The Communist Manifesto

 

(Graphics in this post are provided by a robot artist, DALL-E)

This essay is inspired by a close reading of "The Communist Manifesto" and especially the very readable commentary by China Mieville. I can hardly claim to be a student of this document or its background. The reader is advised to consult the original (many free versions are available) or, better yet, take advantage of Mieville's commentary that may help dispel some preconceptions about the famous Manifesto. Without this, the reader risks compounding my very evident ignorance with his own.

My central thesis here is that the social effects of cheap energy were missed by Marx. This is worth a book-length treatment. What follows is little more than a sketch of the idea.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Without getting too far into "cause and effect," it's clear that capitalism and a dramatic increase in the availability of cheap energy arose together. The conditions Engles and Marx prevailed in the coal mines and the factories whose machinery ran on coal-powered steam. The concentration of workers (made necessary because both the coal miners and the factory workers needed to concentrate at the work site) created the "proletariat" featured in the Manifesto. Marx has nothing to say about the state of serfs, the agricultural equivalent of the "proletariat." When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, this turned out to be an essential distinction. Generally speaking, we see that Marx was guilty of "lumping" - the error of grouping people into large groups, then treating membership in that group as real. Even then, society was far more complex than a configuration of two classes.

Marx oversimplified even the situation he thought was crucial. He entirely missed the central role of cheap energy and the emergence of what we now call neoliberalism - the operation of the "free market" unchained by political or moral concerns. To be fair, Marx was himself one of the founders of a discipline that we now call "economics." He struggled to understand why prices were what they were. Today, we would say prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. Back then, he thought that the "fair" price was the amount of work plus a "profit" that went to the owner of the means of production (mine or factory). Today, we would see the marketplace at work. Abundant energy drove down the price of work (machine or human). Abundant human workers meant that human labor was cheap.

In short, there is no mystery behind the appalling condition of factory and mine workers. If we want to see a modern example of this, we can see the same forces at work where the worst conditions on the planet exist: in miners working the illegal mines in the Congo and the crowds scrabbling through garbage mountains in India and South America. In these places, we see the ultimate result of driving the cost of human labor to zero.

ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS

C02 emissions as a result of burning fossil fuels follow a curve like this:

Whatever Marx thought was going on in the class struggle in England, it's plain that industry at the time was undergoing another revolution that is still ongoing: the advent of cheap, abundant energy. 

As documented by Rachel Maddow in "Blow Out," the discovery of cheap energy (just coal in Marx's time) was, and is, immensely disruptive. In the time of Marx, this meant cheap energy competed directly with human labor, driving the cost of labor to minimum subsistence. Little did he know it would be possible to drive human labor almost entirely out of the picture. In our time,  physical "work" is overwhelmingly what machines do. Keeping machines working is what people do.

Along with the effect on labor, this particular form of energy required massive new investments in mines and factories. That meant that the benefits of the energy revolution went to the owners of capital. The name for this system is capitalism. What Marx saw was not a historical evolution from feudal society but the re-structuring of society to fit the realities of a world run on cheap energy.

Marx saw this as vaguely connected to the class struggle, which happened to be happening simultaneously in Europe. However, the revolutions in Europe had nothing to do with improving the conditions of the worker. They were about unseating hereditary royalty to give the emerging middle-class political power. In this, they mostly failed, but in Marx's time, there was a hopeful air of revolution.

The Leap Manifesto

In the Canadian context, the Leap Manifesto is worth a detailed look.  The Manifesto should be seen as a continuation of the activist rhetoric of Namoi Kine and her husband, Avi Lewis (pictured). Both are well-known and respected figures in the activist world. Kline is frequently found commenting "out of her lane," as with her astonishingly ignorant comments on nuclear power.

Kline's "Manifesto" has much in common with the other famous one, the Communist Manifesto, another Utopian vision of a classless society purged of the profit motive. We have a pretty good idea of how that turned out. We should be wary of "manifestos." All of them seem to skip the nasty details of getting the public to go along with the dream, along with the troublesome problems of dealing with 

real problems without a magic wand.

