1st (cf. @MGSchmelzer): there is no reason to assume that a massive productivity- & hence production-boom will lead to reduced emissions, because it will increase production&growth, & it is those two variables that global greenhouse emissions track most closely. #Degrowth.
Until 2050 we'll likely see "a #supercycle in investments in 'clean' energy infrastructure, 'clean' transportation & everything that's required for the '#green' transition."
There's so much bullshit in here, I'll unpack some of it in a
1st (cf. @MGSchmelzer): there is no reason to assume that a massive productivity- & hence production-boom will lead to reduced emissions, because it will increase production&growth, & it is those two variables that global greenhouse emissions track most closely. #Degrowth.
Every time capitalism has made massive productivity gains (e.g. w/ the #steamengine; the taylorist #assemblyline; computers), that has led to a *radicalisation* of capitalism as a mass production system (as opposed to earlier versions, where luxury goods were for elites),...
So there's no reason believe that a new round of capitalist accumulation (#accumulationbydispossession / #primitiveaccumulation) - in this case: some kind of "#greencapitalism - will in any way positively impact emissions rates, but every reason to believe the opposite...
I would like to look into this, as it speaks to an often-overlooked issue: the relationship between different phases of capitalist development, such as imperialism, fordism, & post-fordism, connected to energy regimes (coal-based, oil-based, renewables-based capitalism)?
The question is: when one new phase of capitalism starts - & (cf. abramsky, mitchell, malm) these are often connected to specific energy regimes: coal, oil, gas... renewables?) - what happens to the structures (institutional, material, etc.) that constituted the past phase?
Would a renewables-based "green capitalism" simply supersede & replace (much of) what came before? That claim is a necessary tool in the #greencapitalist (GC) box, since the only way their argument makes sense is if the expansion of GC means less fossil capitalism in turn.
Well... no. It wouldn't, & here's some empirical claims to support that statement:
a) Consider the progression of "modes of production" (MoPs), from "slavery" to "feudalism" to capitalism: there is today, in quantitative terms, more slave-labour than during the high-time of
the slave trade & the golden triangle.
There is also, today, more feudal, quasi-bonded labour in the world than during the high time of European feudalism, usually (in Eurocentric history) taken to mark the era of dominance of that MoP.
What happens here (cf. Althusser)...
is that MoPs don't replace one another; the new, dominant MoP *articulates* the old MoPs & their structures (labour organisation, etc.) *to*, & renders them productive *for* itself.
A massive expansion in GC-mining, for example, would no doubt lead to an extension of the
most gruesome, old-fashioned types of mining, including in quasi-slavery & bondage-conditions.
b) consider the progression of energy regimes (closely linked to that of different phases of cap. dev.): from renewables (pre-indust. revolution) to coal to oil (w/ some nuclear)
to gas & then, inshallah, to renewables.
Now, do you believe that the oil age meant that less coal was being burnt? That more renewables means burning less fossil fuel?
It might not surprise u that that's not what happens. Every new energy regime is a massive adrenaline-
shot in capitalism's arm, it becomes much more productive, further extends its (formal&real) subsumption of the world under its regime of constantly accelerated production. In order for this to be effective- returning to the article above - there need to be huge investments
all over the world, existing but maybe even defunct production units have to be kicked into shape again, the whole productive & therefore destructive edifice of global capitalism shudders into action once again where before, for the past 12, but more likely 25 years, there
has been a massive crisis of overaccumulation & underinvestment ("cash-glut", "Investitionsstau").
Need real examples of this? Take a look at the @EU_Commission & its fabled #GreenDeal: a "green" programme that centrally involves building new #fossilgas-infrastructures...
Read the guardian-piece: "'Things like copper, nickel & cobalt are all likely to see a boost from the extra demand to build infrastructure. Even steel & petrochemicals will be needed,' said Midgeley."
Not satisfied, want to hear the same from a forward-looking capitalist?
The head of #Mitsubishi Heavy Industries told the @FT that "hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture & nuclear power would all be needed to meet the global goal of 0 emissions." Meaning: every available technology will be milked for all it's worth in the push to expand production.
More from Economy
Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You get the impression from the eco-socialists and degrowthers that humanity wouldn\u2019t face the threat of climate change or biodiversity loss if it weren\u2019t for capitalism (or rather, if it weren\u2019t for capitalist modernity).
— Leigh Phillips (@Leigh_Phillips) February 2, 2021
But I see no evidence to suggest this is the case.
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
