"Just Transition" - What the Hell Does That Even Mean?

The last thing the world needs in climate agreements today is weasel words such as "just transition." These modifiers weaken the commitment. They can mean - or be made to mean - much different things from one country to the next. Weasel words create wiggle room and, when you have to accept them for the sake of getting a consensus, even if it's not genuine, you haven't quite thrown in the towel but you're close. Sadly that thin gruel is what's coming out of the COP 26 negotiations in Glasgow.

A proposal for the overarching decision retains contentious language calling on countries to accelerate "efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies."

But in a new addition, the text says nations will recognize "the need for support towards a just transition" — a reference to calls from those working in the fossil fuel industry for financial support as they wind down jobs and businesses.

Negotiators managed to keep coal in the draft closing statement but not without a fight. There are countries such as Australia and Saudi Arabia forcefully pushing back, trying to bolster the fossil fuel global economy.  Bitumen managed to sail under the delegate's radar. I wonder how that happened? Oversight, I suppose.

So, what's the bigger picture? What did the Glasgow summit accomplish?  One thing it did, for many, is to burst the illusion bubble we've endured this past quarter-century.  These leaders or, perhaps more accurately, "power holders" are not coming to our rescue. The clock will run out first.

Gwynne Dyer wrote that our power holders know that, in many countries, particularly the developed nations, the public has little appetite for sacrifice. They won't have it. Most people want real action, they know it's urgently needed, they just want the "convenience version," one that has only minimal impacts on their ease and comfort. They like the idea of perpetual exponential growth, they like it just fine. They'll vote out anyone foolish enough to promise change.

David Suzuki says that we can't get our heads around humanity as one species, one global society. We're still pitting rich against poor, vulnerable against stronger. Our power holders are willing enough to sacrifice autonomy, sovereignty, for the sake of free trade agreements but they pull up the drawbridge when it comes to the future of humanity. Sorry, we're not having that!

In the midst of all of this we learn that support for climate action has stalled among the American public. When it comes to Republicans, support has not merely stalled, it has sagged.  An emboldened Republican Congress smells blood in the water. They'll do everything they can to undermine Biden while they ready for the mid-terms.

Imagine, all the progress Biden has made, all the assurances he's given to partner nations, could be erased with the stroke of a sharpie by Donald Trump in 2024. How uplifting is that?

These posts of mine are not wildly popular. I know that. Some see me as a Cassandra which overlooks the point that Cassandra's problem was that she was compelled to speak the unvarnished truth. That's never popular.

I am not a font of doom and gloom. There's a big difference between that and realism although the distinction may not be discernable to those who believe in unicorns.  There is a coterie of doom and gloomers whose views I don't accept and will not spread.  One of these, a highly educated professor emeritus of climate studies says we could be extinct within a decade. Even if you wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, why would you? 

My conversion to realism began when I joined the Dark Mountain collective several years ago.  It's a place for climate activists who reject "the lies society tells itself." The purpose of this is to keep fighting the good fight liberated from delusions, magical thinking that everything will be fine. You don't give up the fight, anything but. You just don't tie it to fanciful outcomes that, when they fail to materialize, do cause you to give up.

We believe there are many things that can be done. There are dangers we can abate. There are often overlooked strengths to tap. There's no going back but that doesn't mean that the future has to be as bleak as those who cling to magical thinking would have it no matter how well intentioned they are.

Please, mull it over. I'm not here to alarm you. My hope is to build support for solutions we have at hand. Climate change is worrisome but it one of an interwoven group of potentially exponential challenges. That's the bad part. The good part is that there is an approach that can defuse them all, that can give humanity a soft landing. The only thing that dooms us is us.


Comments

  1. Northern PoVNovember 14, 2021 at 6:57 AM

    Aspirational goals are sooo 20th century, eh?

    Oh well, according to some, this debate will not drag on forever ....

    "Human Extinction by 2022?
    The blue trend reflects impact of aerosols, sunspots, El Niño, decline of Arctic snow & ice, seafloor methane and more. The trend shows the potential for 3°C to be crossed by the end of 2022."
    https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/11/human-extinction-by-2022.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Disaffected LibNovember 14, 2021 at 9:58 AM

    Thanks for the link, NPoV. I incorporated it into my next post. Arctic News has been credible in the past so I can't assume this is alarmist. As for their criticism of the IPCC for ignoring the Arctic methane bomb, I recently tried to find some reference to it in the IPCC summaries and came up empty handed. I sent follow up emails to a couple of climate scientists ought to know but heard nothing back.

    There's a methane detecting satellite in the works to be launched in 2023. It's unclear whether it will be able to handle the emissions from seabed and permafrost sources. https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-push-to-find-methane-leaks-satellites-gear-up-for-the-hunt

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Cognoscenti Syndrome

  There is a group of people I think of as the Cognoscenti, people who are well educated, very informed and of rapidly diminishing relevance. Their ranks include writers such as Chris Hedges and Glen Greenwald. These are people who have honed an almost Puritanical value system, readily finding fault in any direction. They are scathing in their attacks on Republicans and Democrats alike to the point where they become nihilists. They don't endorse. They prescribe. This is where they fail. They're unable to advocate for anything that might resonate with the public whose interests they argue are being trammeled. Donald Trump was bad but Joe Biden is scarcely better. This is where their elitism comes in.  74 million may have voted for Trump but, hey, they didn't know any better. The mob that stormed the Capitol. They were just victims of the system venting their frustrations. All the racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, white nationalism - inevitable side effects of their oppr...
Read more

The Gun We Point at Our Own Heads

Image
  If you're sitting at a table and there's a loaded pistol in front of you, do you pick it up and point it at your own head?  Probably not, unless something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. How would you feel if someone else was holding that pistol to your head? But there is a pistol pointed at our heads and, unless we do something about it, we're goners. It's not a Glock. It's fossil fuels and the industry is slowly squeezing the trigger. Proven fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to generate 3.5 trillion tons of greenhouse gas emissions .  Russia and the United States each have massive reserves of fossil energy sufficient to push humanity through the 1.5C heating limit, sometimes called the "carbon budget."  I have it on reliable authority that Washington and the Kremlin aren't getting along very well these days. After all, if you won't hold the line on nuclear proliferation, you might not be inclined to voluntarily give up a major source of na...
Read more

Who Asks "Why?"

Every time there's a conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, all we hear is 'why?'  Why, as in, whose fault is this? It's easier to affix blame if you can truncate the event. Pick a convenient start date, something recent. In this case we'll make it either the Israeli eviction of Arabs from Jerusalem or the scuffle that took place outside the mosque in response. If those don't work, let's go for Hamas launching unguided rockets into Israel. That's even better because it tags Hamas with the blame. The nice thing about this approach is you can just keep using it. It goes on and on, just as it has for the past half-century since the '67 war. You can even date this whole mess to the beginning of the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Israelis are said to have called these periodic wars, "mowing the lawn." The idea is that, every now and then, you have to take these Arabs to the woodshed. And then you keep your powder dry unt...
Read more