The couple has presented us with their dream world, a Utopia (making them "Left Wing Utopians" on my political spectrum), along with some completely fanciful ways of getting there. Public response has been underwhelming but has not hurt the couple's careers as "influencers."

THE LEAP MANIFESTO

We start from the premise that Canada is facing the deepest crisis in recent memory:

[This is a bald and arrogant overstatement. The "crisis" is that almost nobody agrees with them. Not every problem is a crisis. In fact, not every "problem" is real at all.]

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has acknowledged shocking details about the violence of Canada’s near past. Deepening poverty and inequality are a scar on the country’s present. And Canada’s record on climate change is a crime against humanity’s future.

[For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission looking into some shameful aspects of Canada's past. How this became "the deepest crisis in recent memory" is a mystery.] 

These facts are all the more jarring because they depart so dramatically from our stated values: respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism, human rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship. Canada is not this place today— but it could be.

We could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities. 

[Bald Utopianism.]

We know that the time for this great transition is short. Climate scientists have told us that this is the decade to take decisive action to prevent catastrophic global warming. That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go.

[Here, we see genuine social issues tried to climate issues explicitly to make "Manifesto" action urgent. No time to think. No need to vote. No need to consider facts, costs, or priorities. The manifesto is now 8 years old. Did the crisis come and go while I slept?] 

SO WE NEED TO LEAP  

This leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land. Indigenous communities have been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and reset our relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“Small steps will no longer get us to where we need to go. So we need to leap”.

[As implied by the name "Manifesto," this is a call for revolution, which makes it "Utopian." One must say that the United Nations has come up with a lot of declarations. None has the force of law, as implied here. We can judge the effectiveness of such declarations by how the UN has managed its founding goal: World Peace. The UN deserves an article on its own, but I regard most of its "declarations," including those coming from the IPCC, as "Utopian." ] 

Moved by the treaties that form the legal basis of this country and bind us to share the land “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow,” we want energy sources that will last for time immemorial and never run out or poison the land. Technological breakthroughs have brought this dream within reach. The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades[1]; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy[2].

[The claim that we can get 100% of our electricity from renewable resources is blatantly false and misleading.  Does "getting ... electricity" means electrical generation? Even in that limited sense, does this mean we have the technology to create the baseline power generation and massive increase in infrastructure to support "renewables."] 

We demand that this shift begin now.

There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian-owned mining projects the world over.The time for energy democracy has come: we believe not just in changes to our energy sources, but that wherever possible communities should collectively control these new energy systems.

[Hidden in this demand is the requirement that Canada stops exporting oil and gas. Balancing this would be a huge demand for foreign technology solar panels and wind farms. Nuclear (ruled out by Kline) is the only technology that can promise a reliable baseline power supply. Neither the issue nor the solution is mentioned. Note also that the Manifesto calls for shutting down Canadian ventures in other countries. The Manifesto is against mining. Presumably the lithium and copper required for renewable energy projects will magically appear without mining it.]

As an alternative to the profit-gouging of private companies and the remote bureaucracy of some centralized state ones, we can create innovative ownership structures: democratically run, paying living wages and keeping much-needed revenue in communities. And Indigenous Peoples should be first to receive public support for their own clean energy projects. So should communities currently dealing with heavy health impacts of polluting industrial activity. 

[The above is an explicit attack on the "capitalist" economic system. No alternative is proposed so we must assume a top-down command economy such as the one that failed in the Soviet Union. Or worse. Typically, the fact that the shares of large corporations are held directly by ordinary people or indirectly through their pension funds. This is, in fact, an "innovative structure" that is at the heart of the capitalist economy.]

Power generated this way will not merely light our homes but redistribute wealth, deepen our democracy, strengthen our economy and start to heal the wounds that date back to this country’s founding.

