Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
Do Central Banks suffer regulatory capture? It seems so.
Who said, during the hottest month ON RECORD, we; “need significant enhancements to capture climate-related effects.”? 120 Central Banks…
… the “Network for Greening the Financial System” -NGFS – group of 120 Cental Banks (incl our RBA)- reveal their negligence and ignorance of global heating:
● “Our understanding in this space is still at an early stage, and our modelling toolkits need significant enhancements to capture climate-related effects.”. (^2.)
How is it possible to say this in 2023?! Just shameful in imo.
^1. “Berkley Earth
June 2023 Temperature Update”
Not an outlier.
Hottest year:
Overall P >99%
Ocean P >98%
“2023 is on pace to be the warmest year yet observed since instrumental measurements began.”
“Likelihood of final 2023 ranking:
– 1st place (81 %)
– 2nd or 3rd place (15 %)
– 4th place (4 %)
– Top 4 overall (> 99 %)
^2. RBA & “Network for Greening the Financial System” NFGS
Central Banks 20 years late.
*
1.
Berkley Earth
“June 2023 Temperature Update
July 11, 2023
….
“Rest of 2023
“2023 is on pace to be the warmest year yet observed since instrumental measurements began. The surprisingly strong warming in June 2023, combined with the likelihood of a strong El Niño event, have increased the forecast for the rest of 2023.
“… now believes that 2023 is likely to become the warmest year on record (81% chance). This forecast probability is sharply higher than last month’s report, when the likelihood of a record warm year was estimated at 54%.
“It also represents a large change from the forecast at the beginning of the year … If 2023 does not become the warmest year on record, then it would almost surely finish 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.
“In this assessment, we also find it nearly certain that 2023 will result in the warmest ocean-average year ever measured (98% likelihood), boosted by global warming and the presence of El Niño. However, it remains unlikely that the land average will set an annual average record in 2023, with a 3rd place finish being the most likely outcome.
[ I posted the graph as 2023 is clearly visible above prior years. Other graphs as stark.]
“Global warming by month
Difference from the 1850-1900 average.”
https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/
*
^2.
Central Banks 20 years late.
RBA “Bulletin – June 2023 Financial Stability
Climate Change and Financial Risk”
6 April 2023
Endnotes
“Financial regulators typically view climate risks in terms of their effects on the traditional categories of credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk and operational risk (BCBS 2021). …..[1]
“The NGFS was created in 2017 by a group of eight central banks and supervisors, and now contains over 120 members. The [Aust Reserve] Bank has been a member of the NGFS since 2018 and contributes to multiple work streams.[2]
…
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/jun/climate-change-and-financial-risk.html
Survey by:
“Network for Greening the Financial System
Technical document
“Monetary policy and climate change Key takeaways from the membership survey and areas for further analysis”
July 2023
…
“Our understanding in this space is still at an early stage, and our modelling toolkits need significant enhancements to capture climate-related effects. But central banks cannot wait for complete clarity over the path of climate change and policies or for a “perfect” macroeconomic-climate model of our economies to be developed. We have to pool our resources and seek out opportunities for learning, knowledge sharing, and exploration of these issues.
…
“These survey results will form the foundation for the next stage of the NGFS’ ambitious work programme on monetary policy in the coming years. The work should equip central banks to better understand these shocks and their impact on policy-making. We hope it will also be of use to other policymakers and actors who need a clearer understanding of the macroeconomic consequences of climate change.”
…
https://www.ngfs.net/en/monetary-policy-and-climate-change-key-takeaways-membership-survey-and-areas-further-analysis
KT2 has made an excellent post with links above. I recommend reading it closely.
It sparks some thoughts in me: maybe thoughts better suited for a new Sandpit but these have been thin on the ground of late. This is not a criticism as this is at our host’s discretion. I will try to be brief here.
The criticism of central banks is warranted. By institutional and structural implication it is also a criticism of all neoliberal monetary, fiscal and financial policy and of many actions in the public arena and in the institutionally permitted private arenas. Our whole interlocking system is wrong, and very complexly wrong, at all levels for what we urgently need now; immediate emergency climate action and immediate emergency social action on rapidly increasing inequality.
This sparks some thoughts, as I say. There is a method of thinking and analysis (I believe) drawing from institutional economics, from Capital as Power theory (Bichler and Nitzan) and from a “Unified empirical ontology of the real and the formal”. This synthesized or “syncretized” viewpoint could I think prove fertile ground for new theorizing to do no less than re-invigorate and even revolutionize our view of economics.
It’s a personal view and some would no doubt say a “crank-ish” view but I don’t believe any of the existing schools (that I am aware of) from orthodox to heterodox have come to grips with what is required. Capital as Power theory is closest but I still think it lacks some empirical ontology planking or scaffolding. Just my view of course.
I could try to sketch out a bit more in a Sandpit at some point in time. Of course, the chances are very high that I, an untutored amateur theorist, am just full of a lot of crank-ish hot air. But it is an interesting exercise to try to think out of all existing squares. It is a pity sometimes I think, especially at critical catastrophic junctures, that more people lay and professional don’t get more serious at thinking outside the box to make “a” or “the” complete paradigm leap which we clearly and desperately need. More of the same, from any existing school, is not going to be enough IMHO.
Meanwhile, per Berkeley Earth’s July 2023 Temperature Update published Aug 14:
• Global mean temperature in July 2023 was 1.54 ± 0.09 °C (2.77 ± 0.16 °F) above the 1850–1900 average;
• Likelihood of full-year-2023 hottest ranking: 1st place (99 %), 2nd or 3rd place (1 %), top-3 overall (> 99 %);
• Likelihood of full-year-2023 to exceed +1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above the preindustrial benchmark is 20%.
https://berkeleyearth.org/july-2023-temperature-update/
I think I tried posting this last Monday (Aug 14) in an earlier Monday Message Board thread, but no joy then.
Geoff Miell: – “I think I tried posting this last Monday (Aug 14) in an earlier Monday Message Board thread, but no joy then.”
My memory is flawed. I did post a reference to Berkeley Earth’s July 2023 Temperature Update on the morning of Aug 15 at:
https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/13/dutton-wants-australia-to-join-the-nuclear-renaissance/comment-page-1/#comment-263234
Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030, comment 6
The cost of emissions-free electricity
To recap: at the end of comment 5 I reached an estimate of the electricity build-out required in Australia for net zero in 2030.
. Current per yr Annual average Current stock Target stock
• Wind 1.34 GW 9.6 GW 10 GW 67 GW (x 6.7)
• PV 3.12 GW 22 GW 30 GW 154 GW (x 5.1)
• Storage (31 hrs) n.a. 6.2 GW 1 GW 43 GW (x 43)
• HVDC 0 714 km 0 km 5,000 km
How much will this cost Australians, and by what mechanism?
This is obviously technically feasible. World PV production capacity is around 400 GW per year and growing rapidly. World wind installation was 78 GW in 2022 – all built to order. HVDC and pumped hydro are standard electrical and civil engineering respectively with robust and diversified supply chains. We would run into supply problems if many other countries adopted similar crash programmes simultaneously, but this miracle is unlikely. Ex hypothesi Australia would be the first mover and can lock in supply.
On cost, distinguish – as many fail to – between gross outlays and the true economic or opportunity cost. For the former, representative current prices in Australia could be:
• Wind A$1.9m / MW
• PV A$1.1m / MW
• Storage A$0.8m / GW + A$70m / Gwh (Blakers 2017)
• HVDC A$400 / MW/km, say A$2m / km for a 5 GW line (Blakers 2017)
The total outlay for the programme is A$418 bn over 7 years, notional average A$59.7 bn, or 3.8% of current GDP of A$1.55 trn.
