Nina-Bytes: Keep It in the Ground

 

Editor's note: Nina-Bytes is a weekday blogging series that features short analysis and commentary on articles from around the web.

 

Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground. Everything Else Is Just Talk.

Over the past few weeks on Nina-Bytes, we've spent some time examining the staggering contradictions between climate promises by Pig Empire leadership, and the actions they're taking (or not taking) in government. In particular, I've focused on examining what I call the levels and flavors of self-deception in the fight to prevent climate catastrophe. The plain truth is that we know how to save the world from climate apocalypse, and capitalists are actively preventing us from collectively taking the steps necessary to do so. 

This in turn has lead to the ghastly spectacle of Pig Empire politicians, and neoliberal "thought leaders" trying to square that circle by making climate crisis mitigation promises that we already know won't save us from the climate apocalypse. Do you want to know what grim looks like? It looks like Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of the island nation of Barbados, explaining that even if Western leaders actually keep their current promises (fat chance,) it will still mean the death of millions on a boiling earth. Let me repeat that; our leaders are currently promising climate change policies they know will kill millions of poor people, particularly in the global South. 

Ultimately then, we're talking about a mass murder plot, barely hidden behind bloodless technocratic jargon and empty platitudes about how we're all in this together. Furthermore, you'd have to be an idiot at this point to believe these muppets aren't just as happy to sacrifice Pig Empire paupers on the altar of capital; just look at how the coronavirus pandemic shook out. It is not enough to merely say "net zero carbon is not enough," these folks are choosing to openly sacrifice millions of poor people on behalf of capital; and that's if their harebrained schemes work! This is what systemic genocide looks like in practice; this is fascism, imperialism, and the death cult of capitalism at its darkest.

So what does the opposite of that actually look like? How can you cut through the neoliberal platitudes and focus on a concise, easy to explain solution to climate catastrophe we can all get behind demanding from our leaders? I'm glad you asked, because as this November 7th, 2021 article by George Monbiot on Common Dreams makes clear, the answer is alarmingly simple. We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Period. Full-stop. Everything else is just empty talk from folks who mean to kill you for profit. From the article:

 

"And yes, it really is this simple. We have the technology required to replace fossil fuels. There's plenty of money, which is currently being squandered on the destruction of life on Earth. The transition could take place in months, if governments willed it. The only thing that stands in the way is the power of legacy industries and the people who profit from them. This is what needs to be overthrown. The handwaving, the complexity, the grandiloquent distraction in Glasgow are designed above all for one purpose: not to accelerate this transition, but to thwart it."

 

Look, I don't know how to put this any more bluntly. There is simply no such thing as a technocratic plan to stop climate catastrophe. Do you want a future? Would you like to survive to see it? Do you want to save life on Earth? Then stop tolerating politicians who're enslaved to a capitalist death cult that clearly means to kill us all if that's what it takes to make a quick buck. We must stop burning and extracting fossil fuels; to quote piss queen Maggy Thatcher, there literally "is no alternative."

nina illingworth

Anarcho-syndicalist writer, critic, and analyst. 

You can find my work at NIDC, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon and Facebook. 

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”

Nina-Bytes: Capitalism, Carbon, and Neoliberal Climate Denial

 

Editor's note: Nina-Bytes is a weekday blogging series that features short analysis and commentary on articles from around the web.

 

The ‘Sensible’ Climate Compromise Is Not Sensible

Look, I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but sooner or later as a society we're going to have to talk about flavors and levels of self-deception in the fight to prevent climate catastrophe. Take for example this well-argued October 27th article by Alexander Sammon over on The American Prospect. As you may have heard, Joe Manchin and Big Oil are current eviscerating Biden's environmental agenda in real time; an agenda that was already a milquetoast liberal compromise fantasy, quite frankly. Discussing the now-gutted climate crisis mitigation measures in the Build Back Better Act, Sammon notes that the Biden climate strategy currently centers around tax credits to two technologies; nuclear energy and carbon capture, utilization, and storage or CCUS.

As the author points out however, there's a pretty big reason why that's a terrible idea:

"So alongside the remaining clean-energy and electric-vehicle tax credits, beefed-up support for nuclear and carbon capture is what Joe Biden is going to take to Glasgow’s COP26 climate talks as proof of the United States’ willingness to tackle climate change head on.

The inconvenient problem is that those technologies don’t exist, at least not in any meaningful way. In the name of compromise, Build Back Better is now forgoing proven, cost-effective technologies for unproven ones, because that, evidently, is less ideological."

Sammon then goes on to demonstrate that we're lightyears away from producing enough nuclear power to meet our energy needs despite plenty of pre-existing subsidies, and that CCUS technology is basically a pipe dream that rewards the worst carbon-spewing supervillains to boot. Finally, Alex really brings home the bacon by pointing out that betting all your chips on fantasy ideas instead of investing in clean-energy solutions we've had for decades, is itself a form of climate science or climate change denial. 

That last point is key. and what I've taken to calling the "neoliberal flavor of climate science denial" is an issue that deserves more regular discussion in our society. When we talk about climate science or climate crisis denial, most people think of astroturf campaigns by fossil fuel companies, or the unhinged ravings of reactionary right wing politicians. It rarely ever occurs to people to consider whether acknowledging climate catastrophe, and yet refusing to take meaningful action to prevent it because your donors profit from the situation, isn't also clearly a form of denial?

And therein lies the problem I have with this piece. I'm not trying to pick on Alex; he's absolutely correct that doing only a fraction of what is required to stop climate catastrophe is its own form of denial. Which unfortunately means writing an article that doesn't acknowledge there's no way to stop climate catastrophe without getting rid of capitalism, is also its own form of denial. Sammon is certainly not alone in this; just this morning I read a piece by a left leaning academic who admitted we're all barbeque unless we get rid of capitalism, but proposed we forget about trying for now because it's impossible. Clearly, the denial runs deep.

Can you hear me in the back? If you're for preventing climate catastrophe and averting a mass extinction event, you're against capitalism. You can't scream "I refuse to acknowledge this" at a boiling planet and pretend you're on the right side of this issue. There is no halfway position here; there's no acceptable compromise between killing the planet for profit and saving the people, no matter what "reasonable center" you start working from. It's capitalism, or the planet, and the rich guys have clearly made their choice already.

So the question I pose to the left-leaning media, who I agree with on so many other issues is simple: which side are you on? I'd choose quickly my friends; before capitalism gets around to deciding you're an acceptable sacrifice too.

nina illingworth

Anarcho-syndicalist writer, critic, and analyst. 

You can find my work at NIDC, Can’t You Read, Media Madness and my Patreon Blog

Updates available on Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon and Facebook. Podcast at “No Fugazi” on Soundcloud.

Inquiries and requests to speak to the manager @ASNinaWrites

Chat with fellow readers online at Anarcho Nina Writes on Discord!

“It’s ok Willie; swing heil, swing heil…”