Popular mobilization is crucial

Climate Politics in the Age of Populist Denialism

Leave a reply

Many of us thought that reason would prevail in responding to the climate crisis. If we established that climate change is real, that human activity is the main driver, and that policies and technologies are at hand to deal with the problem, then governments would respond. An aroused public would ultimately demand an emergency response. But we know now that this assumption is naive. Despite all the evidence, a powerful far right, now including some mainstream conservative parties, has assumed a belligerent denialism. Centre-left political mobilization and action thus offer the best prospect for resolving the climate/ecological challenge.

You can have a scientifically rigorous diagnosis of climate change, together with a plethora of reasonable policies to tackle the problem, but if your program lacks a strong coalition and powerful political strategy, it will fail.

The Political/Cultural Problem

The political problem is not only the economic, political and cultural power of fossil-fuel corporations and their allies. Yes, they have used this power, especially in fossil-fuel producing countries, to buttress climate denial of various sorts, and, where denial fails, to dilute and delay climate mitigation policies. Their corporate aim is to sell every molecule of hydrocarbons in their expanding reserves, regardless of the “alleged” climate costs. They are aided in this task by many other corporations that are dependent, in one way or another, on the fossil-fuel industry: ancillary industries and sub-contractors, banks, hedge funds, mutual funds and individual investors with major stakes in the industry; and steel and cement manufacturers. In addition, employees in the fossil-fuel industries fight to preserve their lucrative jobs, many not persuaded by the promise of a “just” transition safeguarding their jobs and pensions. Then, finally, there is capital in general, which will ally with fossil fuels if it appears the climate transition threatens private property and a market economy.

Furthermore, the widespread culture of possessive individualism means that some individuals who would benefit from a GND oppose any constraints on consumer choice. Despite all the discussion of the climate threat, and despite the focus on the anthropogenic causes of the impending disaster, people resist modifying unsustainable life-styles. Many educated and well-off people, though they are well equipped to understand climate science, have chosen not to know about the climate emergency.  They are unwilling to contemplate surrendering the right to travel and live as they please. An ingrained individualism has been nurtured by neoliberal institutions, centrally the view that government has no right to tell people how they should consume or accumulate. This viewpoint is reinforced by thinktanks, and public opinion campaigns financed by fossil-fuel and other corporations. Right-wing parties take advantage of, and reinforce, this mentality.

Right-wing Denialism

Climate change has become entangled in the ongoing political polarization that afflicts rich, and many less-rich, societies. Polarization means it becomes increasingly difficult to institute the changes needed to reach net zero. The Far Right has adopted climate denialism as a key element of its program. A detailed study of six European countries, the United States and Brazil unveils the dynamics of this growing movement.

Conservative populists have cast climate change as a hoax. It is allegedly perpetrated by leftist elites to justify the institution of “socialist” measures: to impose new climate taxes, expand state intervention and perhaps public ownership, cancel freedoms, prohibit the ownership of SUVs and other consumer goods, and welcome waves of displaced climate migrants. This populist message, couched in bizarre conspiracy theories, resonates with those who feel left behind and who refuse to contemplate changing their life-styles. For those left behind, resentment, anger and mistrust grow along with inequality, globalization and the exodus of good jobs, the precarity of livelihoods, a loss of status for whites and males in multicultural, gender-neutral societies, and talk of climate justice and open borders. For those who refuse to change, the right offers reassurance that they do not need to forego their privileged lives. The main beneficiaries of neoliberalism may join this coalition, not because they are neo-fascists, but because it is the last, best option to preserve the power and privilege of fossil capitalism. The result is a volatile coalition that, the more pressing the economic and climatic crisis, the more resolute and reactionary its becomes.

As the political center drifts to the right, even mainstream conservative parties, such as those in the United Kingdom and Canada, have drifted toward denialism. They have, at least, opportunistically opposed modest climate policies, such as carbon taxes.

As the world heats up, climate denialism shifts form. As outright denial becomes untenable, the narrative shifts: yes, climate change is real, and yes, humans play a part, but the main problem is overpopulation, especially in the global South. Thus, we must fortify our borders to keep out the unworthy migrants who have allegedly caused the problem. Conspiracy theories become more bizarre; imminent danger of climate collapse does not squelch but inflames the political division. Reversing climate change is a hard sell.

