Magazine article Monthly Review

Notes from the Editors

Magazine article Monthly Review

Notes from the Editors

Article excerpt

As Fred Magdoff notes in his article in this issue, the Royal Society of London - one of the world's oldest (founded in 1660) and most respected scientific bodies - declared in its 2012 report, People and the Planet, that the environmental threat to the planet as a place of human habitation is now so serious that it is necessary for humanity to "develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth" (http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/people-planet/report/). In other words, a radical break with capitalism's laws of motion is called for.

Behind this startling conclusion on the part of the Royal Society lies a nascent revolt of climate scientists against the dominance of capitalist economics in determining climate-change policy. Thus Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester published a 2011 article on "Beyond 'Dangerous' Climate Change" in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society which argued that the impacts associated with the 2°C threshold have now been revised upwards, so that what had earlier been seen as marking the threshold "between acceptable and dangerous climate change," is now recognized as representing the threshold "between dangerous and 'extremely dangerous' climate change" - of the kind threatening the survival of humanity. Yet, according to their argument, scientists, in an effort to accommodate themselves to the economic status quo, have downplayed this fact, as well as the fact that existing national commitments with respect to the 2°C threshold cannot possibly prevent extremely dangerous climate change - since realistic assessments would require a break with "the primacy of economic growth" and the implementation of radical socioeconomic changes. "Put bluntly, while the rhetoric of policy is to reduce emissions in line with avoiding dangerous climate change, most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions" (http://rsta.royalsocietypubhshing.org/ content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html).

More recently, Anderson and Bows declared in an article on "A New Paradigm for Climate Change" in the September 2012 issue of Nature Climate Change: "Put bluntly, climate change commitments," aimed at avoiding the 2°C threshold now seen as representing extremely dangerous climate change, "are incompatible with short-to-medium-term economic growth (in other words, for 10 to 20 years) The elephant in the room [the primacy accorded to economic growth] sits undisturbed while collective acquiescence and cognitive dissonance trample all who dare to ask difficult questions." The failure of most scientists to acknowledge publicly what they know - the impossibility of avoiding the 2°C in a context of continued economic growth and that present climate commitments threaten extremely dangerous climate change - they write,

stems from how deeply the tendrils of economics have permeated into climate science... all to appease the god of economics (or, more precisely, finance). . . . At the same time as climate change analyses are being subverted to reconcile them with the orthodoxy of economic growth, neoclassical economics has evidently failed to keep even its own house in order [i.e., it is confronted with a serious and continuing economic crisis that belies its "central tenet" of a self- regulating market]. This failure is not peripheral. It is prolonged, deep-rooted and disregards national boundaries, raising profound issues about the structures, values and framing of contemporary society. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.