from masterresource
Robert Bradley Jr.
ed. notes: With the demise of the U.S.-led net zero and “energy transition”, previous attempts to master climate futility and energy reality deserve a reexamination. This article “Thirty Years of Climate Mitigation: Why We Don’t Bend Global Emission Curves?” ((Annual review of environment and resources:vol. 46, 2021) is an example of a problematic worldview, a large number of established academic climate networks (23 authors), and cannot seriously address critical views on climate alert/forced energy conversion.
“The globalized form of industrial modernity…are arguably the most unique driving force is driven by a series of fallacies, novels and control fantasies.” [1]
This article introduces the article’s summary, summary points, future questions and conclusions, and then my critical comments.
Although three decades of political efforts and a wealth of research on the causes and catastrophic impacts of climate change, global carbon dietetic emissions have continued to rise and are 60% higher today than they were in 1990. Exploring this rise through nine thematic lenses—covering issues of climate government, the fossil fuel industry, geopolitics, economics, mitigation modeling, energy systems, inequity, lifestyles, and social imagination – proposes a multifaceted reason why our collective failure bends the global emission curve.
However, one commonality that emerges in the reviewed literature is the central role of power, manifested in many forms, from dogmatic political and economic hegemony and influential vested interests to narrow techno-economic psychology and control ideology. The integration of barriers to mitigation measures suggests that the delivery of commitments involved in the Paris Agreement now requires an urgent and unprecedented shift to stand out from today’s carbon and energy-intensive development paradigms.
- Despite three decades of political efforts and scientific warnings about the possible catastrophic effects of climate change, company2 Emissions continue to grow globally, with emissions today 60% higher than in 1990.
- Since the first IPCC report released in 1990, more human-made fossil companies2 Throughout human history, it has been released into the atmosphere.
- The failure of leadership, especially in high-launch countries, sectors, companies and individuals, is trapped in internal and intergenerational suffering and a perpetual threat to livelihoods and ecosystems.
- Ingrained geopolitics, industrial and military forces, and related mentality are fundamental obstacles to effective relief.
- Orthodox thinking and research on traditional schools (including highly constrained modeling forms), especially in the fields of economics, energy and climate mitigation, requires challenging and replacing or supplementing more heretic approaches.
- The three decades of choosing to mitigate failures have shifted climate challenges from technological adjustments as usual to normal, rather than rapid, system-level changes within industrialized and industrialized societies.
- The shift to more sustainable and impartial futures requires a fundamental reconfiguration of long-term socio-cultural and political-economic norms, and the current reappearance of the issues driving climate change.
- Focus on fairness, high-carbon lifestyle and realizing new conditions Social imagination has the potential to undermine the dominant high-carbon development pathway.
- How to engage in geopolitical competition for energy resources and control ideology to challenge and overcome the main response to climate change?
- How mainstream economics and neoliberalism respond to climate change (e.g. What opportunities are there for alternative or complementary approaches to the carbon market and the wider financialization of the environment?
- How can we supplement the current research approaches that dominate recommendations and basic climate mitigation policies (e.g., integrated assessment models) with more approaches and perspectives?
- How to implement ways to rapidly reduce energy-related emissions (e.g., energy systems that actively replace and dismantle fossil fuels and energy demand management practices)?
- How to resolve large asymmetric responsibilities within and among countries in climate policy and governance?
- How to quickly replace the vision of fossil fuel-based, high-carbon lifestyles, practices and step-by-step mitigation measures by promptly responding to Paris temperature and fair commitments?
- How do you transform the knowledge systems and institutions that drive climate change?
- How can existing and new social movements mobilize the power and social imagination of the masses in a way that effectively challenges the status quo and helps drive structural change at scale and at the pace required?
This article shows that although the reasons for the failure to bend the global emission curve for 30 years are multifaceted, a common and strong thread is weaved through them. The centralization of power and the accompanying privileges are combined with a specific worldview, to various obligations and to varying degrees. In recent decades, the central purpose of this worldview has evolved into a broader global zeitgeist, thereby reducing development and progress to economic growth and defined by increasingly narrow financial indicators and indices.
In line with this financial reductionism and economic character of the state and society, it is increasingly recognized that the purpose of “system” externalities will undermine the system. However, the strength and inertia of existing systems so far are enough to give the impression of continuous control. The challenge is “recognized” and “internalized” and through a technical future that is carefully committed to the crafting model, the existing power structure remains unchallenged.
From prejudice to Gobbledygook
“The process of writing this article is iterative and humble.” [1] “As the articles merge, it is becoming increasingly obvious that any attempt to distillate a clear narrative has been misled.” It also points out: “…our co-authors are not necessarily neutral observers of others’ failures.”
Apart from this, analysis opposes the general population who have been deceived or are just ineligible, which is a “long-term reconfiguration of long-term sociocultural and political and economic norms and institutions.” Translated as a government low-carbon, net-zero lifestyle that must be authorized for everyone.
Input a huge right-wing conspiracy. It is said: “People can at least temporarily turn to ignore physical reality.” The masses are victims of “elite political discourse”, “doctrinated political and economic hegemony” and “narrow techno-economic thinking.” “The psychological, social and emotional abilities of individuals and groups have been steadily weakened.” and:
“Inadequate responses from society may be attributed in part to psychological factors such as limited ability to arrest and develop a response to climate change….”
“Epistemological monoculture”…the poor global capacity can imagine and realize forms of life, rather than relying on exploitation of humans and natural “resources”…
In the educational and epistemological stage, indigenous and non-unified ideological traditions have been strongly criticized for the role of education in replicating and defending the status quo.
Back to reality. Gobbledygook is defined as “language that becomes meaningless or difficult to understand through excessive use of abstract technical terms”. This is why the above article is so blunt.
Will the separation of government and climate change lead to these “experts” doing more useful things? Even finding a job in the private sector, not to redistribute wealth rather than theorizing?
——————
[1] Others: Isak Stoddard, leader of Stuart Capstick. Nasirit, Peter Newell, Glen P. Peters, Youba and Mariama Williams.
Related
Discover more from Watt?
Subscribe to send the latest posts to your email.