The Left, the Centre, and Climate Mitigation

By default, effective climate action, if it is to happen, falls to the political centre and the left. Conservative parties and the far right are in denial or in opposition to the alleged “wokeness” of environmentalists. Although some segments of the population will defend their gas-powered SUVs to the end, the Green New Deal is potentially an attractive option for many.  We – all the people – are vulnerable to climate change, and thus we must work together. We can win the struggle by making a just transition to a net-zero carbon economy, within capitalism, through measures that also create a more egalitarian, secure and democratic society.

Although powerful sectors of the business class will resist a fell-fledged GND, other business sectors would be supportive – provided private property rights and markets (albeit differently regulated) survive. The growing number of entrepreneurs in the renewable energy sector will be supportive. Mutual fund managers and banks that have disinvested from fossil fuels may be sympathetic. Some high-tech industries and many academics and some foundations will be on-side. The aim is to forestall a united business opposition to rapid decarbonization.

However, a climate-mitigating political coalition, to be effective, must include what Americans call “liberals” or centrists. The left is not strong enough or united enough to win this struggle alone. It must also appeal to liberals who can still be persuaded that green growth is inadequate and something more radical – “radical-reformism” – is required. The current moderation in climate policy will not suffice, but there is another choice that does not involve abandoning property rights and markets – the supplemented Green New Deal. It rejects both technocratic neoliberalism and Utopianism. The appeal may resonate particularly with those under 40, who struggle with debt, insecure prospects, and unaffordable accommodation, in addition to climate change. We need “radical” liberals for radical reformism!

A high priority in the climate struggle is thus to unite the parties of the left and centre and to defeat governments and parties of the populist right. Can the center and left forge a broad coalition animated by radical reformism? Recent history is not encouraging. Civil society encompasses a variety of social movements and parties, each with its own agenda, whether social, economic, or ecological. The coalition, to be successful, would unite climate activists with liberals, human-rights defenders, non-fossil-fuel trade unions, social democrats, socialists, indigenous activists, and identity-based groups seeking justice. “Progressives”, broadly defined, constitute the majority in most Western countries, but fractiousness weakens their influence.

Avoiding the Worst-Case Scenario

What happens if we cannot mobilize to impel an adequate response to the crisis, if we don not cut emissions roughly in half by 2030? If we are thereafter faced with runaway global warming, two alternative or concurrent, scenarios will emerge.

The first is that geoengineering techniques are tried, and they succeed in partially reducing global temperatures. Granted, many climate scientists dismiss geoengineering as “dangerous nonsense”. It is obvious why climate experts hold this view. Investments in geoengineering would reduce the pressure on governments and corporation to rapidly cut GHG emissions. There is also the knotty question of who would authorize geoengineering. It is an important question because the experiment might shift weather patterns on a global scale. Would nations agree to cooperate on such a momentous venture? Or would one major power act alone, or with only the support of its allies? If the latter, war is a major risk. If one country or bloc undertakes to geoengineer the climate, and that attempt precipitates, or is thought to precipitate, calamitous weather effects for a non-cooperating great power, the outcome might be armed conflict. Yet, despite the risks, accelerating global warming will motivate major powers to resort to geoengineering, with or without global cooperation.

The two most promising geoengineering techniques are stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. Both aim to cool the atmosphere despite the high concentration of carbon dioxide. The former does so by injecting sunlight-reflecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere; the second, by brightening clouds, and thus their sunlight-reflecting capacity. Cloud brightening relies on convection to carry sprayed droplets of seawater up to low-lying clouds. However, even if these techniques were found to be effective, considerable time and immense resources would be needed to reach the scale capable of lowering global temperatures.

Even then, geoengineering is not a cure for global warming. It is only a stop-gap measure. Carbon emissions would not abate, magnifying the greenhouse effect. Geoengineering would, at best, provide more precious time to cut emissions and draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And this limitation brings us back squarely to where we began: the necessity of mobilizing a coalition to support a democratic program for decarbonization and a just transition.

If neither a technological nor a radical-reformist fix happens, you don’t need to be a political scientist to foresee how the crisis will unfold – the second scenario.

