Moving in the Right Circles: a few thoughts.
Hello, hi, good afternoon (or a very early good morning if you’re reading from home, I hope O Week is treating you well and you’re remembering to rehydrate). Last night, I went to the first in a series of seminars hosted by the Edinburgh Political Union and Common Weal at a cute little student bar down in the Old Town. Common Weal is a policy “think and do tank” based in Glasgow. Their Policy Head, Craig Dalzell, took us through the Resources and Trade chapter of their fully-costed Green New Deal for Scotland. I recently finished reading Novacene and have finally come to grips with the Gaia Theory... I think. In light of all this new info that I’m processing, and news that Bezos is injecting $10bn into the climate effort, I wanted to share a few thoughts...
Common Weal’s Green New Deal is so low-bullshit it’s made me run circles around my own brain trying to come up with a joke about lowering methane emissions (to no avail). It reads that “...waste is really just a way of describing failures in resource use” in reference to the current linear economic model.
Met this dude in Sligachan!
The linear model can be described as such: procure resource ---> use it between 0 and 2 times ---> dispose of resource ---> repeat for infinite economic growth.The goal of a circular economy is to keep goods in circulation at the highest value possible. To do so, we need to considering redesigning, reusing, repairing and remanufacturing goods before we recycle them. If we could do that, we wouldn’t have to procure as many resources in the first place, nor waste as much in the end. Craig put recycling to the test last night too, discussing whether down-cycling (i.e. putting your Amazon cardboard box in the correct bin) should even be considered a success (it shouldn’t IMO). Side-cycling and up-cycling are still crucial to a circular economy, though.
***Cue thirst trap that also shows off thrifted jeans***
Ooh, and I found out that Edinburgh has tool libraries, which gives me the means to cause devastation in a public space as I make and fix things, as per my 2020 goal to learn more practical skills, but with less waste!
Not the tool library, but close enough...making fingerboards in Granda’s shed over Christmas.
When we talk about the climate action effort, we often split society into those who see the need for climate action and those who choose to oppose it. Last night’s discussion highlighted another important group: climate delayers.
What is a climate delayer?
Those who acknowledge climate emergency but declare that they/we as a society are doing enough
Those who acknowledge climate change but oppose declaration of an emergency
Those who acknowledge climate change and/or emergency on a public level but benefit heavily from/contribute heavily to the industries that continue to emit fossil fuels
Those who acknowledge the climate emergency but propose only lofty goals with no substantive plan to achieve them
Any other person whose behaviours slow down the climate action effort without necessarily denying its validity.
It’s interesting to consider that, perhaps even more so than deniers, the behaviours of climate delayers work to preserve the status quo by focussing on how hard it might be to structure a society in a way that places less stress on the earth’s systems. They may also choose to support weaker policy reactions to emerging climate science.
I know what you’re thinking. Of course, anybody (sane) would tell you that they’d rather do nothing than do something that might take effort. Even if a proposed policy has noble goals such as emissions reduction, people won’t give up their time to act unless it has a realistic plan behind it. The cool thing about Common Weal’s GND is that it’s actually costed, it’s clear (even to somebody without a science or economics background like me) and it actually feels like something that might work... No wonder major parties are starting to jump at it.
There will always be a threat from climate delayers though. Especially when they are people with excessive power or influence. I guess this is the source of worry that some are harbouring when it comes to the enormous amount of money Jeff Bezos (Amazon CEO, tax escape artist, richest person in the world) has committed to set up his Earth Fund this week.
Attempting to Square the Circle
A Guardian article I digested with my morning coffee collates the opinions of a few leading scientists on how he could best spend this money. Some of these included setting up opposition to oil and gas lobby in the US, forest protection, indigenous land rights and practice programs, supporting emerging tech, carbon pricing research and implementation and solutions with no financial market e.g. removing carbon dioxide from the air, restoring and re-wilding habitats or research into how we can overcome the sociopolitical obstacles to achieving low-emissions (and hopefully zero-emissions) societies.
Inverleith House, Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh.
A quick survey of people in my Twitter bubble, including nell, didn’t give me a lot of hope. We, for good reason, are quick to distrust billionaires who run unfathomably large corporations that underpay and overwork employees, don’t pay taxes and do contribute heavily to waste and carbon emissions. You can’t really fault Bezos’ critics for being pessimistic when it comes to this donation. Billionaires donating billions of dollars cannot be expected to completely set aside their self-interest.
We can’t ignore the fact that $10bn (US) could fucking change the movement. Bezos said on Instagram that the money will be given out as grants, so theoretically he could contribute to all of the efforts mentioned above. We exist in a web of systems that is reaching a tipping point: one that could easily set off a bunch more, even ones yet unconsidered. Without cooperation on a large-scale, we mightn’t be able to prevent the worst from happening. This money could allow this type of collaborative effort.
Unfortunately, I have to live in reality. It’s probable that this money won’t be used to disrupt the balance of power in the US that has always tipped in the favour of fossil fuels industries. It is unlikely to be invested into solutions that won’t reap significant financial return.
Waters of Leith, Stockbridge.
Whilst it is vitally important that this investment doesn’t work to delay climate action by preserving the status quo, it’s a real possibility.
My guess is that it will be invested into new tech that obviously has the potential to make people excited about responding to climate change but that Cornell refers to as “putting a bandaid on a an open fire”. It could delay real action, as funding for new ideas might outweigh support for the solutions that are ready right now. I only hope that stakeholders consider that we are running out of time for research and pilot studies and shit needs to start changing now.
To sum up and get on with the chores I see stacking up around me: a $10bn investment into the climate movement can’t be a wholly good or wholly bad thing. Activists, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice and other organisations have already convinced the richest man in the world to pledge 7% of his net worth to the planet, so maybe we can help to keep him accountable for the way he spends it too!?
P.S. buttons are still falling off, but I really am making slow progress with learning to sew! I will post some photos when there’s anything exciting to photograph.