I note that Morrison's have turned their freezer temperatures up in 10 stores from -18 to -15. The standard of -18 was set 93 years ago.
Widespread global adoption of a change of just 3C across the supply chain would mean potential savings equivalent to 8.6% of the UK’s energy consumption and could reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 3.8 million cars off the road, according to studies cited by the grocer.
I s'pose if something is frozen it's frozen, but I dunno if it affects the time the consumer has to get home with their stuff and put it away. No one wants to put their soggy chicken breasts in the freezer ... well I don't anyway
Hope they haven’t turned the ice cream freezer up above -18c or they could be starting a nasty bout of food poisoning’s or at best runny ice cream or ice cream with ice crystals in. My company did this for Morrisons probably 4 years ago now on their distribution store and we had results of less than 3% whoever quoted 8.6% is somewhat pending the truth, the only way it could be anywhere 8% is they used the most inefficient refrigeration plant and compared it to the one we installed for them, then you might approach this figure.
Any thanks for the info that another supermarket I won’t be buying from.
Apparently Elon Musks little finger knows more about climate change than the whole staff of the Guardian, he said in the recent "interview" with Trump . I really love this guy. I hope this drives the Guardian subscriptions through the roof, I may even put my hand into my pocket .
Just watched the documentary "Seaspiracy" on Netflix. Eye opening expose of the impact of industrial fishing. It looks as though one way to help combat climate change is for everyone to stop eating fish so as to protect the health of the oceans, which are far more important than the Amazon rain forest (what remains of it) in serving as a carbon sink.
Obviously I have a vested interest in stopping over fishing hough 🎣🤣
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it, but be warned, it makes for horrific viewing in places and is quite depressing.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Only imbeciles believe global surface temperatures are not rising. You can debate the causes for sure, but not dispute that climate change is happening. It's been proven scientifically with more certainty than it's been proven smoking is bad for your health.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
I really don’t know what to say. I think we’ve seen what the free market has done for our water industry.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
I really don’t know what to say. I think we’ve seen what the free market has done for our water industry.
Water wasn't a free market. It is a highly regulated monopoly which facilitated rentiers to cream money off. So, you're proving my point above.
It should never have been privatised as the conditions for a market couldn't be met.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Thank you for your response. I'm surprised that you would cite Japan, given that they are currently the world's 5th biggest emitter of CO2 and rank 6th (one place behind Britain) in the list of countries by cumulative CO2 emissions (1750 to 2020).
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Marxism and socialism are very different things (and communism ala soviet Union as angled at me a few posts above). That you try and conflate them says everything about your views.
Whilst a term may be used by "marxists" (I struggle to see how anyone could be called that in the modern day and age) doesn't mean that it's a Marxist term. It is simply a term for capitalism gone too far.
Whilst free markets are good things there still needs to be a limit through state ownership of certain essential industries, proper regulation and taxation to prevent these things from happening.
We've tried the free market, trickle down approach for 50 years and all its done is turn millionaires into billionaires and the working class into the working poor whilst enabling the destruction of our planet.
Anyone who can look at the last 30 years but particularly the last 15 and say "I know what went wrong, not enough capitalism" is seriously delulu.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
But if you don't have state intervention in say the stock markets and just let it self regulate/allow it to work, you get insider dealing, price fixing, excessive risk taking, Ponzi schemes, and other practices that need to be legislated against by the state.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Nowhere did I say there shouldn't be regulation :-) Companies won't clean up the environment, left to their own initiative.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
Getting the balance is difficult and often the devil is in the detail, yes.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
There's been some pretty upsetting stats about Arctic air temperatures doing the rounds on twitter the last few days. Tbh I switched off from it rather than read the whole thing as its just so depressing as late stage capitalism forces us ever closer to our own destruction.
Ah yes, I remember all those clean lakes and rivers in the Soviet Union!
I dont think anyone is arguing for communism. I think the point is (as demonstrated by the "late stage" capitalism is that we have allowed capitalism to go too far, too much power to large corporations to do what they want including destroy our planet and control the media/politicians and narrative around it.
'Late stage capitalism' is a term and concept used by marxists, hence why people will assume you are arguing for socialism as an alternative. If you didn't intend that, then fair enough.
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
Could you enlighten us please; what economies specifically are you talking about there?
I'll excuse the pun ;-)
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
No one has said we should move away from growth.
We haven't had any real growth other than population driven since the 70s or early 80s.
Most economists would argue that the main reason we haven't seen growth in the last 14 years is lack of state investment in infrastructure that would enable growth.
Every bit of evidence suggests there is real potential for a green led economic boom for the countries that lead the world in green technology and then sell it around the world. We were performing very well in this sector until the Tories started rolling back on promises and the green agenda. We will now allow others to get there first and spend the next 50 years paying through the nose to import their tech.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do as I say not as I do.
That's the attitude of most of these people.
Who are "these people" and how do you know what steps they do or don't take to help the environment.
Said it before, but still find it amazing the amount if pundits and production staff the BBC and ITV feel need to travel to the Euros. Micah Richards apparently returned home for a couple of days this week, so it don't seem like its even a straightforward return journey. They're coming backwards and forwards throughout the tournament. Surely they can film that part of the coverag le in the UK?