Extreme weather events and their dire human consequences will bring to the fore two poles of violent action. The first is fascism, which thrives in crises. With threats to property posed by mass movements and by the left-of-centre alliance behind a Green New Deal, the last resort of fossil capital and the wealthy may be to ally with reactionary political forces. They will see this act (as in the 1930S) as the only way to re-establish order and safeguard power and property. Hitherto climate-deniers on the right may see in the unfolding tragedy an unparalleled opportunity: to appeal to the ethno-nation, casting migrants, immigrants and their alleged “elite” proponents  as the enemy at the gate.

Fortress America, Fortress Europe and Fortress Australia are the antithesis of the Green New Deal. For the fascists, the problem is the migrants at the gate, not global warming. Fascism means abolishing liberal freedoms, closing borders, blaming “aliens”, repressing dissent and regulating national economies while reinforcing existing property rights and ethnic and class hierarchies. It involves abandoning the global South to its fate and reversing globalization in accordance with nationalist priorities. It will breed militarism, as the great powers manoeuvre to capture diminishing stocks of fresh water, fossil fuels and other resources.

Fascism has no viable answer to the climate crisis, or the socioeconomic crisis the latter precipitates. It has recourse instead to conspiracy theories, glorification of the “people” and repression of migrants and others. The worse the climate crisis, the higher the number of climate migrants, the stronger the drum-beat of nativism. This scenario is already playing out.

The other pole of violence will emerge from the climate movement. This movement, so far, has been scrupulously nonviolent in its tactics. Civil disobedience, a form of nonviolent action, has been practised, sometimes effectively, by Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, and indigenous groups, especially in blocking pipelines, new mining ventures, and deforestation of virgin forests. But the failure of democratic protest to bring about a just and sustainable future will bring sabotage of the carbon infrastructure, and indeed destruction of industrial civilization itself, to the fore. Clandestine environmental groups  practicing violence may be seen by many as a legitimate final resort, if ecological disasters push civilizations closer to the brink of collapse.

We should be ready. The climate/ecological crisis can precipitate a political as well as socio-economic crisis. Our task is to ensure that the dystopian second scenario never happens. Radical reformism remains our best hope.

Demonstrates use in climate marches of the phrase: "System Change Not Climate Change"

System Change, Not Climate Change?

Leave a reply

“System Change, Not Climate Change” declares a common sign at climate marches. Is it true?

That depends on what we mean by “system change.”. If it implies that capitalism is incompatible with a stable climate, the sign is incorrect. And that would be an encouraging conclusion. We have grounds for hope if there is an ecologically sustainable form of capitalism. The prospects for “system change” – for overthrowing capitalism – in the next couple of decades are negligible. Change within capitalism is more within the realm of the politically possible.

Eco-socialists, Marxists, most “degrowth” proponents, and many others believe that capitalism is inherently growth oriented. If “grow or die” is the logic of capitalism, the search for a path to sustainability within capitalism is doomed. Economic growth is normally associated with increased throughput of energy and materials, and with the generation of more waste products. Yet infinite growth within a finite earth, we all agree, is impossible. The only environmental option, from this viewpoint, is to fight for a post-capitalist/socialist economy.

But is this logic sound? The idea is that, without growth, capitalism flounders. Static capitalism will fail, it is said, owing to an inevitable decline in investment opportunities, leading to a falling rate of profit. The outcome would be a deflationary spiral of shrinking incomes, growing unemployment, and unpaid debts – ultimately, economic collapse.  However, I find this logic unpersuasive. The real obstacle to ecological sustainability, under capitalism, is not an economistic imperative. Instead, it is the power of sections of capital and the culture of possessive individualism. Whereas an inner logic is immutable, a political-cultural obstacle can be overcome through organization and political action.

“Grow or die” is an incorrect assumption that obstructs climate-change action by suggesting that socialist/postcapitalist revolution is necessary, albeit improbable. If the fight for ecological survival is rather a struggle to shift from one form of capitalism to another, it appears more winnable.

Let’s apply these thoughts to a radical Green New Deal that includes constraints on throughputs in the economy and on pollution. Throughput declines, but this change does not necessarily signify a static or stagnant economy. Output shifts in composition and may even increase.  What capitalism requires to survive is compatible with such constraints.