Not all of this is new. The current level of investment is about A$7bn, including a guess of $1bn for storage. The net outlay will be reduced by that each year to A$52.7 bn or 3.4% of GDP, and $49 bn from the total, making A$369 bn.
The expenditure will not be even. Ideally we would have a sine-wave curve, peaking around 2028 at about 50% higher than the average, or 5.1% of GDP. Even making a guess on this calls for knowledge of lead times I don’t have. You can have a go on your kitchen table using Lego blocks to represent fractional units of the programme.
Even in the peak year of 2028, the outlay on the electricity programme should be manageable macroeconomically. It is still a significant shift from consumption to investment, and it requires increased taxation to suppress consumption by several percentage points of GDP, whatever the funding mechanism. Political leaders must recall that the expenditure is investment in long-lived productive assets, lowering annual energy costs substantially in later years. This is a major difference from war command economies. It is orthodox economics, for governments and households, to borrow for low-risk productive investment. The risks here are lower for government.
In pure utility theory, intertemporal neutrality should imply that citizens should not oppose a fairly large time-shift in consumption for a socially worthwhile investment. Hah. But if we start with political feasibility, we will never get going. The scenario will in any case not come to pass from calculation by enlightened homines socio-economici, but from frightened and panicky mobs realizing that the best case under current policy frameworks is things getting worse for the next 27 years, and demanding results far sooner.
The true economic cost is the opportunity one. How much extra will the crash programme cost by 2050, compared to a minimum-cost path or delayed net zero? We know already that a fossil-heavy BAU will cost more, so the transition itself is a given. Going fast forgoes future cost reductions and technical progress in the key technologies. On the other hand, it generates large one-off savings in the health costs of air pollution, principally from the switch to electric vehicles and the early closure of coal plants. Oh, and you just might save the world from climate catastrophe, if other countries follow your example: very long odds for a very large payoff. People will sleep more soundly anyway knowing they have done the right thing by their children and grandchildren. I won’t try to estimate all these, but overall it’s close enough to a wash to be ignored for now.
The remaining question is the mechanism. The aim is to get the job done at the least damage to civil liberties and changes in the Australian way of life. The procurement requires megascale public funding and bold regulatory intervention, but not the invention of wholly new mechanisms. Procurement of the four technologies can be achieved by direct investment by public corporations, reviving an Australian tradition, or subsidies to private ones. Auctions are a well-established tool for the latter.
In Australia, Commissar Wimberley (you can do much better) would mainly use one-way cfd auctions to buy wind, solar, battery and small PHS capacity, direct investment for large pumped storage plants (risky, long lead time) and HVDC (technical monopoly). I’m guessing the subsidy element could be kept to a manageable 25% of outlays, or A$15bn a year, but this aspect needs a lot more work.
It will be a bumpy ride. The rapidly expanding supply won’t exactly match the rapidly growing demand, especially from EVs. Mismatches in both directions can be met first by adjusting the closures of fossil fuel generators, which we have previously nationalised, hopefully with fair social-cost compensation of zero. If that doesn’t work, rationing and price controls are the backup, along with adjustments to the pace of installation. This toolkit, used with determination, should keep any disruptions short-lived.
Next instalment: electric mobility.
Previous comments in this series:
1. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/18/monday-message-board-running-late/#comment-261523
2. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/18/monday-message-board-running-late/#comment-261551
3. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/07/24/monday-message-board-607/#comment-262100
4. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/08/07/monday-message-board-608/#comment-263121
5. https://johnquiggin.com/2023/08/14/monday-message-board-609/comment-page-1/#comment-2632315
“Panicky mobs realizing that the best case under current policy frameworks is things getting worse for the next 27 years, and demanding results far sooner.” – JW.
Yep, sounds like a good prediction of what is going to happen. In that case, what will the people get? Progressive policy and prevention of the worst of climate disaster or regressive and violent oppression of all popular demands in favor of elite interests to the last moment followed by civ collapse or even extinction? Sadly, my money – if still a betting man – would be on civ. collapse or extinction.
Forget the Commissar Wimberley title. That sort of stuff frightens more than the horses. PM Wimberley will do fine. You couldn’t be any worse than the current one. Likely, you would be much better! Just immigrate here and get citizenship. Too easy, our long-term unsustainable intake numbers are off the charts. But life might be bearable here outside of the humongous bush-fire zones.
I’ve given up hope to be honest. I have become more interested in gardening and soft landscaping my acreage to drought proof, bush-fire proof and rain-bomb erosion proof the place (somewhat anti-thetical requirements) and make it low maintenance for rapidly approaching old age. I intend to all but die here. Age care homes are a bust now. They will only be for multi-million asset-holding people who want to catch the 1,000th variant of COVID-19 with 150 mutations and die painfully feeling like an elephant is sitting on their chest. I’ve told my kids to have me cremated in the cheapest recycled cardboard box available and throw the ashes in my little rainforest gully.
Doooo it. Dooooooooooo it …
I think (hope) it would embarrass the crepes out of the rest of us. Followed by action (I hope).
How I envy Australians for apparently having politics that allow people to talk about this! I think this sort of thing requires more unity and trust than we seem to have here. (But, maybe it is our media that makes me think so. I know there are a lot of cons who are enviros too. I know they exist. We need them to start speaking up. Fear and panic, we definitely have those … )
“A positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) plus El Niño in Australia likely to cause hot and dry weather”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-22/positive-indian-ocean-dipole-to-coincide-with-el-nino/102756378
A positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) plus an El Niño for Australia plus climate change heating ramping up. It looks like we are in for a hot, dry summer and it will only get worse after that. I think we will be facing continuous national emergencies for the rest of this decade and beyond. How much ruin is in a nation? Well, I am sure it is not an infinite amount. Collapse happens at some point.
Based on recent weeks weather, i support climate change action based on lifestyle improvement (or less deteriation) alone. Just unbearable the weather here. I live (as so often already in recent years) mainly in the basement. We are not particular good at adapting to change at apropiate speed either in Germany. So no air conditioning anywhere where it would be absolutly necesary. New air conditioners also work as heat pumps and are not that expensive, so this should not be an issue of “can we afford it” anymore, they might almost amortice on saved oil for heating in some scenarios, especially if you add a bunch of solar panels. But no, you wont even get them where particular vunlurable groups meat as a crowd in small rooms.
It is one of those small things where you notice the absurdity of inequality and the diminishing marginal utiliy of more for others, when such small things just do not happen, are basially out of the overton window.
I would get a panel/air conditioner&heat pump installation at home from my own meager budget if i had any say here. But my father would not allow it based on just hating any change or accepting any reality. Its not like he would outright deny climate change or sth. like that, just that there should or could be done anything that would mean doing anything differnet from how it was done 50 years ago…
Hix, so true, so true.
1. In probably every country, housing stock be it houses, flats, apartments or units is not designed for the current evolving and warming climate. In a lot of cases, it wasn’t even designed well for the previous climate.
2. Inequality means an elite few can do almost anything they like for housing comfort and everything else. Meanwhile, the rest have to struggle on.
3. The goals of human health and comfort in housing and a lot of other things could be met by tackling inequality properly. The twin goals of human health and comfort and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could also be met by proper passive design and the use of renewable energy and new energy saving technologies.
4. Our governments, controlled by oligarchs and corporations, refuse to take the necessary steps. They must be removed from all power. Oligarchs need to be stripped of their wealth and power and corporations need to nationalized, at least if they are natural monopolies or strategic industries. Any industry which can be used (or obsoleted) to slow or stop climate change is strategic. We have to try radical solutions now. It is 90 seconds to midnight on the Doomsday Clock. Personally I think it is time to set it to one minute to midnight. Business as usual is wrecking the world and will continue to wreck it. Radical change is imperative.
