Guest essay by Eric Worrall
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful” – John Mitchell, Chief Research Scientist British MET
Capitalism can crack climate change. But only if it takes risks
Larry Elliott
Thu 16 Aug 2018 15.00 AESTAnglo-Saxon capitalism’s drive to maximise profits in the short term won’t save the planet. Perhaps the Chinese model can?
…
But by the time they do, it could be too late. Capitalism – especially the dominant Anglo-Saxon variant of capitalism – has trouble thinking beyond the here and now. People running big corporations see their job as maximising profits in the short term, even if that means causing irreparable damage to the world’s ecosystem. What’s more, they think they should be free to get on with maximising profits without any interference from politicians, even though the fight against climate change can only be won if governments show leadership, individually and collectively.
…
Winning the race against time requires political leadership. It means acknowledging that the Chinese model of managed and directed capitalism might be more appropriate than the Anglo-Saxon model. A massive scaling up of investment in clean technology is needed, because the $300bn spent on decarbonisation worldwide last year merely matched the cost of the losses in the US from climate and weather-related events. It also means scaling up the lending of the World Bank and the regional development banks to help poorer countries build wind and solar capacity. And a global carbon tax set high enough so that fossil fuels remain in the ground must be implemented.
And, more than anything, it means accepting that the world needs to wage war against climate change. Powerful vested interests will say there is plenty of time to act, and they are aided by climate-change deniers who say there is nothing to worry about. These people need to be called out. They are not deniers, they are climate-change appeasers. And they are just as dangerously misguided as fascism’s appeasers in the 1930s.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/16/capitalism-climate-change-risks-profits-china
In my opinion repeated praise of the Chinese system by climate scientists and greens is a terrific illustration of what is wrong with climate science.
The observation is that China has hideous pollution problems and rapidly growing CO2 emissions. But the political model greens cling to suggests that Chinese authoritarians could sweep these issues aside by decree – the objections of “climate appeasers” could be swept aside by naked force, the objections of “climate deniers” could be crushed by an authoritarian regime which does not tolerate dissent.
One question – why hasn’t this already happened?
The reason of course is because this naive vision of absolute authority which answers to nobody is not how China works. Yes authoritarians in China do regularly trample on the rights of others – but that trampling is frequently done in the name of making a quick profit, to silence the objections of people whose communities have just been turned into a toxic chemical cesspit by ruthless, well connected corporatists.
Western democracies are far better custodians of the environment, because under the Western system, people whose rights are being trampled by greedy corporatists have the power to vote for politicians who can right those injustices.
Greens continue to ignore this reality. Greens cling to their failed visions of an authoritarian climate revolution, because they refuse to consider observations which contradict their idealised political models. They cannot accept the possibility that they might be wrong.
A massive scaling up of investment in clean technology is needed, because the $300bn spent on decarbonisation worldwide last year merely matched the cost of the losses in the US from climate and weather-related events.
I studied logic. I majored in history. I minored in philosophy. And none of that even makes any sense to me. Is it even supposed to?
It’s GreenLogic™. No rational thought required.
It makes sense only if you imagine the following are true (which of course, they are not:)
1) A scaled-up investment in clean technology would *eliminate* losses from weather-related events.
2) Even with a massive scaling of investment, less would be spent than are incurred by *worldwide* weather-related events.
Meanwhile in the real world, climatic effects on the frequency of extreme weather-related events are conspicuous by their absence. In nations like the USA our costs keep going up because there’s more to destroy; as a percentage of wealth losses aren’t increasing and fossil-fueled wealth has dramatically reduced the death toll compared to less developed nations. But the $300bn spent worldwide on decarbonisation accomplished *nothing* related to weather-related events.
So the columnist is arguing “We wasted all this money and prevented nothing — we obviously need to spend a lot more!”
Larry Elliott is as inept at political history, environmental history and financial investing as the climate models are at forecasting weather and climate?