[We have heard this promise before: the "classless" society. These proposals will not "redistribute" wealth; they will destroy it, starting with the fossil fuel industry.]

A leap to a non-polluting economy creates countless openings for similar multiple “wins.” We want a universal program to build energy efficient homes, and retrofit existing housing, ensuring that the lowest income communities and neighbourhoods will benefit first and receive job training and opportunities that reduce poverty over the long term. We want training and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy. This transition should involve the democratic participation of workers themselves. High-speed rail powered by renewables and affordable public transit can unite every community in this country – in place of more cars, pipelines and exploding trains that endanger and divide us. 

[ "Renewables" require heavy mining, so they are not really renewable at all. High-speed rail requires massive amounts of a steel-a major source of greenhouse gasses.]

And since we know this leap is beginning late, we need to invest in our decaying public infrastructure so that it can withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events. 

Moving to a far more localized and ecologically-based agricultural system would reduce reliance on fossil fuels, capture carbon in the soil, and absorb sudden shocks in the global supply – as well as produce healthier and more affordable food for everyone.

We call for an end to all trade deals that interfere with our attempts to rebuild local economies, regulate corporations and stop damaging extractive projects. Rebalancing the scales of justice, we should ensure immigration status and full protection for all workers. Recognizing Canada’s contributions to military conflicts and climate change — primary drivers of the global refugee crisis — we must welcome refugees and migrants seeking safety and a better life.

["Reform" of the food supply system is implied here,  which will imply a further hit to the economy since "capitalism" - return on investment - needs to be outlawed.]

Shifting to an economy in balance with the earth’s limits also means expanding the sectors of our economy that are already low carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media. Following on Quebec’s lead, a national childcare program is long past due. All this work, much of it performed by women, is the glue that builds humane, resilient communities – and we will need our communities to be as strong as possible in the face of the rocky future we have already locked in.

Since so much of the labour of caretaking – whether of people or the planet – is currently unpaid, we call for a vigorous debate about the introduction of a universal basic annual income. Pioneered in Manitoba in the 1970’s, this sturdy safety net could help ensure that no one is forced to take work that threatens their children’s tomorrow, just to feed those children today.

We declare that “austerity” – which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and healthcare, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations – is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth.How we can pay for all of this? Read “We Can Afford The Leap” by Bruce Campbell, Seth Klein, and Marc Lee

The money we need to pay for this great transformation is available — we just need the right policies to release it. Like an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Financial transaction taxes. Increased resource royalties. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending. All of these are based on a simple “polluter pays” principle and hold enormous promise.

[I'd love to see the math here. They demand not just the elimination of the fossil fuel subsidies industry but the elimination of that industry. There is an implied attack on all forms of "capitalist" contribution to the economy. How does that magically fund the socialist agenda?]

One thing is clear: public scarcity in times of unprecedented private wealth is a manufactured crisis, designed to extinguish our dreams before they have a chance to be born.

Those dreams go well beyond this document. “We call on all those seeking political office to seize this opportunity and embrace the urgent need for transformation”. We call for town hall meetings across the country where residents can gather to democratically define what a genuine leap to the next economy means in their communities.

Inevitably, this bottom-up revival will lead to a renewal of democracy at every level of government, working swiftly towards a system in which every vote counts and corporate money is removed from political campaigns.

[Experience shows (see below) that these ideas utterly fail as a "bottom-up" renewal of democracy. They are non-starters in the real world of democracy. Therefore, I see them as anti-democratic, as revolutions tend to be.] 

This is a great deal to take on all at once, but such are the times in which we live.

[NO KIDDING!] 

The drop in oil prices has temporarily relieved the pressure to dig up fossil fuels as rapidly as high-risk technologies will allow. This pause in frenetic expansion should not be viewed as a crisis, but as a gift.It has given us a rare moment to look at what we have become – and decide to change.

And so we call on all those seeking political office to seize this opportunity and embrace the urgent need for transformation. This is our sacred duty to those this country harmed in the past, to those suffering needlessly in the present, and to all who have a right to a bright and safe future.