James said “In Australia, Commissar Wimberley (you can do much better)”
Plenipotentiary Wimberly.
(“technical a person (such as a diplomat) who has complete power to do business for a government” – Mirriam Webster)
James – PP Wimberly -, thanks for “Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030, comment 6”. Apologies if I am stating the obvious or rehashing priors. I didn’t have to to write less.
PP JW: “… A$52.7 bn or 3.4% of GDP, and $49 bn from the total, making A$369 bn”
… seems like a plan and bargin to me. But Australia is not me.
Shorter KT2.
In missive #7, please include a line for me: “Social Capital & Messaging Entropy Energy”:- extra 20% of plan cost.
A$369 bn + $75bn a year.
Longer.
Stumbling block:
JW: “and it requires increased taxation to suppress consumption by several percentage points of GDP, whatever the funding mechanism.”
Me thinks an Eva Cox inspiration person/s (social capital influencer) needs to step in here, as Australia hasn’t stifled inflation with 12 rate rises after a pandemic. Ended coal etc. And the top end merrily meander toward more of the same.
UnStumbling, and acceptance via social capital influencers.
JW “but from frightened and panicky mobs realizing that the best case under current policy frameworks is things getting worse for the next 27 years, and demanding results far sooner.”
Getting a mob is easy. Just frighten a crowd. But mobs are mercurial, sometimes dangerous and prone to base instincts, bifurcation and or dissipation at the drop of a word – or a $10 bill. Or a tribal demagogue’s prognosticators.
So to get up “Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030″ a social movement as sensible and grandiose needs building.
UQ academics in 2019 published;
” Understanding the Outcomes of Climate Change Campaigns in the Australian Environmental Movement”
December 2019
Case Studies in the Environment3(1)
Authors: Robyn Gulliver et al
“. .. However, it is not clear whether climate change campaigns organised by environmental advocacy groups are successful in achieving their goals, nor the degree to which other benefits may accrue to groups who run them.”
…
“The data also highlights additional benefits of campaigning such as gaining access to political power and increasing groups’ financial and volunteer resources. The successful outcomes of campaigns were influenced by the ability of groups to: sustain strong personal support networks, use skills and resources available across the wider environmental advocacy network, and form consensus around shared strategic values. Communicating the successes of climate change advocacy could help mobilise collective action to address climate change.”
…
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338142778_Understanding_the_Outcomes_of_Climate_Change_Campaigns_in_the_Australian_Environmental_Movement
And in Mendes et al
“First published online September 25, 2014
“Integrating professional social work identity and social justice advocacy: An analysis of the Australian campaign to restore Medicare rebates for accredited mental health social workers”
…
Findings
“The evidence suggests effective social action is likely to rely on several, interdependent factors. Social workers appear more likely to actively intervene in policy issues when their immediate client base, professional identity or personal livelihood is threatened. Peak professional bodies are more likely to succeed in lobbying when they are able to mobilise broad-ranging support, present a united media presence and form alliances with key stakeholders and influencers outside their organisation.”
And Australia’s most successful campaigns, providing weight to James’ statement; “but from frightened and panicky mobs” have been:
– Grim Reaper – AIDS /HIV
– Slip Slop Slap – sun cancer
And that excersize couch guy I forget!
So we have form for social change beyond the baseline. With the caveat and alert in Mendes et al 2014 above:
“present a united media presence and form alliances with key stakeholders and influencers outside their organisation.” Bloody Newscorpse and “The fragmentation of new media”!
Another social change manual.
“Book review of Amanda Tattersall’s Power in Coalition: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change”
By Denisse Sandoval
…
“Contents
– Choice 1: Which organisations will sit at your alliance-table?
– Choice 2: Who will make alliance decisions?
– Choice 3: What issues will the alliance take on, and how will they be framed?
– Choice 4: When will action occur?
– Choice 5: Who will participate in planning and action?
PP Wimberly, I hope missive #7, may traverse the avoidence of misinformation via newscorpse and negative nelly’s, and an outline / map of generating & costs of a social movement needed to effect “Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030″.
To generate such a map, two vital components are imo absolutely necessary;
i) TRUST
ii) business cycle & productivity plan
References and reflections for Trust & Business Cycle management.
Trust.
Elderman Trust Barometer says:
1. “Of the studied institutions, business is once again the most trusted
2. “Distrust is now society’s default emotion”
In “Zombie Economics” John Quiggin says;
… “Although the textbooks represent the financial markets as involving impersonal exchanges of precisely defined assets, the actual operation of the system relies CRUCIALLY ON TRUST [my emphasis] and, more generally, on the amount of trust that should be placed on understanding in particular kinds of promises. In the last few decades economists have spent a lot of time studying trust, and particularly the problem of when one party to a contract should trust the other to tell the truth and keep faith.”
Trust therfore will be a key driver of social action for a 7 year social and infrastructure rebuild.
And to enact the cunning plan, aside from cost, and social & political acceptance, the Plan needs to also include;
● a component of fostering DISTRUST of recalcitrant news, & markets and financial encumbents at crucial moments in the news cycle, and
● a plan to show how business cycles and productivity will be disrupted for 7yrs and regain a higher equilibrium. (“3. John Quiggin “The Lost Golden Age of Productivity Growth below)
ii) business cycle & productivity plan
Examples follow.
These 2 steps are VERY TRICKY, and as the Business peak bodies will spend bigly on negative media, so imo, these 2 crucial steps, need planning incorporation and costing.
You’ll need a billion or three extra to disrupt and foster DISTRUST of recalcitrant news, markets and financial encumbents / megalomaniacs… eg. “X” & Thiel.
“2022 Elderman trust Barometer
“2. “Distrust is now society’s default emotion
“Nearly 6 in 10 say their default tendency is to distrust something until they see evidence it is trustworthy. Another 64% say it’s now to a point where people are incapable of having constructive and civil debates about issues they disagree on. When distrust is the default – we lack the ability to debate or collaborate.”
edelman dot com/trust/2022-trust-barometer
“Markets only function in circumstances of widespread trust and social cohesion. Because social capital is a public good, individuals can reap the benefits of widespread trust without contributing to it, leading to its slow erosion. The state must constantly intervene in civil society in order to shore up the public environment that makes commerce possible.” – from…
“Introduction: Symposium on Robust Political Economy
Nick Cowen
Pages 420-439 | Published online: 22 Dec 2016
“RBA Annual Conference – 2011 Wrap-up Discussion
“3. John Quiggin
“The Lost Golden Age of Productivity Growth
…
“Nevertheless, Quiggin (2000) observed that, for the Australian economy as a whole, the MFP (Multi Factor Productivity) cycles reported by the ABS largely reflected the phases of the business cycle. A typical business cycle contained two productivity cycles, with productivity growth being stronger in the cycle corresponding to the expansion phase and weaker in the cycle corresponding to the contraction phase (Dolman, Lu and Rahman 2006).”
~ end positive negatives ~
NEGATIVES!.
Did you know James, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and other centibillionaires / moneyed monopoly messianics, are capturing the carbon market holus bolus away from Governments rendering the State and your Plan moot – or having to compete against a profitable ‘planet saving’ pollution market?
Frontier set up via Stripe Inc (paymemt gateway disruptor, intially funded by Musk & Thiel & Colson twins) in a Delaware Irish tax dodge sandwich.
Frontier -Alphabet, Meta, Shopify and Stripe. And, McKinsey !
