As the West and China/Russia drift apart economically, both the US and the EU try to decouple their supply chains from China, Russia, and their allies.
Economic- and financial literacy seem pretty rare amongst US neocons *, who have had a pretty big ear in Washington the past decades compared to their numbers vs traditional conservatives - if those exist in the US- and vs liberals. (Both group have of course now also turned pretty hawkish). Then again, plenty neocons and conservatives have stated that deficits don't matter and that in fact they help to 'starve the beast'. Though every time one of them occupies the white house the beast gets bigger...
While the climate alarm segment of society, mostly middle class, sees economic growth as harmful and thus you can hear them say and see them write along the lines of 'a little bit less should not be a bad thing'. The global South of course, in the name of Climate Justice **, should be allowed (you know by who) to experience prosperity, but prefrebly fueled by renewable energy.
The political working group of the IPCC has been pretty much captured by the degrowth set if you'd had to belief the latest 2021 IPCC AR6 report:
The Political Agenda of the IPCC
'The IPCC continues (emphasis added):
The starting point for this virtuous circle are inner transitions. Inner transitions occur within individuals, organisations and even larger jurisdictions that alter beliefs and actions involving climate change (Woiwode et al. 2021). An inner transition within an individual (see e.g., Parodi and Tamm 2018) typically involves a person gaining a deepening sense of peace and a willingness to help others, as well as protecting the climate and the planet . . .”
What are examples of such “inner transitions”? The IPCC explains:
Examples have also been seen in relation to a similar set of inner transitions to individuals, organisations and societies, which involve embracing post-development, degrowth, or non-material values that challenge carbon-intensive lifestyles and development models . . .
The IPCC discusses the importance of “degrowth” to its vision of transformation in its AR6 Working Group 2 report:
Consumption reductions, both voluntary and policy-induced, can have positive and double-dividend effects on efficiency as well as reductions in energy and materials use . . . a low-carbon transition in conjunction with social sustainability is possible, even without economic growth (Kallis et al. 2012; Jackson and Victor 2016; Stuart et al. 2017; Chapman and Fraser 2019; D’Alessandro et al. 2019; Gabriel and Bond 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Victor 2019). Such degrowth pathways may be crucial in combining technical feasibility of mitigation with social development goals (Hickel et al. 2021; Keyßer and Lenzen 2021).'
In 2005 Chalmers Johnson wrote this essay on the likely US reaction to the emergence of China while he also predicted correctly Japan's turn to the right and its current rearming.
* They did think of having the Iraqi gov send all their oil revenues into a US bank account to 'combat corruption, money laundering and Islamic terrorism'.
** Rightneousness is at 1970s levels these days, let me introduce the concept of 'Hydrogen Justice' posited by a bunch of well meaning German academics:
'This paper introduces the concept of hydrogen justice as an analytical toolkit to help examining justice challenges of the global hydrogen transition. Placing hydrogen justice at the nexus of energy, water and climate justice, and incorporating crucial insights from political ecology and decolonial studies we highlight potential hydrogen injustices'
The German team is led by Prof. Dr. Franziska Müller whose 'main research interests are global climate and energy governance and (constructivist, poststructuralist and postcolonial) theories of international relations'. She and her team work on an 'African energy transition'.
Because The Guilty have to guide their African Children to a better Africa. A world they apparently can't find on their own. Ask any NGO.
You are so insensitive! I bet you would abstain from better human-ice relations as well???
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework
'However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework...
Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.'
Just wait until The Righteous in Academia have righted their scientific boat (named Replication crisis) to wip the world with the full force of modern western science:
Replication crisis
'A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists.'
I fear that the continued de-coupling plus a scramble for "transition metals" will likely lead to some very brutal proxy wars (just like the 70s). Just my 2c.
I am quite optimistic, actually, precisely because the climate damage is already made. CO2 represents a factor that acts as a catalyst, like in an enzymatic reaction. It has been seen that even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, we could witness an increase for another 100 years. The transition has more of an economic than ecological meaning, in the sense that it decisively diversifies the sources, finally freeing us from "rogue" nations; it improves health and reduces healthcare costs and in the long run (not even that long) will have a fundamental deflationary effect. In the end, the transition will follow the times of convenience. When renewable sources, nuclear fusion, and even more markedly a service-based economy prevail, the whole world will be forced to adapt or risk exclusion from the global market due to lack of competitiveness. That same competitiveness that allowed China and India to enter the club of the rich by exploiting the advantage on production costs. While beforehand the advantageous production costs were linked to polluting technologies, in the future they will be linked to zero-emission ones. In all this, the only real ‘mysterious’ object is China. I believe that once the war in Ukraine will come to an end, Russia will find its place again in the international community, and the reason can be seen from the first graph: in the new extended market of commodities, Russia becomes a supplier like any other. It is China that have the upper hand. Will it be war or will the reasons for real economic convenience prevail? China is not Russia; if things were to go really badly, its ruling class would be hung in the square. As an Italian, I know something about it. IMVHO.