[Gotta say  "sacred duty" explicitly makes this a pseudo-religious campaign. Don't expect logic to interfere.]

Now is the time for boldness.

now is the time to leap

Here is the Wikipedia entry on "LEAP," which delves into Canadian politics' impact.

In reality, NDP leader Tom Mulcair distanced the party from the manifesto and instead ran a moderate, "pragmatic" campaign that included promises to balance the budget and effectively perpetuate austerity.[15][16]

As it turned out, that campaign was a disaster for the NDP.

Then [NDP] premier Rachel Notley and president of the Alberta Federation of Labour Gill McGowan were vocal opponents, citing the centrality of the oil industry to Alberta's economy—and the industry's desire for new pipelines—as reasons to reject the manifesto.[5]

Gutting the Alberta economy would not be popular with Alberta voters. This raises the key problem with the "Manifesto." Like manifestos before it, policies would be rammed down the throats of ordinary people. Whatever its merits, The Manifesto could not be implemented in a democratic country. Notley's attempt to moderate the anti-capitalist tone failed. She lost the next provincial election to the far right. The dispute continues, with Alberta challenging the right of the Federal Government to cripple the economy of a province to meet climate change goals.

Bernie Sanders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom, but the NDP, under new leader Jagmeet Singh, again distanced itself from the manifesto.[29]

No further detail is needed. The Manifesto is dead in the water as a serious proposal. It is chiefly of interest as a fossil remnant of a Utopian dream.

--------------------------------------------------------------

PS --- Here is a presentation that depicts the explosive need for mining to meet the "energy transition." 

The Green New Deal Utopia

Any version of the widely discussed Green New Deal project must include these priorities: 1. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions will at least achieve the targets set in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely a 45 percent reduction in global emissions by 2030 and the attainment of net zero emissions by 2050. 2. Investments to dramatically raise energy efficiency standards and equally dramatically expand the supply of solar, wind, and other clean, renewable energy sources will form the leading edge of the transition to a green economy in all regions of the world. 3. The green economy transition will not expose workers in the fossil fuel industry and other vulnerable groups to the plague of joblessness and the anxieties of economic insecurity. 4. Economic growth must proceed along a sustainable and egalitarian path, such that climate stabilization is unified with the equally important goals of expanding job opportunities and raising mass living standards for working people and the poor throughout the world.

\ 

Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal 

The Canadian version of the Green New Deal is the " LEAP Manifesto "  There is no way for me to capture the psychedelic nature of this manifesto here. Please read it for yourself. It's not long. Without actually reading this document, what I have to say about it will seem to be a rabid overreaction.

LEAP calls for an end to capitalism, the route of all evils, including climate change.  LEAP will end all forms of poverty and injustice, including the poverty and injustice created by LEAP itself. A careful reading reveals that LEAP is not just calling for an end to capitalism but an end to the economy. On the extreme far left, the "economy" is seen as an invention of capitalism. Once we dispel this illusion, anything is possible. The only historical precedent I can think of is Pol Pot's approach to getting things done without nasty things like incentives.  Pol Pot is sometimes thought of as a Marxist, but Marx was perhaps the world's first economist. Pol Pot was coming from quite a different place.

Climate "disaster" is presented in terms even more shrill than usual. Net zero by 2050 is assumed. The secret is switching to a command economy, tossing out the profit motive, and rationing fossil fuels to zero by 2050. A Universal Basic Income is included in the picture, making all citizens employees of the State, which makes sense since the fossil fuel industry will not only be nationalized but destroyed and "capitalist" incentives to work and create are rendered illegal.