“Our partnership with Frontier”
“Frontier is the over $1 billion advance market commitment (AMC) to purchase permanent carbon removal before 2030, by McKinsey Sustainability in partnership with fellow founders Alphabet, Meta, Shopify and Stripe.”
…
“Frontier aims to accelerate the development of permanent carbon removal technologies and expand the global supply of carbon removal, by guaranteeing future demand. The initiative intends to send a strong signal to researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors that there is a market for carbon removal and to begin building now.”
…
“That figure alone is more than other companies have spent on such technologies. Now Frontier is vowing to increase it by a factor of 60.”
…
“On average, Stripe paid a “couple hundred dollars a ton” to remove carbon dioxide, Ransohoff said, but its purchases ranged from $75 to $2,052 a ton.”
theatlantic dot com /science/archive/2022/04/big-tech-investment-carbon-removal/629545/
Frontier, is it seems to me, is the “Plans'” biggest competitor, which many will get behind as they have NETWORK EFFECTS. Ao you’ll need a counter fund.
Some more notable notes.
RBA “Bulletin – June 2023 Financial Stability
“Climate Change and Financial Risk” 6 April 2023
“Want to speed up scientific progress? First understand how science policy works”
Nature 620, 724-726 (2023)
“Political polarization toned down through anonymous online chats
“Republicans seem to depolarize more than Democrats.”
by John Timmer – Aug 22, 2023
arstechnica
Cashed up centibillionaires and global monopolies are, in my humble opinion Plenipotentiary Wimberly, the biggest stumbling block to your great and good “Climate dictatorship and net zero in Australia by 2030” plan.
And needs a disruption and fighting fund. A BIG one.
So in missive #7, please include a line for me:
Social Capital & Messaging Entropy Energy:- extra 20% of plan cost.
A$369 bn + $75bn a year.
Thanks, your Plenipotentiary.
Published in today’s (Aug 23) Newcastle Herald was an op-ed by David Spratt headlined David Spratt | Anthony Albanese government refusing to release declassified climate security report. It concluded with:
https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/8317503/why-is-this-govt-keeping-secrets-about-the-biggest-threat-to-our-future/
The same piece was also published in today’s The Canberra Times.
Who’s best interests are Labor and the Coalition really working for?
On 21 Aug 2023, the global daily sea surface temperature (SST) of 21.10 °C set a new record anomaly at 3.37σ above the 1991-2020 mean and 5.13σ above the 1982-2011 mean.
Looks like the Y-axis perhaps needs to be extended soon – a headroom of about 0.05 °C is all that’s remaining – for the world daily SST graph at Climate Reanalyzer.
Test for formatting with spaces, 10 spaces each. Use whichever works,
**********************************************************************
space bar : text text
tab: text text
&xnbsp deleting x: text text
pre tag in pointy brackets
To amplify this quote from Geoff Miell’s link.
“Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, has said repeatedly that brutal climate impacts will produce state instability and failure in both Asia and the Pacific, including in some of the most populous nations. This is especially true for those with semi-democratic governments and existing insurgencies, either domestically or in neighbour states.” – David Spratt.
People used to think I was off my trolley as an alarmist doomster when I predicted about 20 and again 10 years ago that we were headed this way in terms of catastrophic climate change and failing states. Now, it appears we are here. I am getting tired of being right but here goes again. Not merely nations and “some of the most populous nations” are going to fail. Whole regions and continents are going to fail. Indeed, the difficult thing is predicting which regions and continents might not fail.
If inequality and climate change prevention, amelioration and adaptation issues were handled to a sufficient extent, then North America and Australia might not fail. I am not confident even on that. Northern-Western Europe above the Mediterranean states just might not fail. I can see no way that the rest of the world faces anything but endless collapse on our current trajectory.
The world food system will fail (among other systems). Global trade systems will likely fail in many regions. I predict that global food trade will collapse as even the world’s best producers will struggle to feed even their own populations. This will include Australia. Climate change is likely to halve world food production by 2050 in my view. Credible estimates have indicated “Climate change could cut 18 percent of world food production by 2050.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124018
These estimates are way out of date despite being based on data “only” a decade old. Exponential runaway climate change, which we are now experiencing, means a decade is not linearly behind us but exponentially behind us, if you get my drift.
It is necessary for the great majority of the ordinary people to believe these runaway apocalyptic dangers are all real. Only then will they demand and indeed drive the necessary rapid emergency changes to our entire political economy and production/consumption systems. Only there remains our tinniest sliver of hope.
The local psychiatric hospital got air conditioning in patients rooms at the expensive private station. No air conditioning in caregivers common room there either. You just cannot invent those things. The rest of the hospital got no air conditioning naturally.
To add insult to injury, the air conditioning was identified as a corona hazard and just turned off during the bad corona years. No filter added or anything. Now the corona spreading air conditioning is running again for rich patients.
Non corona spreading air conditioning at hospitals, schools, universities and similar places should just be the bare minimum these days.
Somehow, heat pumps are not cheaper than gas heating in terms of fuel prices here: Gas price for new contracts: 9,5 cent kw/h, electrictiy 30,5. Even oil is marginally cheaper. So no good excuse to get air conditioning because it can double as cheaper heating for me in the short term. Can´t really expect more than an efficiency of 2,7 from air air heat pumps.
Thaught this would already play out in favour of heat pumps after the rather unfavourable tax threatment of electricity was changed. Generation costs from new constructed renewables are far bellow gas dominated current electricity market prices, so odds are this will shift in favour of heat pumps over the next years.
The overall price calculation is still favourable in new buildings that got no existing heating system, especially since one needs a heat pump for air conditionging anyway!
(Ok, to be honest, a new super insulated building might just be managable without air conditioning here, early 70ths attics less so)
Looks like we will get a watered down heat pump mandate after the summer break for all new constructed buildings and for the replacement of old heating systems in existing buildings. Or well, really just a mandate of 65% renewable heating with some holes. That puts wood or biogas in the still allowed box, just like some strange constructs. Overall it should be enough to make most people pick a genuinly environemntal friendly option (which i remain convinced biogas and wood are not). Or maybe i am too optimistic and we end up with “syntethic fuel ready” oil heating, along with Christian Lindners personal synthetic fuel Porsche 911….
The crazy people hallucinated a mandate to replace all working heating systems until the end of the year into the law.
The constitutional court also got somehow involved, which encouraged further preemptive watering down. Just once I would like to see a government challenging our mad court with its undeserved aura of holiness. Wait for the final decission, replace the law with an even stricter one that just circumvents all technical objections, get reasonable judges. Don´t water it down just because some judges sound sceptical in some premilary ruling. Its not the US court, but it still has a rather long history of interesting decisions like banning an income tax rate above 50% ….…
James, bold is not bold. Tags syntax here:
https://wordpress.com/support/beginning-html/
hix, exactly the same re air-conditioning in schools, has been playing out over the past 20 years.
Ikon “brutal climate impacts will produce state instability and failure in both Asia and the Pacific, including in some of the most populous nations. ”
Makes immigration seem like a minor issue.
This is also a major issue.
I see clear reasons for governments to take over Clearview AI for the public good, and put in place strong laws enabling personal ownership of our own images and data.
Illegally legal?!
Your children’s images.
– Use for catching child abusers – justified. ^1.
– Private ownership and profit NOT justified! ^2.
I care about the means to ends.
Yet…
Clearview AI, Broken Windows and conservative free market think tank networks… in particular “The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research” ^3.
… do not.
