GeofCox / is on Nostr

I'm an activist working in social enterprise, with particular interest in how it can contribute to social and environmental transformation.

I'm English, but work internationally, and have lived in France for the last 12 years.

Last Notes

2024-05-29 11:19:34

The Thatcher disaster that befell the UK...
"In the 1960s, only Sweden had a lower rate of inequality than the UK. In 1974 inequality in the UK reached its lowest level, competing with Finland and Norway, and the UK had the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
"From the 1980s, it's been downhill as neoliberalism, ushered in by Thatcher, took hold. By 1992 inequality in the UK was worse than Portugal but Tory voters were doing well. New Labour did little to reverse inequalities. By 2016, only Bulgaria was more unequal than the UK...
"The 2008 financial crisis followed by Tory austerity and the pandemic have accelerated the UK's social and economic nosedive. It's telling that when the UK left the EU, the European Parliament lost its largest bloc of far-right MEPs made up of UKIP and the Tories.
"The Resolution Foundation's Living Standards Outlook 2023 reported that 56% of children in the UK with 2 siblings were going hungry 2-3 times per month, figures not seen since the 1930s."
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/05/29/if-the-snp-can-tackle-child-poverty-in-scotland-why-cant-labour-in-england/

2024-05-14 09:15:18

"Fossil fuel companies are forcing governments to compensate them for lost earnings in the transition to a low-carbon global economy."
Bit like the UK compensating slave-owners, rather than the slaves, when it abolished slavery, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/fossil-fuel-investment-treaties-lobbying-climate-mary-robinson-ban-ki-moon-ect

2024-05-12 06:36:03

The Guardian asked hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists for their views on the most effective actions combating climate-ecological breakdown. The top 5 actions were:
1. Vote for representatives who pledge strong climate action.
2. Reduce flying and fossil fuel-powered transport in favour of electric and public transport.
3. Reduce meat consumption.
4. Reduce home heating or cooling emissions.
5. Join a campaign or protest group.
https://climatejustice.social/system/media_attachments/files/112/426/691/004/549/436/original/b3f2f3cae21896e3.png

2024-04-30 21:38:07

- reply

But you're still talking about what 'needs' to happen. We all know that. But that's an avoidance, not a response to my question to you - which is about who is going to plan and implement (for example) the phasing out of fossil fuels - and how are they going to do it? And manage the job losses, and all the other knock-on effects...
(And incidentally I think fossil fuels are just one aspect of a much bigger crisis - which is why I generally use the description 'climate-ecological breakdown', not just 'climate change'.)
@npub1vc5…mzqu @npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 20:25:41

- reply

So what's the solution?
(And I don't mean what is the end result to aim at - I don't think anybody here disagrees about that - I mean the actual policies or other practical measures, and the powers to implement them, that we need to get there.)

2024-04-30 16:34:19

- reply

Again - these posts confirm my view. There's no disagreement I can see in this thread about what needs to be done (and therefore no need to soapbox about that here). The disagreement is about how necessary changes can actually be achieved. One side is advocating looking at economic models and measures that have achieved some success around the world - or there's evidence they are capable of achieving some - so that they can be promoted to governments, etc, as real, workable solutions now; and the other side is saying... what? - as far as I can make out: there are no successes to learn from anywhere, only the least developed countries are ok, even individual actions like installing a heat pump instead of a fossil fuel boiler are pointless, nothing is of any use (except, presumably, an immediate and complete change to the ideal).
To me, it feels like the old left reform-or-revolution division, which I thought was long ago settled in favour of reform?
@npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-30 12:56:03

- reply

I don't think anybody here is in favour of autocracy, are they?
The discussion is not about political arrangements - with regard to those, Norway is entirely different from China.
I think I do see, from @npub1gg4…euuk 's last posts, the real point of difference though:
It's about whether or not we discard the good in search of the perfect.
This is very clear, for example, in the statement that "it doesn't really matter that Norway is attempting to replace oil&gas use domestically".
This is identical to the common climate-change-denial argument that 'there's no point in us taking action because x isn't, and they produce more emissions.'
It comes down to the difference between those that want to do what we can - limited though it might be - and those that think there's no point doing anything because we can't do everything.
@npub1x6m…sd4n @npub1gg4…euuk @npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-29 07:11:13

