're too ensconced in our own privilege to properly tackle the problem.
political problems requiring political solutions. this is just bad-faith deflection in the context of this argument. the reason america struggles to house all of its citizens isn't because of a lack of resources or space. it's because putting everyone in affordable housing would destroy the speculative property bubble.don't think the world is overpopulated but Dilbert has a point regarding carrying capacity. We already have a crisis housing, educating, and keeping safe the people we already have.
the 'hard limits' on this planet in terms of carrying capacity are of course real. but we are nowhere near the theoretical limit and we have enough wealth on this planet to equitably share resources and tackle climate change in the bargain. the problem is political obstruction: it would require an entirely new world-system and a new collective approach to solving our problems. birth rates fall with development but the richest on the planet don't seem in a hurry to part with their wealth and help the rest of the world to reach the necessary standard of development. america could house, educate and 'take care' of her populace in a trice if she had the political werewithal.
well this is just an argument for massive de-globalization, which isn't ever going to happen. it's hardly only the brown overbreeding races and randy asians who are guilty of massive importation of food. and this argument seems pretty uncharitable when you consider that the behaviour of the northern industrial nations has directly affected the food-bearing abilities of much of the equatorial regions. 'hurr durrr just stop having more people than you can support! whilst we continue to desertify your region'.Bottom line is most countries are overpopulated, a country shouldn't have more people than it can feed, supply with power from its own resources etc.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-15 05:25:56)