The article re “victims of child sexual abuse using controversial AI” (^1.) triggered my utter distaste of our stupidity at allowing Hoan-Ton-That er al, to scrape YOUR’S and your CHILDREN’S images, and create a private company – Clearview AI – to profit, with support of the conservative and libertarian spectrum.
Although Operation Renewed Hope as outlined below is a great outcome for the “ends” – the “means” – Clearview AI – and the ghouls enabling theft of your, mine, kids images is, for me, an exemplar of ‘class and capital gone mad with absolute power’ brigade… as in one rule for you, and another for me.
*
^1.
“Operation Renewed Hope identifies more than 300 probable victims of child sexual abuse using controversial AI
…
“The operation used the US-based company Clearview AI’s facial recognition technology as well as other victim identification techniques.
“Founded by Australian Hoan-Ton-That, the company scrapes images of people online and stores biometric information in its database of more than 30 billion images.
“The company then sells access to that database to companies and law enforcement agencies, which has been banned by the Australian privacy commissioner.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-24/qld-facial-recognition-child-abuse-artificial-intelligence/102761618
^2.
Clearview AI [thief imo] is an Australian named Hoan Ton-That.
“In 2016, Ton-That met Richard Schwartz at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. [Richard Schwartz (born c. 1959) is an American politician who has worked with former New York City Mayors Rudy Giuliani, Ed Koch and David Dinkins as well as Henry Stern during his tenure as New York City Parks Commissioner and while he was a member of the New York City Council” Wikipedia]
“They partnered on an application with Schwartz paying server costs and basic expenses and Ton-That hiring two engineers who worked on software that could scrape images from Internet sources to cross reference on a facial recognition algorithm.[6][13] It emerged from stealth mode in late 2017 and was linked to far right/alt-right supporters such as;.
– Chuck Johnson, – “Johnson is often described as an internet troll and has been repeatedly involved in the proliferation and spread of multiple fake news stories”
– Mike Cernovich, – “Cernovich became a blogger in the 2000s, focusing on anti-feminist themes. He gained notice within the manosphere, and made a number of inflammatory comments about dating and sexual assault, including the claim that date rape is “liberal fiction””
– Douglass Mackey, – “A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Presidential Election.”… “Douglass Mackey, also known as “Ricky Vaughn,” was convicted today by a federal jury in Brooklyn of the charge of Conspiracy Against Rights stemming from his scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.
justice dot gov
social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-convicted-election-interference-2016]
… and
– Paul Nehlen.[12] – “[An April 2018 article in The Daily Beast declared that Nehlen was becoming one of the highest profile white nationalists in the United States,”]
“Clearview AI received investments from Peter Thiel and Naval Ravikant [Naval Ravikant … “over 70 total exits and more than 10 Unicorn companies]
… totaling more than $200,000, which later converted into equity in the company.”
Hoan Ton-That – Wikipedia
^3.
The Broken Windows – theory to some, fallacy to others – trope – is heavily promoted by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,
They are blind to, and ironically out themselves as hypocrits, by also publishing and profiting from “Overcriminalization”. One rule for the rich, another for the poor.
They have ‘identified’… “over 300,000 laws and regulations whose violation can lead to prison time. The institute asserts that this puts even well-meaning citizens in danger of prosecution for seemingly innocuous conduct.”.
Imo, “Well-meaning citizens” is a dogwhistle for people “like us’. Broken windows gets the poor arrested, yet “Overcriminalization” … “puts even well-meaning citizens in danger of prosecution for seemingly innocuous conduct.”, helps the rich avoid arrest.
In 2005 in “IS BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING BROKEN”, Bernard E. Harcourt and David E. Thacher write:
“As the National Research Council’s report on Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing notes, although many policymakers continue to believe that broken-windows policing reduces serious crime, the empirical support for the idea now rests entirely on a 2001 Manhattan Institute study of New York City data by George Kelling (co-author of the broken windows essay with James Q. Wilson) and William Sousa (a graduate student of Kelling’s at the time).
…
“We find no evidence for the proposition that disorder causes crime or that broken-windows policing reduces serious crime.
…
“One argument we make in our paper is that Kelling and Sousa’s interpretation of what happened across New York City precincts seems—how to put this diplomatically?—flat wrong. ”
https://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_brokenwindows1005.msp
Background of “well-meaning citizens” who promote Broken Windows. Antony Fisher who founded “the Institute of Economic Affairs [renamed The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research] and the Atlas Network. Through Atlas, he helped establish up to 150 other institutions worldwide.”was a founder.”. If you read this Wikipedia entry you will see many of the entities and programs propping up conservatism.
“The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is an American conservative think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs, established in Manhattan in 1978 by Antony Fisher and William J. Casey
…
“The institute supports the broken windows theory, named after a 1982 Atlantic Monthly article “Broken Windows” by James Q. Wilsonand George L. Kelling.”
…
“Overcriminalization
“In 2014, the institute began to study the issue of overcriminalization, the idea that state and federal criminal codes are overly expansive and growing too quickly. At the federal level alone, Institute fellows have identified over 300,000 laws and regulations whose violation can lead to prison time. The institute asserts that this puts even well-meaning citizens in danger of prosecution for seemingly innocuous conduct.”
Wikipedia
Antony Fisher
“.. He participated in the formation of various libertarian organisations during the second half of the twentieth century, including the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Atlas Network. Through Atlas, he helped establish up to 150 other institutions worldwide.”
Wikipedia
“William Joseph Casey (March 13, 1913 – May 6, 1987) was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1981 to 1987
“Casey was a member of the Knights of Malta.”
Wikipedia
*
This is our stupidity. How many powerful – men – and how many more AI & Clearview AI’s are we going to allow to profit from public goods?
At CT today, Ingrid Robeyens asks in “Some thoughts on activism” .. “It seems to me that there is a widespread insufficient appreciation for the importance of activists in the world; often that attitude is even plainly dismissive. If this is true, then why is this the case, and why is this wrong?”.
Excellent question. I see clear reasons FOR ACTIVISM to take over Clearview AI for the public good, and ACTIVISM to put in place strong laws enabling personal ownershio of our own image and data.
Multiple attempts to post a comment have failed. I give up…
James!
I found a trillion or three behind the couch. Your plan is funded. IEA “for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.”
*
“G20 poured more than $1tn into fossil fuel subsidies despite Cop26 pledges – report
…
“The IISD found that by setting a higher carbon tax of $25-75 per ton of greenhouse gases, G20 governments could raise an extra $1tn a year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/23/g20-poured-more-than-1tn-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-despite-cop26-pledges-report
“Doubling Back and Doubling Down: G20 scorecard on fossil fuel funding”
…
“It does so by reviewing progress in ending G20 funding to fossil fuel production and consumption between 2014 and 2019 and is complemented by an analysis of public money commitments for fossil fuel-intensive sectors in response to the COVID-19 crisis up to August 12, 2020.
…
“Despite various commitments since 2009 to end government support for fossil fuels and make “finance flows consistent with a pathway toward low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development” (Paris Agreement, Article 2.1c), G20 governments continued to provide significant support to fossil fuels in 2017–2019. G20 governments provided $584 billion annually (2017–2019 average) via direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures, price support, public finance, and state-owned enterprise investment for the production and consumption of fossil fuels at home and abroad.”
…
https://www.iisd.org/publications/g20-scorecard
“Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022
“This report provides our first estimates for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.
…
“In addition to these consumption subsidies, the IEA has tracked more than USD 500 billion in extra spending to reduce energy bills in 2022, mainly in advanced economies, with around USD 350 billion of this in Europe.”…
https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022
No, please don’t give up. One link per post and postscript posts for more links, perhaps? And just try to be aware of any trigger words that might “upset” automatic moderation algorithms: they are not very smart.
