I grew up in the 70s in a world where there was a sense of expanding progress. The great wars were behind us and even when Thatcher/Reagan pushed dog-eat-dog neoliberalism in the 80s, at least social mores seemed to be going in a progressive direction.
I learnt about the risks of climate change in the late eighties and even if frightening, there seemed time to change course. Real impacts were talked about as happening in the 2050s and beyond.
Now not so much. The jump in average temperature in 2023 described as “gobsmakingly bananas” by one scientist might have put the tin lid on hopes of escaping a climate crisis, but this followed regular increasingly scary warnings from scientists. One of the latest talks of entering “uncharted territory” while climate models aren’t able to explain the 2023 heat anomomaly.
For me, it is a struggle to believe in the likelihood of a commensurate global change in direction in the context of an increasingly fragmented political landscape and continuing obsession with growth. You might ask: but what about the growth in renewables, aren’t they a sign of hope? Well, they remain a tiny fraction of overall global energy use.
This issue seeks to begin to chart this territory from a political-economy perspective; to look at the future with clear eyes even if that means facing up to uncomfortable possibilities.
This does not mean that all our contributors see collapse as unavoidable, however it does mean breaking an unwritten rule: pessimism is a real downer and should be avoided at all costs. All climate warnings traditionally end by claiming there is still time. According to ex-BBC environmental journalist, Roger Harrabin, “BBC commissioners are hunting for stories about climate change that don’t, as one told me, make you want to slit your throat”, and climate change books, such as The Solutionists by Solitaire Townsend and Climate Capitalism by Bloomberg’s Akshat Rathi splurge optimism.
A much publicised recent tome is “Not the End of the World” by data scientist, Hannah Richie, which was gushed as an optimistic corrective to common misconceptions. However her optimism turns out to be that climate change isn’t an existential crisis but rather (just) ”a catastrophic crisis”. She adds: “The trajectory we’re on in climate change is not a good one – it will lead to very, very severe impacts, especially on some of the poorest people in the world.” So maybe not so optimistic as the marketing suggests.
So please don’t look away from the pessimistic contributors; if it helps, pour yourself a stiff drink, even if that sounds old fashioned; and let’s start to contemplate what this territory might look like.
First off, we have to start thinking wider about what a more unstable economic territory might include beyond increasing temperatures and weird weather. Chronic inflation driven by disrupted international supply chains increasing the cost of living and political and labour conflict as different groups fight to avoid being the losers is one likely dimension which we are already experiencing. Add to that, the substantially increased potential for simultaneous crop failure in multiple breadbaskets every few years, creating the sort of spikes in international food prices, that have a record of bringing governments down. (remember the Arab Spring.) Climate modeller, David Stainforth, suggests one of the results could be that public education funded from taxation becomes something governments begin to see as a luxury they can no longer afford.
So do delve further into our diverse contributions to contemplate this future further.
Self-described “doomster,” Jem Bendell, faces up to the implications of societal collapse and Rupert Read reviews a recent mainstream film focusing on a mother’s response to collapse, while Ruben Andersson and David Keen discuss how simplistic politics feeds instability and conflict.
Frederic Hache explains why green finance is a con, Dirk Ehnts tackles the UK Labour Party’s recent U-turn on green investment and Alex Kozul-Wright reviews The Value of a Whale andThe Finance Curse.
Sarah Mckinley looks to community economic empowerment as a way forward, while Fardin Sharify recounts his experience of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and his flight to Russia.
Paul Ekins explores the limits on renewable energy and electric vehicles placed by the availability of critical minerals and Christine Nikander looks at the vulnerability of supply due to Chinese control, while both consider the potential for recovery and recycling.
Martin Parker considers how business schools could become part of the solution rather than problem, James Robson sets out an agenda for a new UK government to build the skills needed to transition to a green economy and Joshua Brown argues that US-China competition may help rather than hinder the development of a green economy.
Our own Verity recounts responses to instability with a sting in the tale!
Best wishes