The LEAP manifesto derives its urgency from the Climate Crisis--the "Deepest Crisis in Recent Memory." Without that, LEAP is simply a laundry list of the social justice agenda. It's worth asking if social justice would somehow be promoted by destroying the Canadian economy. LEAP deserves to be treated as "Far Left Activism." Unlike communists, they calling not for nationalization but outright destruction of major sectors of the economy. It's worth noting that Net Zero by 2050 includes major reductions, if not elimination, of cement and fertilizer, so it's not just the dirty business of fossil fuels to be destroyed. Construction and agriculture will take a hit. We would also face a problem importing most of the "Green" technology with almost nothing to trade for it. While Canada would look like Utopia to the Greens, to the rest of the world, it would be an economic basket case, cut off from the miracle of international trade simply because it has nothing to sell.

It's hard to imagine where the capital needed to re-tool the energy infrastructure for wind and solar will come from since the concept of private (capitalist) investment and profit is ruled out. In other words, any non-governmental agency would be expressly forbidden to make a return on investment. I have a hard time imagining how the current energy infrastructure and service level could be maintained. LEAP seems to be literally unable to keep the lights on. Ah, but I digress into economic considerations ...

Climate Crisis: A Reply to the Utopians

 

While I am sympathetic to many "Liberal" or "Socialist" ideas, I see that there are many still far to my "left." I refer to these as the "Utopian Far Left." Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot would fall into this classification. The common thread is a promise of Utopia if only reason and individual rights are swept aside.

I take a close look at the inaugural address of the current head of the IPCC, Yensan-gun. My reasoning comes from many sources, but the reader who finds my thinking novel should refer to:

• The False Promise of Green Energy, Andrew Morris, et al.
• How to Spend $50 Billion to Make The World A Better Place, Bjorn Lomborg
• The IPCC report itself (IP6) and what it really says, not the "summaries."
• How to Avoid Climate Disaster, Bill Gates. Exactly what "net zero 2050" would take.
• United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) provides the complete UN vision of Utopia. It is important to notice that UNEP priorities are rolled into actual climate action plans, such as the "Green New Deal." Such plans claim to fix everything, not just the "Climate Crisis."

These are not isolated claims of the "climate denialists." It's just a matter of sticking to the facts, "running the numbers," and reading what the IPCC reports actually say at the "technical" level rather than the political "summary for decision makers." As information moves up the chain from actual research and data to the "summaries," uncertainty is removed, and the "party line" replaces expert opinion.

 Bold face and underline is my own of course. Comments in [].

 

From the inaugural address by the current IPCC chairman, Yensan-gun

9 June 2022

Bonn, Germany

Colleagues, Delegates,

I’m honoured to provide this keynote address at the opening ceremony of the first Technical Dialogue.

In the past 10 months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a trilogy of reports providing policymakers with the most up-to-date science on climate change. These three reports are a dire warning about the consequences of inaction. Climate change is a grave and mounting threat to our well-being and a healthy planet.

[The need for urgent action is used to justify sweeping changes to the lifestyle of everyone on the planet. Historically, "urgent action" by Utopians has resulted in a catastrophe on an epic scale. This is a common political tactic. Among many objections, many point out that there are many problems that require urgent action. Action on one means inaction on the other. See Lomberg. It is also assumed that effective action is available - simply false (Gates). Historically, the grab for Utopia utterly fails (Morrison), but the costs have been real.] ...

The climate science is clear [very few issues are "clear" in the report. All have attached confidence levels]; our Physical Science Basis report concludes that: 

• It is indisputable that human activities [vague] are causing climate change and 
• Human influence is making extreme climate events, including [such as?] heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts, more frequent and severe [varying level of confidence but low in the categories listed. He is referring to model predictions that never have more than moderate confidence and disagree with each other]
• Human activities have warmed the planet at a rate not seen in at least the past 2000 years, and  [Hockey stick in disguise]
• we are on course to reach global warming of 1.5°C within the next two decades.

... a rapidly closing window [urgency again] to realize a sustainable, livable future for all [Utopia]. Climate impacts and risks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage [and imposible to model - in fact, always impossible to model]. Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously. Climate risks will interact with other threats to compound the overall risk. Risks will cascade across sectors and regions. [Always true of climate whether it changes or not]

Even temporarily exceeding 1.5°C warming will result in additional severe impacts, [how severe? Cost, feasibility of avoidance] some of which will be irreversible. [urgency again]  We are not on track to achieve a climate-resilient, sustainable world. Action on adaptation has increased, but progress is uneven, and we are not adapting fast enough [We are not on track to Utopia - true].