- reply

Actually I still think China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets - and as I've outlined, I don't think the 'Our World in Data' figures you rely on show otherwise, when placed in a broader, and less western-centric context.
But the more interesting and vital point is our disagreement over 'development models'. You're suggesting, as I understand it, that the key aspects I outlined of 'the good life' in developed economies - enough food, communications, arts, universal education, healthcare, water, sewerage, power, etc - must be accompanied by destructive over-consumption, or at least by fossil fuel use and high emissions - and that it is therefore impossible to achieve this for most of the world. Further, you see no difference between the development models of different countries in this respect - for you, because they all use fossil fuels, there is no difference between China and the US, Canada or Cuba, Norway or Russia.
But most people, I think - me included - see big differences between these models. They have all, historically, used fossil fuels and created emissions - true, obvious - it was the only energy source available to build the sewers, etc - but that doesn't mean (in my view) they are all the same when it comes to responding to climate/ecological breakdown now.
Do you think none will respond, even as the crisis worsens?
I think they will, but differently. Crucially, I think the level of state control and openness to big, interventionist government in, say, Norway or China, places them in an entirely different position to, say, the US - and I think we already see the beginnings of such differences in their actions.
Personally, I see no realistic alternative at this stage to massive state intervention - rather in the way the UK government effectively took control over much of industry and trade in the Second World War. I wonder if you have an alternative? Do you think 'the market', via technological fixes, consumer choices, or whatever, will sort out the mess? Or (I'm still not sure) do you just think - in Private Fraser's words - 'we're doomed'?
@npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 17:08:29

- reply

I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, you seem to be arguing (in different posts) both that China has 'developed' by following the western 'international trade' model (which it has, over the last 2 or 3 decades), but also (previously) by following a western model when it wasn't engaged in much international trade !
It's true in broad-brush terms, of course - but so obvious that it's a truism - that in the past couple of centuries or so all development models have increased the use of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions. So what? They were the energy sources available. But things change - just as in the past they changed from wood-burning, etc, to fossil fuels.
Are you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future is that of the extreme right: all development is inevitably destructive, so let it rip while the super-rich retire to their gated communities and private islands - or forcibly halt development in currently 'poorer' countries to preserve the rich (which of course would require the same kind of armed oppression as the bunkers) ?
Of course those are possible futures - but so (I believe) are futures following different development models. By chance, I was just reading this interview with one of the authors of a new book (Comment bifurquer - les principes de la planification écologique) which ends with:
"On peut regarder la politique de la Chine comme un pari sur ce que va être l’économie du XXIe siècle. Ils ont pris de l’avance dans toute une série de productions vertes en se disant, « oui on subventionne massivement, oui, ça nous coûte cher aujourd’hui et on prend des risques, mais finalement, on est en train de développer les technologies de demain »."
https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/cedric-durand-ny-a-de-chemin-credible-vers-un-capitalisme-res/00110176
@npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 11:42:32

- reply

Well, I think you're looking at the date 'through western eyes'. I saw this earlier when you said: "switch to the table view and you'll see China in second place, between the US and Russia". Not so - because China is much bigger. Adjust for population and you see all the biggest CO2 polluters are in fact the old 'western' countries.
It's true, obviously, that to date development has been associated with fossil fuel use - but there's a huge trap - which I think you're in danger of falling into - of saying the development model the west used is the only one, and the measures of success the west uses are the only ones.
Indeed, if you adopt measures like GDP it does appear that China eradicated 'poverty' mainly by adopting (to some extent - but that's another discussion) a 'western' approach - but that is flawed, as Sullivan & Hickel show here - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169 . By the kind of real-life metrics Sullivan & Hickel use, such as longevity, the biggest advances were earlier. In the 1950s, China’s people lived 3 years less than the world average; by 1970s, they lived 5 years longer than the world average.
There's a common view that says 'there's no point taking action on climate-ecological breakdown unless China, India, etc stop development'. This assumes a western-defined idea of what 'development' must be, and that everywhere must go through the same historical processes, such as the fossil fuel stage, that brought us to precisely the current disastrous pass. I don't believe this. Instead we should be holding up the way 'the west' developed - and indeed many aspects of of the way it lives now - precisely as examples of what NOT to do.
@npub1a6c…mqgc @npub1860…d2dk @npub1hw2…xxzd @npub1u9y…pqt8