FWIW, Stockfish has consistently been the strongest chess engine in the world or strongest Chess AI if you want to use that term. This is since 2014. Here is the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)
Scroll down to “Top Chess Engine Championship”.
Why is this interesting? The reason is that it is a “free and open-source chess engine”. This means essentially that people doing programming and AI for free (providing it for free if not working for free) and making it open source so people can learn on it and perhaps even provide improvements) do better and more effective work. Humans collectively work better and make objectively better stuff if they are doing it for free rather than for the crass money rewards of capitalism. Capitalism creates all sorts of wrong incentives, the main ones being that the drive for money returns to owners over-trumps all human and environmental returns.
This is the lesson I draw out of Stockfish’s consistent number one performance. Capitalism makes us less than we can be. People lose, society loses and the environment loses under capitalism.
An excellent version of Stockfish runs on Lichess. It is entirely free to play. People can donate to charity if they wish. You can play human players or the computer. You can play fully anonymously or register with a nickname or real name. There are chess variants to play too. I note all this not to entice or inveigle people into playing chess. I note this to point out that humans work better outside capitalism. Stockfish is the best chess engine in the world and Lichess is the best place in the world to play chess online: better than all the sites where you have to pay to play.
Overall, modern technological humans work better and produce better work outside capitalism. Society as a whole will work better outside capitalism. The environment will run better outside of capitalism. Ultimately, to literally survive (because capitalism is destroying the environment) we must repeal and obsolete capitalism: every aspect of capitalism but especially propetarianism, money and markets. As in Chess AI – Lichess style, competition will be about what performs the best for human and environemental needs not about what makes money best for owners of capital / property . There is a difference, a clear difference obvious to all people not totally indoctrinated into capitalism.
Don’t bring up rubbish about the history of Russia and China. They are neither democratic nor socialist. They never were from inception, nor were they at any stage. They were authoritarian, state capitalist regimes. Today, they are corrupt gangster capitalist dictatorships riddled with corruption and the rule of violence. The USA is the archetype of another type of capitalism and also has immense problems. All these variants of capitalism have to be obsoleted or we go extinct. It really is as stark as that.
Of courses, the full discussion would be on how to proceed on this path.
KT2
The Frontier initiative to prefund carbon removal is interesting as a precursor to much larger government-run schemes.. The guess I put in my letter to Lamy’s Overshoot Commission in 2022 8http://www.jameswimberley.es/Notes/Overshoot%20Commission%20Lamy%20let.html) was hat staying within 450 ppm would cost ≈$12.5 trn in carbon removal at an optimistic $50 per tonne CO2, and getting back to a comfortable 400 ppm more like ≈ $35 trn. Frontier’s $1bn sounds good but is merely seed funding. Full scale can only come from governments.
Incidentally, “The concept of an AMC [advance market commitment] is borrowed from vaccine development and was piloted a decade ago.” The idea presumably cones from Gates, who really does know something about vaccines. They claim to be agnostic on technology, which is important as the imitating-nature schemes like enhanced weathering and seaweed dumping are getting much less research money than the direct air capture favoured by the fossil fuel lobby. I hope they take issues of verification more seriously than the proponents of carbon offset credits have done.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not try to offer a roadmap, just targets. Even there, I had to resort to hand-waving for the final third of industrial emissions, for reasons I will supply in the final comment. Building even a simple scenario turned out to involve quite a lot of work; it’s not particularly challenging conceptually, but there are a lot of moving parts and variables to be estimated even in a toy model. For now, I do think that the important thing is to get discussion going on options much more radical than the Paris Agreement ones, so that policy advisers are not at a loss when the political crisis comes.
Beating someone who sells commercial chess computer programs, a niche market is one thing, and Stockfish easily did so. Stockfish is less impressive against Alpha Zero and winning in chess is only an afterthought for Google. AI if one wants to call it that is just one of those typical sky high fixed cost things. Welcome to duopoly, monopoly.
I have to disagree there, Hix. Stockfish developers makes stuff people want (want to make and want to use) and it did it and does it for free. All specialized markets are niche compared to the total market. The niche criticism does not hold. The principle does hold. When people build what they want to build they do it with enthusiasm on modest resources. They need money to live on but not huge propertarian capitalist returns.
Here is the best article I have found to explain the essential differences between Stockfish and AlphaZero for non-experts. It is well worth reading. I hope the link is not too long for this blog:
https://altcoinoracle.com/alphazero-vs-stockfish-the-chess-algorithms-war/#:~:text=AlphaZero%27s%20development%20was%20stopped%20after,the%20world%20of%20computer%20chess.
Comparing AlphaZero to Stockfish is apples and oranges in some senses. The last match was 2017 and Stockfish has been much improved since. AlphaZero won and then departed the competitive scene. Stockfish kept going. The article explains some of the “not on a level playing field” issues.
Ultimately, Learning AI has a lot of potential. This is undeniable. In 2017, AlphaGo was learning AI, Stockfish was traditional human determined algorithms (to put it simplistically).
“In recent years, the Stockfish team integrated an efficient neural network technology called NNUE (Efficiently Updatable Neural Network) into Stockfish. This brought about a significant leap in its playing strength. The combination of classic hand-tuned evaluation with neural network insights allowed Stockfish to remain at the pinnacle of computer chess.
Legacy: Beyond its strength, Stockfish’s open-source philosophy has allowed it to become a foundational tool in various chess-related projects. Its code has been integrated into numerous chess software, websites, and apps, providing users with a strong engine for analysis and play.
Stockfish represents a collaboration of countless developers and chess enthusiasts from around the world. Its open-source ethos, combined with consistent improvements and community involvement, has solidified its position as one of the most prominent chess engines in history.”
Having observed that above we can see that:
“AlphaZero’s groundbreaking self-learning approach has shattered preconceptions, showcasing that a machine can teach itself chess to a superhuman level starting only with the rules of the game. It’s a testament to the revolutionary potential of machine learning, creating a new paradigm where artificial intelligence can independently create knowledge, offering promising implications for various complex real-world problems.”
Alphabet / Google had research money to burn of course. Why? Because of its near monopoly in many fields and because of its tax evasion and fraud. You can Google (ironically) or DuckDuckGo this. Also, see the Guardian “A white collar sweatshop – google assistant contractors allege wage theft.
Capitalism is horrendously inefficient and it steals from workers, from the people and from the environment. For the record, I do not support the state capitalist and criminal anti human rights (not socialist) dictators of Russia and China.
For the time being, AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is something that is mere curio news story…until it happens *to you* and your community. We are already witnessing the inroads that AGW is making upon our ecosystem, the one and only ecosystem that provides us with food. Lodgings. Work. No doubt we can catastrophise on AGW, but so far the impacts are now rising above statistical noise of climate in general, and the big issue is that the nature of AGW is that it is driven relentlessly onward, until we can cap our production of carbon dioxide and methane (and various CFCs, Bromides, etc., that impact the Ozone Layer, and via this mechanism affect the polar zones in the southern hemisphere, and elsewhere), we are following the trend line, aren’t we.
Insurance companies, burned by Morrisfire, and drenched by MorrisFlood, they said enough! And they simply chose the postcode as a determinant of whether you could insure your property or not. No counting for being on the highest hill, with L6 standard building. Nah. Wrong postcode? Eff you mate.