As the mitigation to climate change report concluded, we are not on track to limit warming to 1.5°C. Average annual GHG emissions during the last two decades were the highest in human history. Climate change is already affecting every region on Earth, in multiple ways. The changes we experience will increase with further warming. [Cause and effect is muddled here. Water vapor is the main GHG and a sign of life, not an "emission"]

Humanity is running out of time to limit global warming to 1.5° Cover pre-industrial levels. [Didn't he say we are not on track to 1.5?]

Yes, colleagues, we are at crossroads. Our actions today will shape how people adapt, and nature responds to increasing climate risks. [echos acceptance speaches of every politician ever. At last, I am in charge!]

The IPCC reports throughout this entire cycle focus on solutions. There are feasible and effective options [A bare-face lie] we can take to reduce the risks to people and nature, but their effectiveness decreases with increasing warming. [Any "effectiveness" at all remains to be demonstrated. Morris puts this kind of claim to the test, as it applies to "solutions" already tried]

Worldwide action to achieve climate resilience and sustainable development is more urgent than previously assessed. [GROWING urgency. The hockey stick.]

Climate action has been taken in many countries. There are policies, regulations, and market instruments that are proving effective. If these are scaled up along with climate finance and applied more widely and equitably, they can support deep emissions reductions and stimulate innovation. Moreover, our latest report shows that there are options available now in all sectors that can at least halve emissions by 2030. [total BS-Gates]

We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. [Utopia]

....

June 10, 2022

NOTES:

The most compact and authoritative answer to Yensan-gun is "Unsettled," discussed in another post. The main point is that "Science" is far from settled and contradicts what was just said. The book provides an excellent description of how such nonsense floats to the top. The author is a respected client scientist whose credentials far outshine those of Yensan-gun.

----------

The consequences of a hotter planet include increasing incidences of heat extremes, heavy precipitation, droughts, sea level increases, biodiversity losses, and corresponding impacts on health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, and human security.

This mixes real problems (sea level rise) with hypothetical problems coming from the models and a broadly dark view of what humans will do to cope with change. The positive effects of change are completely ignored.

Chomsky, Noam; Pollin, Robert (2020-09-21T23:58:59.000). Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal. Verso Books. Kindle Edition. 

Activist Capture of IPCC

I take this to be a perfect statement of the position of the Activist, Utopain "left". For the moment, I want this document to stand on its own. This is the language that has been percolating down throughout the IPCC "summaris for decision makers" since the beginning. I see little point in rebutting Mr. Yensan-gun one-by-one. His mind is plainlly made up.  Bold face and underline is my own of course.

 

From the inaugural address by the current IPCC chairman, Yensan-gun

9 June 2022

Bonn, Germany

Colleagues, Delegates,

I’m honoured to provide this keynote address at the opening ceremony of the first Technical Dialogue.

In the past 10 months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a trilogy of reports providing policymakers with the most up-to-date science on climate change. These three reports are a dire warning about the consequences of inaction. Climate change is a grave and mounting threat to our well-being and a healthy planet.

...

The climate science is clear; our Physical Science Basis report concludes that: 

• It is indisputable that human activities are causing climate change and 
• Human influence is making extreme climate events, including heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts, more frequent and severe.
• Human activities have warmed the planet at a rate not seen in at least the past 2000 years, and 
• we are on course to reach global warming of 1.5°C within the next two decades.

... a rapidly closing window to realize a sustainable, livable future for all. Climate impacts and risks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage. Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously. Climate risks will interact with other threats to compound the overall risk. Risks will cascade across sectors and regions.

