I could not agree more and I'm thankful someone else out there feels the same way I do. As a historian who has spent a lot of time studying societies that break and collapse quickly, it couldn't be more evident to me that the scale of the change we need, and the very short time we have to implement it, are completely excluded from consideration by the fairy tale so-called solutions. A circular economy and a carbon tax are great ideas...if we had 50 years to implement them. We don't have 50 years. We have 5 years. Why doesn't anyone understand this?
Well no, I don't completely agree. Not all the things you list here are "fairy tales", some of them are in fact much needed sea changes. Jason Hickel and George Monbiot will tell you that unregulated capitalism and unrestrained consumption are destroying the planet. So what do we need to replace capitalism with? We need to envision a replacement for the culture that has brought us to the edge of the precipice. And that's why the work of economists like Kate Raworth on circular/doughnut economies is vital, as Hickel and Monbiot would agree.
Jeremy, I find your response confusing. You start off by challenging something on my fairly tale list but then you fail to identify or defend it what it is. Then you go on to say that the problem is with capitalism which I didn't even mention in my post. And then finally you take that idea and tie it to Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics which you claim Hickel and Monbiot support - again something I never made reference to in my post. It's like you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't take a moment to reflect on what you'd written.
One of the items you listed in your "fairy tales" was a Circular economy. Kate Raworth is an author who writes around this subject?
Two writers you recommended are Jason Hickel and George Monbiot. One subject which both Monbiot and Hickel reference heavily when analysing why we are in this mess is unrestrained capitalism. One way that we can move beyond unrestrained capitalism is to a circular economy. Clearer?
Somewhat, but the circular economy is still in the theoretical stage. There's nothing "meaningfully circular" about our economy which is why I listed it. So considering the urgency of our challenge - talking about an idea that's mostly just a theory is mostly a distraction that allows predatory capitalism to continue.
But if we are going to change our economy we need a vision of what we are going to change it into. In its simplest terms, a circular economy is based on the principals of "Repair, Reuse, Recycle" (in that order of priority). We are already doing this to some extent? Not pretending we are doing it anything like on the scale we need to be doing it, but we are beyond the theory stage.
I understand the urgency that we have. We need a mobilisation similar to (or even greater than) the movement to the war economy 80 years ago. And yet what is the point of a journey that urgently needs to be made if we have no vision of a destination? And if we did mobilise with the urgency that happened in 1938 - 1939 (as we need to: -see Jason Hickel "What if we treated the Climate Crisis as a real emergency") then goals that seem unattainable now would become not so unattainable.
I could not agree more and I'm thankful someone else out there feels the same way I do. As a historian who has spent a lot of time studying societies that break and collapse quickly, it couldn't be more evident to me that the scale of the change we need, and the very short time we have to implement it, are completely excluded from consideration by the fairy tale so-called solutions. A circular economy and a carbon tax are great ideas...if we had 50 years to implement them. We don't have 50 years. We have 5 years. Why doesn't anyone understand this?
Sean - you nailed it. I'm glad to see my post was clear to some :-)
Well no, I don't completely agree. Not all the things you list here are "fairy tales", some of them are in fact much needed sea changes. Jason Hickel and George Monbiot will tell you that unregulated capitalism and unrestrained consumption are destroying the planet. So what do we need to replace capitalism with? We need to envision a replacement for the culture that has brought us to the edge of the precipice. And that's why the work of economists like Kate Raworth on circular/doughnut economies is vital, as Hickel and Monbiot would agree.
Jeremy, I find your response confusing. You start off by challenging something on my fairly tale list but then you fail to identify or defend it what it is. Then you go on to say that the problem is with capitalism which I didn't even mention in my post. And then finally you take that idea and tie it to Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics which you claim Hickel and Monbiot support - again something I never made reference to in my post. It's like you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't take a moment to reflect on what you'd written.
One of the items you listed in your "fairy tales" was a Circular economy. Kate Raworth is an author who writes around this subject?
Two writers you recommended are Jason Hickel and George Monbiot. One subject which both Monbiot and Hickel reference heavily when analysing why we are in this mess is unrestrained capitalism. One way that we can move beyond unrestrained capitalism is to a circular economy. Clearer?
Somewhat, but the circular economy is still in the theoretical stage. There's nothing "meaningfully circular" about our economy which is why I listed it. So considering the urgency of our challenge - talking about an idea that's mostly just a theory is mostly a distraction that allows predatory capitalism to continue.
But if we are going to change our economy we need a vision of what we are going to change it into. In its simplest terms, a circular economy is based on the principals of "Repair, Reuse, Recycle" (in that order of priority). We are already doing this to some extent? Not pretending we are doing it anything like on the scale we need to be doing it, but we are beyond the theory stage.
Jeremy - I don't think you really understood the point I was trying to make with my post...but I do appreciate your passion for a better world.
I understand the urgency that we have. We need a mobilisation similar to (or even greater than) the movement to the war economy 80 years ago. And yet what is the point of a journey that urgently needs to be made if we have no vision of a destination? And if we did mobilise with the urgency that happened in 1938 - 1939 (as we need to: -see Jason Hickel "What if we treated the Climate Crisis as a real emergency") then goals that seem unattainable now would become not so unattainable.