As Ikon and I have often said, the scientific community is a cautious bunch—and rightly so—but it means by the time some landmark study reveals the horrid truth, we are a good decade or so along from the time point of that study. Okay, maybe I am putting words into Ikon’s mouth here, but I think we’ve been among the earliest people saying that the various studies have this backward looking factor that prevents us from properly measuring the future impacts. Rearview is unfortunately the general fact of scientific studies. Projections, based on historical data and on actual numerical solution of the boundary value problem (or, in the most expensive studies, the initial-value boundary-value problem), it isn’t paucity of data that limits the studies, it is the fact that we cannot penetrate the political veil that shades our leaders from the kind of necessary action we must take. We might get it wrong here and there if we take bold action, but we are now in a position to know with some level of certainty that not acting is actually the higher risk scenario, day by day, year by year.
There are many statistical faults and mistakes made by climate scientists (and nearly every other scientist); so what. We’ve reached the point where there are very few statistical arguments left to make; climate scientists did recognise the methods of geophysical scientists, they studied nonlinear statistical processes, and they factored these things into the more recent results. Bottom line is: we are in an Anthropogenic Global Warming period; it has a rapidity that brings it to the level of a looming crisis; it won’t harm all of us equally, and that’s one reason people feel little animation to address this issue, including especially our politicians; and, it is the classic case of the slow-boiled frog.
So many people jumped all over the Club of Rome report (1972?), but it wasn’t a detailed analysis of how things can go on the futz; it was a system-wide look at how very robust features of a system can determine the outcomes in a statistical sense, and the kind of outcomes that nobody in their right mind would want. Overshoot, that’s the key word and observation in their very simple (and simplistic) numerical studies. Thing is, they homed in on the most important aspect of dynamical systems, namely that for a vast range of such systems the eventual outcome, however chaotic, is locked in on what mathematicians call the global attractor. Until you make some significant enough excursion in some parameter of such a dynamical system, you remain drawn to the global attractor.
Overshoot. One day, we’ll possibly have more people on Earth than we can actually feed per annum. Now, clearly, there are a number of forces at play that can push one way, or press in another direction; however, it isn’t a silly idea, for population increase is an approximately exponential growth curve, with some dampening as countries rise to a certain level of (I guess they’d call it prosperity) income on average. If our food production curve is merely linear, for instance, then overshoot on food versus person is inevitable. We should never underestimate the capacity of humans to find ingenious solutions to seemingly intransigent problems…like, say, massive underground farms, or mass high storey farms, using the kind of control methods the Tiawanese applied to silicon wafer production. So, yeah, we can almost always find ways of making a linear or bit better than linear improvement, and that might be enough for a few decades (if you are an optimist). Then again, Mr.~Exponential tends to trump Mr.~Polynonmial in the growth stakes.
In my mind, this is the grand peril of AGW. Overshoot is something that is almost built in to the ecosystem when an apex predator like humans has taken root. The irony of it is that humans, however it happened, have the capacity to analyse and to understand such issues; and so the blame for not acting lies broadly with us, and less so on peripheral, non-human, issues.
Don,
People confuse “big” with “infinite”. They don’t understand that exponential growth chews up “big” very quickly.
Those of us who properly understood both LTG’s profound implications and the internal axioms of capitalism have been predicting disaster since day one of Limits To Growth’s publication.
It’s about the way complex systems work under fundamental natural laws. Global attractors as you say. It’s about the way apex predators work, as you say too. Finally, it’s about the way an axiomatic formal system (capitalism) works when it ignores the empirical realities of the real system.
Our poor understanding and lack of ethical maturity have not proven adequate to counterbalance these realities. People became so enamored with their prescriptive, axiomatic economic “knowledge” (economism instead of natural science) that they proceeded to destroy the world.
economism (noun) – belief in the primacy of economic causes or factors.
Ikon & Don. Newscorpse still aping Lord Beaverbrook. Here is why it is “… about the way apex [media] predators work”
Stanley Baldwin in 1931 called out Lords Beaverbrook & Rothermere, labeling both newspapers as “insolent plutocracy”. Same today.
Lord Beaverbrook, aka Murd!-och aka newscorpse, is still publishing lies, without any retraction obligation. Climate, housing, health, The Voice. The topic doesn’t matter. Conserve is what matters… 1931 to this day: “Stanley Baldwin described the media barons who owned British newspapers as having “Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” Wikipedia below.
Here is Lies interspersed with Outing of Lies. Teh Oz vs The Guardian articles. Dorothy Parker needs a front page:
LP. ” …Scientific journal retracts article that claimed no evidence of climate crisis …
“.. leading to the way with disinformation, misinformation, misrepresentation and the usual tripe …”
Wikipedia below.
LP; “This kind of reporting is like water drip torture. Incessant, repetitive, never ending and never corrected …
“There it was, still up, still with a snap of caked mud, still wrong, still unretracted or amended, or with the slightest hint of remorse or regret … but when you’re a climate science denialist, what need of regret?”
“You have to revert to the Graudian to do a catch up …”
…
http://loonpond.blogspot.com/2023/08/a-brief-note-in-honour-of-lloydie-of.html
Any idea how bring newscorpse over to the bright side? From “insolent plutocracy” to purveyor of public good.
Gawd!
Lord Beaverbrook!
“His base of power was the largest circulation newspaper in the world, the Daily Express, which appealed to the conservative working class with intensely patriotic news and editorials.
“He used it to pursue personal campaigns, most notably for tariff reform and for the British Empire to become a free trade bloc.”
“Beaverbrook was of an imperialist mindset, with the quote, “There are countries so underdeveloped today that the gift of independence is like the gift of a razor to a child”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Aitken,_1st_Baron_Beaverbrook
1931 as fresh as today;
SB “Let me begin by saying that the Press of Great Britain is the admiration of the world for its fairness, the ability with which it is conducted, and the high principles of journalism to which it adheres.
“Yet, Baldwin’s plaudits were not universal. He criticized the newspapers of two powerful press barons:
SB “The papers conducted by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook are not newspapers in the ordinary acceptance of the term. (Cheers.) They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal wishes, personal likes and dislikes of two men. (Loud cheers.)
“Baldwin admitted that he had used the stinging description “insolent plutocracy”. He then presented the recent harsh response to his words that was printed in the “Daily Mail”:
DMail “These expressions come ill from Mr. Baldwin, since his father left him an immense fortune, which, so far as may be learned from his own speeches, has almost disappeared. It is difficult to see how the leader of a party who has lost his own fortune can hope to restore that of anyone else or of his country.”
Baldwin said that the claims in the “Daily Mail” were false:
SB “The first part of that statement is a lie, and the second part of that statement by its implication is untrue. The paragraph itself could only have been written by a cad.
“Baldwin employed the quotation under examination while condemning the press barons. Boldface added to excerpts by QI:
SB “What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
“The most detailed evidence that Rudyard Kipling supplied the statement about prerogatives to Stanley Baldwin was provided by his son Arthur W. Baldwin in 1971. See the citation presented further below.
“Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.
…
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/06/prerogative/
Thanks, Ikon, and KT2, for your comments I don’t particularly like assuming the role of the doomsayer, for no future is entirely foretold. My main observation is that humans are only too capable of ignoring the evidence right before their eyes, if there’s a greater political imperative. It is sad, but only too true. I would love to know how we, as a species, get past this. Trumpism is a classic illustration of the way in which ordinary people may be caught up in the net of the Authoritarian. Even so, no authoritarian has managed to get their hands on government without the support of a complying media organisation. We all know who they are. Funny, isn’t it, how one person’s media could have an outsized impact on the upcoming referendum, for instance. Lying about one of the most significant votes in at least a generation is simply despicable. It isn’t difficult to argue against the Voice, if you have a good argument to make. If you have no good faith argument, you go and sign up with that disgrace of a media organisation, I guess. It is so disappointing that the bulk of the anti-voice arguments are professional hit jobs, rather than sincere arguments. Sincere arguments are good, but these bullshit non-arguments simply expose the propagandists as being able to wield a power that few of us have.