Even temporarily exceeding 1.5°C warming will result in additional severe impacts, some of which will be irreversible. We are not on track to achieve a climate-resilient, sustainable world. Action on adaptation has increased, but progress is uneven, and we are not adapting fast enough.

As the mitigation to climate change report concluded, we are not on track to limit warming to 1.5°C. Average annual GHG emissions during the last two decades were the highest in human history. Climate change is already affecting every region on Earth, in multiple ways. The changes we experience will increase with further warming.

Humanity is running out of time to limit global warming to 1.5° Cover pre-industrial levels.

Yes, colleagues, we are at crossroads. Our actions today will shape how people adapt, and nature responds to increasing climate risks.

The IPCC reports throughout this entire cycle focus on solutions. There are feasible and effective options we can take to reduce the risks to people and nature, but their effectiveness decreases with increasing warming.

Worldwide action to achieve climate resilience and sustainable development is more urgent than previously assessed.

Climate action has been taken in many countries. There are policies, regulations, and market instruments that are proving effective. If these are scaled up along with climate finance and applied more widely and equitably, they can support deep emissions reductions and stimulate innovation. Moreover, our latest report shows that there are options available now in all sectors that can at least halve emissions by 2030.
We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future.

....



June 10, 2022

]

Utopia - Careful What You Wish For

My adventures in literature lead me to "A Short History of Europe" and then a side road to Thomas More's "Utopia". Then to HG Wells' "A Modern Utopia" and, returning to a book that was waiting for all this, "Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberation" and the "Federalist Papers".

The two Utopias and the Papers (as commented on by Deliberation) are about the same subject: what would be the perfect society -- the Utopia that should replace the repressive rule of English kings?

There is a progression from More to the US Constitution of 1787. Most people imagine that the Constitution magically popped into existence as soon as the States declared independence in 1776. In fact, many confuse the stirring rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. It took over 10 years for the colonies to establish anything like functioning government. They fought a war with the world's most powerful nation without a functioning government of their own. To cite just one problem, they had no money of their own, and no authority to raise taxes, but real debts (in gold) to foreign creditors. Soldiers who won the battle for independence were never paid and went home to ruinous debt. Some protested and were executed for their trouble.

More's Utopia, set in the 16th century, seems hopelessly naive in many ways. The most cogent criticism offered by HG is that there are no real people in More's world. HG's Utopia, through a masterpiece of inventive storytelling, drops himself into a world full of people, with a companion that's not "buying" HG's idea of perfection. HG's approach is layered, subtle and deeply philosophical. For example, he accepts that, for his Utopia to happen, all of history would need to be retroactively re-written. This apparently didn't bother HG, who simply went on to crank out more utopias, dystopias, and imaginary worlds. He was a founding father of the Science Fiction technique, which is to ask "What If"?

The US Constitution faced the problem "in the flesh". After 10 years of chaos. the French provided the decisive and organized help needed to shake off the yoke of England. American colonies then demonstrated all the faults of "real" democracy. Their attempts to create a stable and effective democracy brought up dozens of hard questions dealt with at length in the Federalist Papers. One can read the Papers as an attempt to set up a real Utopia surrounded by the wreckage caused by real people with (mostly) good intentions. Many of the problems were "structural", which is what the Constitution tried to address (by reserving the right to create money to the Federal government for example but still no standing army). But the Framers were all too aware of the material they were working with - the human beings that make up the government and the governed. I should be remembered that the Republican idea - that a country could be governed by its citizen was, at that time, tested only once - in the French Revolution - that had ended in catastrophe.

It can be said that the American Constitution failed. So far, at least. This should educate us on any project we might entertain to force "democratic" government on a foreign nation with no experience with the concept. A certain minimum of chaos and bloodshed can be expected, nor can we expect the project to end well - with a "democratic" system of government.

Alexander Hamilton, in proposing a Union between the States  saw the possibilities of war between the States:

IT IS sometimes asked, ... what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? 

Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers (AmazonClassics Edition) (p. 39). Amazon Classics. Kindle Edition. 