Though, it does take wilful blindness and perhaps malfeasance to not recognize that socialist/communist dictatorships are not good stewards of environment.
I need to start calling that the Luten Plunder Syndrome.
OK, lets us apply “directed capitalism” against all these ecotards first! Drive them into poverty, starvation and disease for 10 years, then ask them how well it works? It would certainly work excellently for ridding the human race of their leftist cancer.
To save us from all the bad things that climate change will inflict upon us, we must change to an oppressive political system that has achieved a level of prosperity where half the country lives on… what… $2 a day? I think I’d rather have the warming.
“Directed Capitalism” is the very definition of fascism.
Bingo!
Guardian + Economics – two words, that for me, don’t sit terribly well together.
Our current level of prosperity has come about because of capitalism and when capitalism goes wrong it is usually government intervention that caused it.
China, by virtue of its “directed capitalism” is an economic parasite. Getting rich by selling to the west whilst gaining commercial advantage through poor environmental and employment standards, low wages, theft of technology, government subsidy (allowing it to dump goods on the international market), currency manipulation and a regime that allows no dissent.
Without western wealth China’s economy would fail. As the latest reports suggest that, following the tariffs imposed by the US, it is.
Trump is prodding the host to reject the parasite, in order to pressure it into not sucking so hard. 😮
A simple question to ask Mr Elliot would be how East Germany compared to West Germany on environmental policies.
That’s a very good example, because they were one people prior to WWII. So we can minimize the problems of differing populations.
Capitalism is retained earnings and market (i.e. democratic)-based cost determination and allocation. It’s not Anglo-Saxon in principle. It’s not profit-oriented per se, or a short-term perspective. Although, it has been painted that way: racially and ideologically.
I haven’t read through the comments yet, but I have a fairly unique view of this for someone on the NA side of the pond and want to get it down before I get distracted. Pardon the length and if someone already said this.
In 2016, the G8 countries met in China over the course of several months. The final, photo-op, meeting occurred at the end of August/beginning of September in Hangzhou, a city with a metro population of about eight million (considered a mid-sized city). My wife is from there, and I was flying over to meet her 2 days after the conference ended. She was there during the conference and for some time before. It was common knowledge that the Chinese government did two things: First, they told a butt-tonne of Hangzhou residents to go on holiday–and they did. It overwhelmed a lot of resorts that weren’t used to that kind of traffic, and it annoyed a lot of other Chinese people as a result. We went on a trip after I got there, and she was reporting to me some of the things she overheard from people who didn’t know where she was from. Second, they shut down ALL heavy industry that might charitably be considered upwind of Hangzhou (and I think Beijing, but I’m not sure). I’ve never seen properly-clear skies over Hangzhou, but my wife sent me pictures of how blue it was during and prior to the conference. Command economy.
When I arrived–remember, the second day after it ended–industry had already begun to spin up again. I did see blue skies a time or two, but the sky was already re-developing the haze. In Shanghai, my usual port of entry, the haze never really goes away, due to the size of the city, but on arriving in Hangzhou it was already redeveloping there. By the time we got to our trip destination, Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), an entirely-rural area with some large and small towns to service the national park, the haze was prevalent. Ten days after the conference ended, it was back to normal. Funnily, on the one English-language CCTV station, a panel was discussing pollution in China (approved by censors, I’m sure). IIRC, they were mumbling something about cracking down on polluters, without acknowledging how easily the gov’t could do it if they wanted to. The destruction of their economy as a result was never mentioned.
This is how the Chinese government manages its environmental problems: how, when, and where they choose. Full stop.
The left knows less about economics than they do climate change.
How did this guy get out of graduate school with this level of reasoning?
Does he assume that there were no “weather events” prior to 1850 when humans supposedly destroyed the climate?
If we reduce CO2 output through draconian authoritarian measures such as a global carbon tax will “weather events” cease?
If you can’t put a logical argument together than your “opinion piece” is garbage.
There of course was the obligatory sentence at the end that tried to subliminally remind readers of the link between “fascism” and the D word.