To paraphrase myself from above: I hope you are right, but I fear you could be wrong.
I love your optimism, but the problem in my view is that we will still need stuff to be produced and that the manufacturing will move to wherever it is easiest. That has been China, and n ow South East Asia. Who knows whether it will go to South Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe next. But it is that manufacturing base that worries me about climate change. Even if it is shrinking, it is still going to emit too much for too long.
(1) I have read there is a limit on (some of?) the minerals not yet extracted from mines, and already it is increasingly expensive as ores quality declines - if yes, what do we do in 2050s?
(2) The environmental damage done by mines, and the use of slave & child labour seem to be breach of the Greens ESG measures, or just humanity.
Meanwhile governments encourage EVs which use multiples more minerals to make and whose batteries will need replacement in time.
Well yes, EV use more minerals to produce, but over the lifecycle of a car, the emissions are still lower than for a regular car. It's just that the emissions of an EV are made before the car has driven a single mile and the emissions for a regular car are made both during production and while it is driving. This is why you need to drive an EV for about 2-3 years before it is less polluting than a regular car.
As for the batteries, they are increasingly being g recycled with Umicore at the forefront of battery recycling technology. So we need less and less metals from mines (and as far as I know, these metals in the ground will last until 2100 at least and we people are working on replacing the scarcest ones like cobalt). It's a little bit like gold. Gold supply from mines today is only about 3% of the demand of the metal, the rest comes from recycling.
Also, the battery technology is changing. A Chinese manufacturer (I think it is Neo, but it could be another one), is already rolling out cobalt-free batteries and VW has last week claimed they could make the first large scale solid-state battery (which would be a major breakthrough because these batteries last much longer and need far fewer metals).
Thanks Mr K. Your facts point to a more optimistic path. As always informative. Never ignore the potential for our wonderful scientists & engineers to find a solution.
However, I suggest there are still harms caused by pollution etc, in particular burying solar panels & windmills on obsolescence (but recycling may help?).
By 2100 AD I suspect we shall have devised radically new means of transport - if the damage of climate change has not been too harmful …..
At some time, can you please give us an article about your views on Jeremy Grantham’s predictions? Thanks.
Economic- and financial literacy seem pretty rare amongst US neocons *, who have had a pretty big ear in Washington the past decades compared to their numbers vs traditional conservatives - if those exist in the US- and vs liberals. (Both group have of course now also turned pretty hawkish). Then again, plenty neocons and conservatives have stated that deficits don't matter and that in fact they help to 'starve the beast'. Though every time one of them occupies the white house the beast gets bigger...
While the climate alarm segment of society, mostly middle class, sees economic growth as harmful and thus you can hear them say and see them write along the lines of 'a little bit less should not be a bad thing'. The global South of course, in the name of Climate Justice **, should be allowed (you know by who) to experience prosperity, but prefrebly fueled by renewable energy.
The political working group of the IPCC has been pretty much captured by the degrowth set if you'd had to belief the latest 2021 IPCC AR6 report:
The Political Agenda of the IPCC
'The IPCC continues (emphasis added):
The starting point for this virtuous circle are inner transitions. Inner transitions occur within individuals, organisations and even larger jurisdictions that alter beliefs and actions involving climate change (Woiwode et al. 2021). An inner transition within an individual (see e.g., Parodi and Tamm 2018) typically involves a person gaining a deepening sense of peace and a willingness to help others, as well as protecting the climate and the planet . . .”
What are examples of such “inner transitions”? The IPCC explains:
Examples have also been seen in relation to a similar set of inner transitions to individuals, organisations and societies, which involve embracing post-development, degrowth, or non-material values that challenge carbon-intensive lifestyles and development models . . .
The IPCC discusses the importance of “degrowth” to its vision of transformation in its AR6 Working Group 2 report:
Consumption reductions, both voluntary and policy-induced, can have positive and double-dividend effects on efficiency as well as reductions in energy and materials use . . . a low-carbon transition in conjunction with social sustainability is possible, even without economic growth (Kallis et al. 2012; Jackson and Victor 2016; Stuart et al. 2017; Chapman and Fraser 2019; D’Alessandro et al. 2019; Gabriel and Bond 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Victor 2019). Such degrowth pathways may be crucial in combining technical feasibility of mitigation with social development goals (Hickel et al. 2021; Keyßer and Lenzen 2021).'
https://bit.ly/42QxGo4
Boing...
China:
In 2005 Chalmers Johnson wrote this essay on the likely US reaction to the emergence of China while he also predicted correctly Japan's turn to the right and its current rearming.