Simple. Climate Change isn't perceived to be a big enough concern to alter behaviours. Maybe one day it will be, but I'm not holding my breath.
Do as I say not as I do.
That's the attitude of most of these people.
Who are "these people" and how do you know what steps they do or don't take to help the environment.
I took it to be those referenced in the original post.
Comments
Obviously I have a vested interest in stopping over fishing hough 🎣🤣
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it, but be warned, it makes for horrific viewing in places and is quite depressing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cdd7pzdr22jo
Democratic, free market economies with free speech, property rights and the rule of law (i.e. economies run on Enlightenment values) are demonstrably the cleanest. It's because they generate enough wealth to make the appropriate investments and democratic societies that protect free speech will not allow their governments to poison them. See Hans Rosling's Factfulness and Smil's Energy and Civilisation, a History, for years of overwhelming evidence. Both, btw, agree with the premise of man-made climate change.
Large corporations having too much power is because of statism and corporatism - markets have not been allowed to work. Since 2001, we've had cheap money propping up zombie firms, mis-allocating capital, etc. So, the question is, why have we allowed that to happen? Mainly because too many people don't understand the basic facts about wealth creation and its reliance on Enlightenment values, so they like 'easy solutions' that avoid short term pain.
I think similar could be said for letting the market work its way towards a sustainable world: democratic, free market economies are not incompatible with sustainability but neither do they necessarily lead to it.
So it can go too far in the wrong direction.
Western economies, Japan, South Korea, etc. There's no absolute but the more you have of those values, the better those countries are at keeping their environment clean. The two texts will back up that up with a lot of data. We are talking trends, over time, and the relationship is very clear.
When those economies go into recession, it's also clear that keeping the environment clean moves down the list of a state's and its people's priorities; but that also proves the point. Hence all these ideas of saying that we should move away from growth are counter-productive. Shrinking an economy will guarantee we won't fix the problem.
And there are plenty of counterpoints - countries that are similar in almost every way, geographically, culturally, etc. and yet don't have share values, and the results are very different - N/S Korea, Haiti/DR, etc.
Democracies, with free speech and the rule of law, have come up with regulations over time, enacted at the state level. And that includes competitions and markets type interventions, to break up companies as they try to monopolise markets.
Trying to get the balance is difficult, which is why the free speech part is so important - you need competition in ideas to come to the right answers, over time. So my point is, that it can be shown that democratic, free market economies are the best at keeping an environment clean, will generate the most wealth to afford to and therefore most likely to solve the sustainability problem. In fact, I'm confident they will, not just because I'm an optimist but also because we've always managed to before.
Too much regulation is just a rentier's dream. Believe me, I have seen Private Equity salivating at every regulation - it's guaranteed money. They invest, they cream off. I've been involved in making market rules in financial markets - market participants immediately look to see how they can use those rules to their advantage, which ultimately just means creaming value off the market.
But there are some basic principles. Markets need to be allowed to set prices to balance supply and demand. They therefore need access to market information that is as accurate as possible and will manage risk where it isn't. The place for regulation is to allow trade to happen transparently, with fair access to those markets and to ensure the participants are qualified, managing risk appropriately and financially stable. If it's a consumer market, that the consumers are being treated fairly.
They didn't do that with the power market - the participants didn't have the capital and weren't qualified. Basic stuff and hence all the company failures.
But when states start to set prices or try to control supply or demand (including subsidies) it's completely counter-productive. Just look at how high our fuel bills are compared to countries that didn't 'cap' them for a recent example. Think deiselgate. Green levies being directed into technologies that may not be the best answer (AA batteries powering cars with solid state just around the corner, windmills, 200 years after the invention of the turbine, etc.).
China screws with most of these principles - it controls all market information, doesn't allow debate, directs capital expenditure, picks winners. And one day, maybe soon, we are going to find out just how big a problem that will cause.
It should never have been privatised as the conditions for a market couldn't be met.
That's the attitude of most of these people.
Whilst a term may be used by "marxists" (I struggle to see how anyone could be called that in the modern day and age) doesn't mean that it's a Marxist term. It is simply a term for capitalism gone too far.
Whilst free markets are good things there still needs to be a limit through state ownership of certain essential industries, proper regulation and taxation to prevent these things from happening.
We've tried the free market, trickle down approach for 50 years and all its done is turn millionaires into billionaires and the working class into the working poor whilst enabling the destruction of our planet.
Anyone who can look at the last 30 years but particularly the last 15 and say "I know what went wrong, not enough capitalism" is seriously delulu.
Free markets with regulations is fine with me if the regulations cap or forbid air and water pollution, habitat destruction, use of primary raw materials (vs recycled), over fishing, etc.
As for the markets providing accurate information, prices either of shares or products normally do not incorporate their environmental or social impact. Just measuring that impact and putting a price on it would be hard.
We haven't had any real growth other than population driven since the 70s or early 80s.
Most economists would argue that the main reason we haven't seen growth in the last 14 years is lack of state investment in infrastructure that would enable growth.
Every bit of evidence suggests there is real potential for a green led economic boom for the countries that lead the world in green technology and then sell it around the world. We were performing very well in this sector until the Tories started rolling back on promises and the green agenda. We will now allow others to get there first and spend the next 50 years paying through the nose to import their tech.