Sandy Irvine has recently critiqued on Facebook some ideas on climate breakdown. Some. relating to ‘panic’ are recognizably from my blog.
I agree with Sandy that ‘System Change’ is meaningless without something to fulfil it, and I certainly agree that XR is seriously mistaken in not seeing over-population as a component of the problem.
My suggestion: an unconditional basic income backed by eco-taxes is only a first bid. It may not work. What is far more important to me is the total apathy of a selection of the British electorate to the threat of climate breakdown.
In the Batley & Spen by-election (1.7.2021), 0.28% voted for a party concerned about the environment, 0.14%, I in 700, of those who could have voted.
Sandy methodically demolishes my arguments that the events in 1940 are relevant now. But none of that affects my conviction that we face multiple threats at least as grave, (not restricted to the climate); that co-operation across party lines (including redistribution) would be just as appropriate now as it was in 1940; we need a catalyst of some sort to make otherwise ghastly answers acceptable, and that the election demonstrates that whole populations seem not to be interested.
Sandy thinks I take Greta’s ‘panic’ concern too literally. Even here I agree with this as a caveat. But how would he, or anyone else, persuade voters to take seriously the biggest threat ever?
In fact I foresee another rather unpleasant scenario. Not panic, but fake panic will be used to justify Martial Law. The shareholders of multinational companies will escape the worst effect of the economic collapse. The rest will be kept under control. if necessary by reducing numbers. If readers flinch at this, and dismiss my ‘first bid’ attempts to avoid it, I hope they have other ideas ready.
I am desperate to Save the Ecosphere (aka the World), but if Sandy’s Green Blog, with the same aim, is more on the right lines than mine, please say so.