No Longer the “Lone” Superpower
Coming to Terms with China
BY CHALMERS JOHNSON
https://bit.ly/3NZisaR
* They did think of having the Iraqi gov send all their oil revenues into a US bank account to 'combat corruption, money laundering and Islamic terrorism'.
http://tinyurl.com/3jv2s9ky
** Rightneousness is at 1970s levels these days, let me introduce the concept of 'Hydrogen Justice' posited by a bunch of well meaning German academics:
'This paper introduces the concept of hydrogen justice as an analytical toolkit to help examining justice challenges of the global hydrogen transition. Placing hydrogen justice at the nexus of energy, water and climate justice, and incorporating crucial insights from political ecology and decolonial studies we highlight potential hydrogen injustices'
https://bit.ly/3OHI2li
The German team is led by Prof. Dr. Franziska Müller whose 'main research interests are global climate and energy governance and (constructivist, poststructuralist and postcolonial) theories of international relations'. She and her team work on an 'African energy transition'.
Because The Guilty have to guide their African Children to a better Africa. A world they apparently can't find on their own. Ask any NGO.
WTF is this hydrogen justice nonsense? This is embarrassing...
You are so insensitive! I bet you would abstain from better human-ice relations as well???
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework
'However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework...
Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.'
https://bit.ly/3JvopKi
Just wait until The Righteous in Academia have righted their scientific boat (named Replication crisis) to wip the world with the full force of modern western science:
Replication crisis
'A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Causes:~:text=replication.%5B89%5D-,Across%20fields,-%5Bedit%5D
I fear that the continued de-coupling plus a scramble for "transition metals" will likely lead to some very brutal proxy wars (just like the 70s). Just my 2c.
I hope you are wrong, but I fear you re right.
I am quite optimistic, actually, precisely because the climate damage is already made. CO2 represents a factor that acts as a catalyst, like in an enzymatic reaction. It has been seen that even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, we could witness an increase for another 100 years. The transition has more of an economic than ecological meaning, in the sense that it decisively diversifies the sources, finally freeing us from "rogue" nations; it improves health and reduces healthcare costs and in the long run (not even that long) will have a fundamental deflationary effect. In the end, the transition will follow the times of convenience. When renewable sources, nuclear fusion, and even more markedly a service-based economy prevail, the whole world will be forced to adapt or risk exclusion from the global market due to lack of competitiveness. That same competitiveness that allowed China and India to enter the club of the rich by exploiting the advantage on production costs. While beforehand the advantageous production costs were linked to polluting technologies, in the future they will be linked to zero-emission ones. In all this, the only real ‘mysterious’ object is China. I believe that once the war in Ukraine will come to an end, Russia will find its place again in the international community, and the reason can be seen from the first graph: in the new extended market of commodities, Russia becomes a supplier like any other. It is China that have the upper hand. Will it be war or will the reasons for real economic convenience prevail? China is not Russia; if things were to go really badly, its ruling class would be hung in the square. As an Italian, I know something about it. IMVHO.
To paraphrase myself from above: I hope you are right, but I fear you could be wrong.
I love your optimism, but the problem in my view is that we will still need stuff to be produced and that the manufacturing will move to wherever it is easiest. That has been China, and n ow South East Asia. Who knows whether it will go to South Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe next. But it is that manufacturing base that worries me about climate change. Even if it is shrinking, it is still going to emit too much for too long.
A helpful measure for geopolitical risk beyond headline sentiment analysis.
Great work by the IMF and appreciate you sharing the insights.
A hopeful argument that trade will continue; but:
(1) I have read there is a limit on (some of?) the minerals not yet extracted from mines, and already it is increasingly expensive as ores quality declines - if yes, what do we do in 2050s?
(2) The environmental damage done by mines, and the use of slave & child labour seem to be breach of the Greens ESG measures, or just humanity.
Meanwhile governments encourage EVs which use multiples more minerals to make and whose batteries will need replacement in time.
Is it they or I who is mad?
Well yes, EV use more minerals to produce, but over the lifecycle of a car, the emissions are still lower than for a regular car. It's just that the emissions of an EV are made before the car has driven a single mile and the emissions for a regular car are made both during production and while it is driving. This is why you need to drive an EV for about 2-3 years before it is less polluting than a regular car.
As for the batteries, they are increasingly being g recycled with Umicore at the forefront of battery recycling technology. So we need less and less metals from mines (and as far as I know, these metals in the ground will last until 2100 at least and we people are working on replacing the scarcest ones like cobalt). It's a little bit like gold. Gold supply from mines today is only about 3% of the demand of the metal, the rest comes from recycling.
Also, the battery technology is changing. A Chinese manufacturer (I think it is Neo, but it could be another one), is already rolling out cobalt-free batteries and VW has last week claimed they could make the first large scale solid-state battery (which would be a major breakthrough because these batteries last much longer and need far fewer metals).
So, we are getting there.
Thanks Mr K. Your facts point to a more optimistic path. As always informative. Never ignore the potential for our wonderful scientists & engineers to find a solution.
However, I suggest there are still harms caused by pollution etc, in particular burying solar panels & windmills on obsolescence (but recycling may help?).
By 2100 AD I suspect we shall have devised radically new means of transport - if the damage of climate change has not been too harmful …..
At some time, can you please give us an article about your views on Jeremy Grantham’s predictions? Thanks.