If those who voted for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in 2016 had voted for Hillary Clinton, Clinton would have been President, not Trump. A mere 77,000 voted for Stein in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsyslvania. Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. Thank you Edward Luce, of the Financial Times for this information.
Stein‘s self-defeating platform was passionately socialist. The same left wing bias bedevils the England & Wales Green Party. Avowed socialists have been confirmed in the leadership election just held. Greens were not responsible for the present ‘break international treaties’ government, but it is irrelevant for its original purpose of preventing ecological disaster.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest…. Oh wait, the forest isn’t there any more. I agree with Jem Bendell and James Hansen just how close we are to ecomageddon,. But will that red mist over the Golden Gate Bridge bring us any nearer to doing anything to even slow our current trajectory?
Professor Bendell does not offer constructive suggestions, but Hansen offers a universal basic income https://www.earth.columbia.edu/users/profile/james-e-hansen (in a TED Talk), , even though he appears not to have heard of it..’
But neither Greta Thunberg, (listen to the scientists), David Attenborough (it is what we all do as indiiduals) (no details), Professors Bendell or Hansen, XR, nor anyone else has yet noticeably slowed the global drift to disaster Professor Bendell says the threat is serious, but offers no plans. Peraps he will comment on this improbable strategy.
I share Wolfgang Sachs’ view that the political divide should be between those who recognize ecological limits, and those who don’t.
When growth is seen as leading to disaster, the old battles as to how to share what the ecosphere can produce will be replaced – by the basic income. Most of the rich will remain (slightly) richer than the rest, but everybody wili be guaranteed basic needs, All will be bound by ecological constraints.
But I have inordinate difficulty in persuading all but a tiny minority that the Basic Income is relevant to saving the ecosphere. It is all somewhere in this weblog, but here is an attempt to put it in a nutshell in bullet points:
- Human populations have been expanding exponentially for 200,000 years
- Once exponential growth has started, raised expectations make it difficult to stop.
- Physical limits end exponential growth suddenly. (Think milk turning sour)
- Per capita consumption may now be more serious than population increase.
- A catalyst is needed to give everyone security as expectations are lowered to what is sustainable..
- No one has yet suggested anything better than a universal basic income.
Ideally someone in the public eye will explain where this logic fails.Tthe absence of any such explanation is why I cannot take ‘Deep Adaptation’ seriously.
But as this logic is only accepted by a minority. I am appealing rather to members of the Deep Adaptation forum, which I have just joined. I am shaky on how to participate.. but if those (few?) members of DAF who agree wirh the above logic, can help to publiciise this approach,
we might yet save the ecosphere..