Well this is the Grauniad, home of socialists, fascists, the Greenblob, snowflakes and useful idiots.
and a lot of useless idiots as well.
I wonder how these meatballs would react if there were “directed readership” by some central authority that precluded reading their rubbish. TE has not been good for a long time, but since the Germans bought it, it has really hit the skids.
“In my opinion repeated praise of the Chinese system by climate scientists and greens is a terrific illustration of what is wrong with climate science.”
Actually, it is proof. as if anymore were necessary, that “climate science” is just left wing politics in a lab coat.
“Directed Capitalism”
Isn’t it fascinating how many new names they keep coming up with for socialism.
I find it disgusting actually
When people keep changing the name of what they advocate, it’s a clear indication that even they know that they can’t sell the original concept.
“People running big corporations see their job as maximising profits in the short term”
People who talk like that are people who have never actually dealt with businesses.
CEOs do try to maximize current earnings, but they are also charged with preserving the long term health of the corporations they run.
Any CEO that sacrificed the long term in order to boost earnings a few percent would be ousted by the board in a heart beat.
I guess the Soviet form of socialism is no longer in favor with the fools, as Russia supposedly stole their election here in the US. {facepalm}
“People underestimate the power of models.”
Nah, we know climate models are powerful propaganda tools, meant to deceive.
“Observational evidence is not very useful”.
Yeah, especially when it negates your ideology.
But but but…how else do you propose to save the planet guh herp derp.
That the planet isn’t going through anything it hasn’t gone through before, and that it does not, has never, and will never need their brand of “saving”, is a thought that never occurs to them, or if it did, it was quickly banished.
Idol of climate change communists
They should have a “little green book” they could carry around with them, so they could have all the “answers” at their fingertips. The cover would be green, but open it up, and everything would be red. It’d be awesome.
God help us all if this man really is Economics Editor of the Guardian. No wonder the paper will soon be no more.
Is there a Progressive solution to anything that DOESN’T require a totalitarian solution?
None. Which is why “regressive” is a better name than “progressive” for that leftist garbage.
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a generous combination of:
1) higher taxes
2) more government power to regulate
3) wealth transfers.
It’s a universal toolbox.
And the hell of it is, they never solve anything – they just keep demanding more money.
Ironic – at the same time they disparage money-makers, they seem to think all you have to do to fix anything is to simply throw money at it – which simply doesn’t work.
And THAT’s assuming there was an actual problem to fix in the first place.
Ahhhh boy – I woke up with a headache today.
4) When a problem cannot be solved by 1-3, blame capitalist obstructionism and start back at 1.
How can anyone “crack” climate change when it is a built in phenomenon?
No matter what we do, climate change will always exist as long as the sun shines and the planet is intact.
Apparently, “directed capitalism” is the latest euphemism for fascism.
Profit making corporations can’t afford to squander millions on systems and equipment that don’t perform as advertised, e.g. farting unicorns on treadmills.
And there is a limited budget for feel good projects that make a warm & fuzzy impressions and don’t really do anything, e.g. eliminating plastic straws.
Climate science has turned engineering/economics/science into full time BS factories.
For the greenhouse theory to operate as advertised, i.e. warming the earth by 33 C, requires a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop to “trap” energy and “warm” the earth and atmosphere.
For this GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop to operate as advertised requires forcing energy from an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity, LWIR of 396 W/m^2 from the earth’s surface. (K-T diagram)
The earth’s surface cannot provide that much LWIR because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, moving over 50% ((17+80)/160) of the surface heat through non-radiative processes, i.e. conduction, convection, latent evaporation/condensation. (K-T diagram)
Because of these contiguous turbulent non-radiative processes at the air/surface interface the oceans and lands cannot possess an emissivity of 0.97, actual emissivity being 63/396 = 0.16. (K-T diagram)
No GHG LWIR energy loop & no RGHE means no CO2/man caused climate change and no Gorebal warming.