Daily Archives: January 16, 2017

EcoEquity: Global Climate Justice | After the Catastrophe: Climate justice as the post-trump slingshot


These are early thoughts. Comments are more than welcome. (Version of Jan 14)
Tom Athanasiou (toma) Download as PDF here

Trump’s election was a catastrophe. Coming on top of everything else, it more than justifies pessimism. But at the risk of
seeming ridiculous, let me add that our new position is not without its possibilities.

We would not have chosen this path. But if we’re both smart and lucky we may be able to slingshot out of it, and into a mobilization that would not otherwise have been possible.

But we’re going to have to be brave enough to take justice seriously. Among much else, we’re going to have to work out what the pretty phrase “climate justice” actually means.

Among much else.

Before Trump there was Paris, and its celebrated goal of “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C,” while pursuing efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” So here’s a question: When Dave Roberts, one of America’s premier climate bloggers, published a post-election reaction piece called “Trump’s election marks the end of any serious hope of limiting climate change to 2 degrees,” was he right?

I don’t think so. But I’ll grant that, if he’s wrong, he’s wrong in a complicated way. For one thing, the hope we had before Trump’s election was not itself entirely serious.

Here’s how Roberts described it:

“The truth is, hitting the 2-degree target (much less 1.5 degrees) was always a long shot. It would require all the world’s countries to effectively turn on a dime and send their emissions plunging at never-before-seen rates.

It was implausible, but at least there was a story to tell. That story began with strong U.S. leadership, which brought China to the table, which in turn cleared the way for Paris. The election of Hillary Clinton would have signaled to the world a determination to meet or exceed the targets the U.S. promised in Paris, along with four years of efforts to create bilateral or multilateral partnerships that pushed progress faster.

With steady leadership, the U.S. and China would exceed their short-term goals. Other countries would have their willpower fortified and steadily ratchet up their commitments. All this coordinated action would result in a wave of clean energy innovation, which would push prices down lower, which would accelerate the transition.”

Is this an accurate telling? I think it is, more or less, but it’s also radically incomplete. For one thing, “U.S. leadership” has not been an unambiguous force, and there are many people around the world who would object even to the phrase. More pressing, the “wave of clean energy innovation” that this story depends on was never going to be enough. On this front, see the bit where countries “steadily ratchet up their commitments.” This is a reference to the push for (jargon alert) an “ambition ratchet” or “ambition mechanism.” The two terms are almost interchangeable but the idea is critical, because both the Paris pledges of national action and the post-Paris pledges of international transition support are far too weak to actually achieve Paris’ “well below 2°C” temperature target

…(read more).

Inside Story – What’s behind growing economic gap?

The gap between the poor and the super-rich is growing.

The world’s eight richest people have the same wealth as the poorest half of the entire world.

That’s according to a new report by Oxfam which describes this trend as obscene, unfair and grotesque.

The eight men are mostly American, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffett, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.

Oxfam warns this economic inequality threatens to pull societies apart and undermine democracy.

Its report says people have lost trust in their governments and are no longer willing to accept the status quo.

The anti-poverty organisation suggests that may help explain Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election.
And the UK’s vote to leave the EU.

So what needs to be done to reduce wealth inequality?

Presenter: Laura Kyle


Deborah Hardoon – Deputy head of research at Oxfam.

Aly Khan Satchu – CEO of Rich Markets and an Emerging Markets Economist.

Ben Southwood – Head of Research at Adam Smith Institute.

Noam Chomsky – How to Deal with the Trump Presidency

Chomsky’s Philosophy

Published on Jan 16, 2017