MUD Media are the classic example of the modern problem, of a few rich people being able to exert much more muscle than one person, one vote, normally grants us normal citizens.
Don, you sensibly say “Lying about one of the most significant votes in at least a generation is simply despicable”.
And I cant beieve I am able to read what is written here:
“Why is it legal to tell lies during the Voice referendum campaign
…
“Telling lies is legal
“It is perfectly legal to spread misinformation and disinformation and tell outright lies about the proposed constitutional amendment, just as it is legal to tell lies during federal election campaigns.
“While Australia has laws banning businesses from engaging in deceptive and misleading advertising about their products and services, there are no equivalent federal laws that apply to politics. By contrast, South Australia and the ACT have truth-in-political-advertising laws applying to their state and territory election campaigns.
“There is one tiny exception to the current ability to mislead voters about the referendum. It is unlawful to mislead voters about how to fill in the referendum ballot form. For example, you would be breaking the law if your advertisement said people had to tick a box on the ballot form (when in fact you need to write “yes” or “no”).
“Parliament decided to allow lies during the referendum campaign”
…
https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-legal-to-tell-lies-during-the-voice-referendum-campaign-209211
The exception… “It is unlawful to mislead voters about how to fill in the referendum ballot form.” … is not entirely correct either. The local ballot counters may accept a tick or cross if obvious intent, but stringent I believe, and any ballot not obvious goes into the circular filing cabinet – not counted. Even though this has been law since … forever… it was used by nefarious types to say, ala Trump campaign, IT’S RIGGED! Idiots. Fully debunked here now yet still floating around some ‘news’ sites.
How do I tell my kid this? OK. Lie.
Not shocked but I find “Parliament decided to allow lies during the referendum campaign” is just another capitulation to bad news media and short term populism. To our peril.
As you say Don – despicable.
And Vile.
Hi KT2, and Ikon. When it comes to (politicians) lying to voters during a campaign, or to police lying to a suspect under interrogation, I think we have a problem. There is no reason for deliberate lying to an electorate. Sure, lots of comments can skirt about, but outright lying against the facts as they stand, that’s a serious diminishment of our democracy. The thing that plutocrats and oligarchs have known since time began, it is that you can shape public opinion if you hold a squirrel grip on the nuts of the mass media of the day. And they do. Who can afford to drop three quarter of a billion US dollars just to settle a case of defamation? Defamation so flagrant, and so relentlessly repeated during several months to years, and that’s the cost of doing the plutocrat’s business. It’s breathtaking.
With regard to Trump, I’d say that I pinged him well and truly, back in 2015/2016 when he floated the notion of running for POTUS. I said he had a totalitarian mindset, of the kind that Hannah Arendt so adroitly dissected in “On Totalitarianism.” If only because of a combination of age and of laziness, the US averted an autogolpe by a thin hair of a gap.
Political actors should speak in good faith, which is to say that they give the best argument they can for their position, but do not stray or deliberately veer into outright lying. We are all able to excuse a level of exaggeration, especially that which is unintentional and simply a function of ignorance of some of the facts. I don’t see why we should excuse repeated lying after a politician has been informed of the facts of which they had been previously ignorant.
To put it plain, Trump and his ilk do not just lie: they practise what Frankfurt et al characterised as “bullshit,” i.e. they do not care as to the truth or falsity of what they say, for they are much more interested in the effect (upon the mob—there is always a mob). They are engaged in propaganda, pure and simple. It is so simple a process, and yet it is incredibly difficult to counter it.
Hitler in “Mein Kampf” (a book I recommend people to read, if in disgust, simply to understand the way these totalitarian people think) lays out that about 30% of people are absolutely locked on to a given party (e.g. Hitler’s crowd), another 30% are absolutely against you, and the rest can be swayed. Hitler reserved his greatest contempt for that latter group, for he felt they did not have the resoluteness of view that they couldn’t be swayed. And yet, they were the ones he needed to win over, at least a small but significant enough percentage of them. Hitler did this by making sure people had the support of the state during some hungry times. Meanwhile, he used these pseudo-think-tanks to create a pathway to total control. Hitler, after the failed putsch, wrote “Mein Kampf” while in gaol. Upon his release,…well, we know how that turned out. I see too many parallels with people like Trump, that I’d simply say these people should not be anywhere near the levers of power.
The real lesson of Hitler is that if a person with sufficient will to power is able to get a toe-hold in a political party, even a quiet and minor party, things can go very wrong for the nation. Trump has done what all Totalitarians do: in the midst of lying, they also foretell what the want the world to look like, and they do it by lying that that is how the world already is! It’s a real sleight of hand technique, yet simple enough to spot once you bother to think about why are they telling you these things, rather than believing them without enquiry. Trump’s “the only way I could lose is if the election is rigged” is a tilling of the fertile ground, and he said this on the way to winning in 2016, and then again on the way to losing 2020. He did this so he could say, if he actually lost, to his mob that the nasty arseholes on the other side had stolen the election. It sounds ludicrous and yet it works. A thought for Auschwitz and other death camps reveals where the endpoint of these arseholes is, it is where they go so far beyond what we could believe people would do, and yet they’ve dragged a lot of us along that path, through their fervent and heavy penalties for breaking their really vague laws banning books and stuff. In Aus, we have less of that rubbish, but in the US, they have extremely serious problems, the kind that the USSR had to deal with. The fact that the Repubs don’t see this is simply because quite frankly, once some extreme political group gains enough ground to have power, their proclivities are the same, be they Left or Right of centre. Unfortunately though, people who have a general tendency towards right wing politics tend to be authoritarian, in the sense of not only seeking black/white answers to complex questions, but they believe all questions have black and white answers. I exaggerate a little, but that’s to make the general point clearer. If you seek nuance and a coming together of minds, you are unlikely to be in the Trumpian mob. They seek division, and they lie to say they are, in George Owellian terms, legislating against “divisiveness” in novels, etc.
If it all stayed in the US, it would be sad but not a great problem for Aus. But, the internet means all of these crazy views that are actually context dependent—the US Constitution informing or at least being the rallying point—and so on their face have little obvious resonance within Australia; and yet, the hot-headedness and the push your face in to the personal space of others as a way of furthering your own interests, well that has festered here for some time, but now is on steroids.
Blowed if I know the secret sauce for preventing people from being sucked up in the mire of the totalitarian’s propaganda. It’s difficult enough to navigate what is out there, published in good faith.
Finally, the one point I can think of with respect to recognising the application of bullshit as a political power strategy: from day one, those who proclaimed the election was stolen thanks to all these dead people voting, or ballots being altered, well they couldn’t when challenged provide a single shred of evidence to buttress their—at times—very specific claims. Rudy Guilliani and TFG both made claims as to a particular number of fraudulent votes being known by them, and yet to this day they have failed to produce any of that data…for, it does not exist. If only the TV guys/gals had directly challenged Guilliani to return to the show with the spreadsheet of fraudulent voters listed, or whatever. The closest a single network came to this was that they pushed back on Sidney Powell and Rudy’s claims, asking for the evidence—but they never demanded the evidence before the next interview of Powell and Rudy. That’s because those media networks were essentially complicit in trying to keep Trump in power. A simple examination of all the lies their own opinion piece talking heads said on air, and of the guests they regularly had versus those they refused to interview; well, there it is. Sadly we in Aus exported one of the worst leeches of the propaganda world, a media giant answerable to no-one. Rosebud.
It seems neglectful of Rosebud not enact an autogolpe on the young owner.