Hamilton goes into lots of causes for such war, missing the cause that actually resulted in war, and provides no real way that the Union he proposes could prevent it.

The American Civil war ended in 1865, fully 89 years from the 1776 declaration of independence, leaving the South devastated and the cancer of racism still festering. What you might say is that, in 1865, you see the modern "United States" finally emerge as a result of war - not the deliberative process imagined by the Founders, but by "the sword", also imagined by the Founders. This was not that different from the wars that swept Europe in the same period. In Europe, the struggle was for a constitution, any constitution, that would reign in the absolute power of the monarch - exactly the issue most famously addressed by the US Declaration of Independence.  These revolutions all failed except, paradoxically, in England, where a constitutional monarchy emerged.

In our time, we have observed the vulnerability of the "American Experiment". It's worth reading the Federalist Papers to understand what was supposed to work and why. If a machine is broken, the first step is to try to figure out how it's supposed to work. Given that, the next question is whether the design itself is sound. Are we dealing with faults or features? Loose bolts or square wheels?

At bottom, the issue is with democracy itself. As HG points out, your "utopia" must be populated by actual human beings. The "Founders" fully understood that there were politicians who would lead the ignorant masses by rhetoric and lies. Part of their strategy was to make sure that the masses didn't exert direct authority - a policy that had had disastrous consequences in living memory. We can see exactly this mistake in the Brexit vote and, needless to say, in the "populism" that drives the Trump presidency.

The Founders needed to slow down the legislative function of government and broaden the inputs. They felt that "small" democracy was unstable and that longer terms for representatives lead to more deliberation and less influence from the masses shouting about the issue of the day. On the other hand, they needed an "executive" that could act quickly, decisively and "energetically".  We see this balance being played out between the "energetic" (many would say "impulsive") presidents, reacting to emergencies that exist only in his mind, and the Congress who are attempting to perform a more deliberative "big picture" role. IF there is an emergency, that's what the "executive" is for.

It doesn't seem that the Founders imagined what would happen if a lunatic somehow won the presidency. They also seemed to place a lot of faith in "deliberation", which ignores the way that legislators actually work - the subject of "Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberation". Party politics, ideology, outright corruption and "horse trading" seem to be, at the very least, as important than calm, sane analysis of policy. It was not long before Congress abandoned all pretext of "deliberation" and resorted to fist fights and duels.

Writing in 1787, they did not see party politics coming. At the time, "ideology" was "tyranny versus democracy". Remember, this is long before Marx took up the challenge to ask questions about the justice of economic policy. In fact, the question of "justice" was hardly on the table in 18th-century political thinking. In 1787, there was no thought of freeing slaves, enfranchising women or how to treat the original inhabitants of the land. The Framer's reluctance to empower the unwashed masses is, at least partly, a decision of a political class to "bake in" power their own class and skin tone  This criticism can still be leveled against all current "Western democracies".

Going back to the Federalist papers, you can see that their goal was to create a stable democracy.

After all this, I confess that I am quite pessimistic about finding Utopia using HG Wells' criteria - working with real people. I think human beings are fundamentally ungovernable and our social arrangements, like our financial markets, are unstable. In the light of history and the thinking of the Founders, we can isolate a few of the causes of instability, but the modern situation adds quite a few more, including the speed of communication, the party system, allowing corporations to be legal persons and so forth.

To put it another way, assuming we survive at all, stability will only come at the cost of democracy. "Revolutions" have a nasty way of causing anarchy and the simple solution to anarchy: tyranny.

• the French Revolution, which gave them Emperor Napoleon
• the Maoist dream & the "cultural revolution"
• "communism" in Russia ending up with Stalinism and Putin
• Pol Pot's Cambodia
• Jim Jones and his Utopia in Guyana

So, when we are tempted by some Utopian dream, we must not forget to ask "Then what?"

White water canoeing is one of my hobbies. When things get exciting, the main idea is to stay afloat. It's not a good time to fight over the paddles.