Glasgow

The next meeting of the Conference Of Parties (COP) will be in Glasgow in the middle of Nov. and the climate movement, such as it is, is trying to come up with a strategy that can mobilize people in a way to affect the gathering. And affect the future of the planet. The tension results from the fact that everyone admits the process to date has been a failure, contrasted with a vague hope something positive can arise from this EVENT ( a particular moment in history). I was hitchiking through Scotland many decades ago and caught a ride into Glasgow with a truck driver who warned me that the part of the city he would be dropping me off in (it was late at night) was one of the most dangerous places on the planet. I had no idea Glasgow had that reputation but it was confirmed by others I met in my travels later. My memories are vague but nothing bad happened and I made my way to Inverness the next day where I was adopted by some firemen on holiday who kept me drunk for three days straight. Part of me wonders- if COP is a dangerous illusion ( like US elections and legislating), wouldn't it be more provacative to simply ignore it? Treat it like a non-event unworthy of our attention. Maybe just have a big funeral and bury the shit show once and for all. Because if you invest hope in it you are just Charlie Brown at the moment Lucy pulls the football away. But with much greater consequences.

Sacrifice Zones

One of the contentious debates on the ecological left concerns replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal (maybe small hydro). On one level, this debate centers on the word "replace". Are ecosocialists advocating the construction of enough renewables to provide the same amount of energy now being produced on the planet? Producing even more to accomodate expanded social and economic benefits to more and more people? Or should we be thinking in terms of reductions and limits to production? This controversy moved front and center after the Gibbs/ Moore film in which renewable energy was dismissed outright due to the impacts of developing these sources. ( lithium mining, cement and steel production, etc..) Where techno-optimists believe there are unlimited terwatts raining down, just waiting to be utilized, those with a philosophical "small is beautiful" or "buen viver" outlook think the climate justice movement can sell simplicity in an age of neurosis. Then there are the Deep Green folks who just want to jettison modernity all together. A great example is the mining of lithium to build the storage capacity that's nneded for electric vehicles ( and other new technologies). Much of this mineral exists in an area of South America and there are environmental concerns as well as imperialistic when it comes to production, processing and shipping. Some lithium exists in Nevada but there is an endangered plant (buckwheat)that could be harmed by the mining. Or a rare trout species. Everything has a cost. Something and/or someone gets sacrificed in the end. Even if you could return to a pre-civilization eco-utopian primitivism, there would be consequences, damage, fatalities. The tendency is to see these questions as either / or, but it might be there is some rational balance, a certain amount of sacrifice we are willing to accept (and mitigate) for a certain anout of social "good". This is actually the task of seeking justice, why it is envisioned as scales. The keys are having a true politics to establish the Good, and a real way to enforce the mitigation.