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
What do a Tory Peer, Selwyn Gummer (Lord Chadlington), David Sumner ( Sumner Group Holdings) and the Sanchez Perez family (drugs money, laundered through Gold mines) have in common?
It’s another company-saving a £50 million PPE contract shaggy dog story
Connections, connections
What a start to the story
“A bulletproof truck trundled down the road in downtown Lima, guarded by 18 policeman
They were wearing body armour & wielding high velocity rifles
No-one was taking any chances
This was a Special delivery for Peruvian Prosecutor for an anti drug trial
That was in 2011, the same year that Lord Chadlington’s daughter got married in Chadlington to Henry Allsopp.
Who was there?
Yes Kirstie Allsopp of Location, location, location and all this Covid nonsense fame) is his sister
Camilla, his Godmother
Jeremy Hunt
Cameron
Well. Come on. Lord Chadlington had been chair of the local Witney Conservative Association. It’s only fair.
Hang on. Julian Wheatland, Director of SCL Group/ Cambridge Analytica had also been chair of Witney Conservative Association...and campaigned for his mate Cameron
Are we sure Julian Wheatland and his side kick Alexander Nix were not there too @JolyonMaugham ?
I mean. They move in the same North Oxford circles.
It’s another company-saving a £50 million PPE contract shaggy dog story
Connections, connections
The *staggering* tale of a Tory Peer and a \xa350m PPE contract. https://t.co/SH2qxOmfQ4
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) December 10, 2020
What a start to the story
“A bulletproof truck trundled down the road in downtown Lima, guarded by 18 policeman
They were wearing body armour & wielding high velocity rifles
No-one was taking any chances
This was a Special delivery for Peruvian Prosecutor for an anti drug trial
That was in 2011, the same year that Lord Chadlington’s daughter got married in Chadlington to Henry Allsopp.
Who was there?
Yes Kirstie Allsopp of Location, location, location and all this Covid nonsense fame) is his sister
Camilla, his Godmother
Jeremy Hunt
Cameron
Well. Come on. Lord Chadlington had been chair of the local Witney Conservative Association. It’s only fair.
Hang on. Julian Wheatland, Director of SCL Group/ Cambridge Analytica had also been chair of Witney Conservative Association...and campaigned for his mate Cameron
Are we sure Julian Wheatland and his side kick Alexander Nix were not there too @JolyonMaugham ?
I mean. They move in the same North Oxford circles.
On Jan 6, 2021, the always stellar Mr @deepakshenoy tweeted, this:
https://t.co/fa3GX9VnW0
Innocuous 1 sentence, but its a full economic theory at play.
Let me break it down for you. (1/n)
On September 30, 2020, I wrote an article for @CFASocietyIndia where I explained that RBI is all set to lose its ability to set interest rates if it continues to fiddle with the exchange rate (2/n)
What do I mean, "fiddle with the exchange rate"?
In essence, if RBI opts and continues to manage exchange rate, then that is "fiddling with the exchange rate"
RBI has done that in the past and has restarted it in 2020 - very explicitly. (3/n)
First in March 2020, it opened a Dollar/INR swap of $2B with far leg to be unwound in September 2020.
Implying INR will be bought from the open markets in order to prevent INR from falling vis a vis USD (4/n)
The Second aspect is now, that dollar inflow is happening, and the forex reserves swelled -> implying the rupee is appreciating, RBI again intervened from September, by selling INR in spot markets. (5/n)
https://t.co/9kpWP7ovyM
https://t.co/fa3GX9VnW0
Innocuous 1 sentence, but its a full economic theory at play.
Let me break it down for you. (1/n)
91 day TBills at 3.03%. Interest rates are even lower than RBI has them.
— Deepak Shenoy (@deepakshenoy) January 6, 2021
On September 30, 2020, I wrote an article for @CFASocietyIndia where I explained that RBI is all set to lose its ability to set interest rates if it continues to fiddle with the exchange rate (2/n)
What do I mean, "fiddle with the exchange rate"?
In essence, if RBI opts and continues to manage exchange rate, then that is "fiddling with the exchange rate"
RBI has done that in the past and has restarted it in 2020 - very explicitly. (3/n)
First in March 2020, it opened a Dollar/INR swap of $2B with far leg to be unwound in September 2020.
Implying INR will be bought from the open markets in order to prevent INR from falling vis a vis USD (4/n)
The Second aspect is now, that dollar inflow is happening, and the forex reserves swelled -> implying the rupee is appreciating, RBI again intervened from September, by selling INR in spot markets. (5/n)
https://t.co/9kpWP7ovyM
1/ To add a little texture to @NickHanauer's thread, it's important to recognize that there's a good reason why orthodox economists (& economic cosplayers) so vehemently oppose a $15 min wage:
The min wage is a wedge that threatens to undermine all of orthodox economic theory.
2/ Orthodox economics is grounded in two fundamental models: a systems model that describes the market as a closed equilibrium system, and a behavioral model that describes humans as rational, self-interested utility-maximizers. The modern min wage debate undermines both models.
3/ The assertion that a min wage kills jobs is so central to orthodox economics that it is often used as the textbook example of the Supply/Demand curve. Raise the cost of labor and businesses will buy less of it. It's literally Econ 101!
4/ Econ 101 insists that markets automatically set an efficient "equilibrium price" for labor & everything else. Mess with this price and bad things happen. Yet decades of empirical research has persuaded a majority of economists that this just isn't
5/ How can this be? Well, either the market is not a closed equilibrium system in which if you raise the price of labor employers automatically purchase less of it... OR the market is not automatically setting an efficient and fair equilibrium wage. Or maybe both. #FAIL
The min wage is a wedge that threatens to undermine all of orthodox economic theory.
1/4 Most people, especially academic economists, think that the controversy over the minimum wage is a contest over facts. It's not. It's a contest over power, status, and wealth. It is just like the contest over racial and gender justice.
— Nick Hanauer (@NickHanauer) January 17, 2021
2/ Orthodox economics is grounded in two fundamental models: a systems model that describes the market as a closed equilibrium system, and a behavioral model that describes humans as rational, self-interested utility-maximizers. The modern min wage debate undermines both models.
3/ The assertion that a min wage kills jobs is so central to orthodox economics that it is often used as the textbook example of the Supply/Demand curve. Raise the cost of labor and businesses will buy less of it. It's literally Econ 101!
4/ Econ 101 insists that markets automatically set an efficient "equilibrium price" for labor & everything else. Mess with this price and bad things happen. Yet decades of empirical research has persuaded a majority of economists that this just isn't
5/ How can this be? Well, either the market is not a closed equilibrium system in which if you raise the price of labor employers automatically purchase less of it... OR the market is not automatically setting an efficient and fair equilibrium wage. Or maybe both. #FAIL
You May Also Like
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x