2024-04-28 07:27:30

- reply

Also, China's recent growth has been to a large extent built on exports, even when it is not directly attributable to them now.
This is the problem with drawing conclusions from a 2021 data snapshot - when China's exports were artificially suppressed by the pandemic. In the early 2000s China was exporting a third - sometimes more - of it's entire production.
Also note the cumulative emissions figures used by Our World in Data do not include traded goods - so they will be distorted in favour of the 'western' world.
To me, one of the most interesting things about the development of China is not the recent period when it has followed a more western-style 'development' path, but that it succeeded in virtually ending extreme poverty while it's exports were still less than 5% of its GDP.
This relates to the subsequent discussion in the thread - @npub1u9y…pqt8 - about the 'western' versus other models of development. I think we make a mistake if we assume aspects of highly developed economies that make life good - enough food, communications, arts, universal education, healthcare, water, sewerage, power, etc - have to be accompanied by destructive over-consumption - the latest gadget or fancy car or fast food or fashion.
I read somewhere (but now can't find it) that a sustainable level of resources consumption would imply living standards across the world like those in western Europe in the 1960s. Well I just about remember the 1960s in the UK, although I was only a small boy, in a relatively poor working-class household - but life was good, actually in most ways better than the stressful lives of the young now.

2024-04-27 11:27:54

- reply

Take a look at my post again. It makes a very simple point: that it's misleading to compare countries' emissions without taking into account their relative size, history, and the extent to which their emissions are related to over-consumption elsewhere.
I don't see how this is 'a common misconception'.
The 'common misconception' is surely the opposite view: that developed countries with a long history of polluting activities and relatively small populations, but with very damaging lifestyles, can justify their own inaction on the environment by pointing the finger at China (or India, etc) because they are now also becoming big polluters.

2024-04-27 07:53:54

- reply

Don't see how you come to those conclusions from the data you link...

2024-04-27 06:41:40

- reply

Agreed - but the chart you've used of emissions by country is very misleading - China is over 4 times the size of the US in terms of population - an emissions per capita chart would look very different - but moreover, China's emissions are in large part associated with production for western markets, rather than over-consumption - and it has been producing them for far less of its history.

2024-04-21 19:27:45

Who killed Britain?
This Danish article has the correct answer: Thatcher.
"Around two-thirds of Britons believe the country is in decline, and it's not hard to see why. Real wages are lower than 15 years ago. A third of British children grow up in poverty, many millions have to skip meals every single week. The UK is not just significantly poorer than France, let alone Germany or Denmark. The poorest 10% of Britons now also earn less than the poorest 10% in Slovenia...
"A particular story of decay still plagues the country... and it goes something like this: the 1960s and 70s were a dark time... Then Thatcher came and saved it all with economic common sense, tax cuts and a necessary showdown with unions... But that narrative is fundamentally wrong... Margaret Thatcher did not increase the growth of the British economy... The post-war period, including the 1970s, was the time of high growth and major transformations... an economic model reminiscent of the one found in the rest of Western Europe was established... In the 1980s many countries lowered taxes, removed regulation, encouraged deindustrialization and privatized public enterprises. But Britain took exceptionally radical action. Today, it is Europe's most financialized economy, with very high inequality - and a very low level of both public and private investment in the economy.
"Four criminal acts have destroyed the economy.... Monetarism in the 1980s, deregulation in the 80s, the austerity policy of the 2010s and Brexit. All motivated by the same economic thinking... free market fundamentalism."
https://www.information.dk/udland/2024/04/hvem-slog-storbritannien-ihjel?kupon=eyJpYXQiOjE3MTM1MjQ5MzUsInN1YiI6IjIyMjUyMDo4MTkwMzUifQ.9_7QOpyn65Fg3-8EP-Enfg

2024-04-03 17:21:19

Poll predicts Green co-leader Carla Denyer will win in new Bristol Central seat by siphoning off votes from disillusioned left.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/03/greens-sees-chance-of-second-mp-as-labour-voters-waver-in-bristol