  • Firms can make profits, to sustain investment levels.
  • The incentive system rewards “effort, thrift and innovations.”
  • Firms remain responsive to shifting consumer demand.
  • An ethos of economic advancement continues.

Competition among firms continues in the Green New Deal. Those that develop more efficient production processes will undercut their competitors with lower prices. Competition will also continue over the quality of goods and services and over the introduction of new goods. In short, innovation and entrepreneurship remain key to success in the new, sustainable economy. Investment will continue, enhancing efficiency. Workers will not bear the burden of adjustment. Just transition includes a job guarantee, job-sharing and shorter hours of work; productivity growth can be shared by workers. Governments will maximize employment by taxing “bads”, such as resource use and pollution, rather than “goods, such as payroll taxes and profits.  Corporate debt will bring some firms down. But massive public investment in the early phase, together with Quantitative Easing will create new opportunities for investment in the green economy. Capitalism will survive constrained throughputs, even though some firms will not. Development will continue, even if growth does not.

A conceptual problem clouds the understanding of alternatives: thinking of capitalism as one specific sort of economy, In reality, capitalism is a variegated economic system with individual types that are shaped by their varying institutional contexts. Capitalism, as classically defined, is an economic system in which free labour (but to what extent decommodified?) works for a wage on privately-owned means of production (but with how much public ownership?) to produce commodities (but with how many public goods?) for sale on the market (but under what sort of restrictive regulations?). The questions posed within the definition underline the reality that capitalism is an umbrella term, under which diverse economies shelter.

Institutional frameworks vary significantly. For example, the Keynesian consensus (1944-late 1970s) rested on a different set of rules than the Washington and Post-Washington consensus (neoliberalism) that succeeded it (1980-present). A Green New Deal would operate under a different set of rules than either of these two.

Institutions thus shape economies; but institutions can be changed. If the rules of an economy permit the exploitation of nature (and labour), then nature (and labour) will be exploited by corporations, to the detriment of society. Why? Because the firms that scrupulously avoid degrading nature (or exploiting labour) will be undercut by competing firms that have no such scruples. The rules of the game (institutions) must be redefined to rule out such exploitation by any actors. And firms can, and will, adjust to the new rules

Thus, the problem posed by climate change is not an implacable economic logic, but a matter of power structures and popular attitudes. It will require a hard struggle to defeat the fossil fuel industry and its supporters, let alone tackle the possessive-individualist mentality. But it can, and must, be done.

Degrowth: Desirable but Improbable

Leave a reply

Degrowth is a growing intellectual movement among those alarmed by the climate crisis. Its proponents envision a desirable world which has not only come to terms with the ecological crisis, but also is more egalitarian and convivial than our current societies, both in the global North and South. Advocates also provide a cogent critique of economic growth. They contend, perhaps less cogently, that capitalism is the problem because it is inherently growth oriented. One finds, in addition, the analysis of many relevant policies, at both the national and global level, for overcoming the climate/ecological crisis and building an egalitarian society. However, the political strategy for moving from our current situation to the desirable world is underdeveloped. It seems highly improbable that we will witness a transformation of capitalism in the next decade or two, let alone a nonviolent transformation.

Some of the terms are confusing. All eco-socialists are degrowthers, but not all degrowthers are eco-socialists (though most are). The degrowth movement is diverse; yet many (probably most) degrowth proponents, together with eco-socialists, believe that system change is needed to safeguard the environment and build an equitable society. Radical degrowth advocates prefer to refer to the future they want as “post-capitalism” rather than post-growth or socialism. “Post-growth” is a suspect term, from their viewpoint. That is because those who believe that capitalism is compatible with ecological sustainability prefer the term “post-growth.” “Post-capitalism,” on the other hand, declares that capitalism is the problem, but avoids the ideological baggage of socialism while implying an anti-capitalist orientation.

Degrowth as a theory and program emerged in France in the 2000s, later spreading to the rest of Europe, and then to North America and the world. Degrowth has long intellectual roots. The movement sides with the famous Limits to Growth report to the Club of Rome in 1972. André Gorz, a French eco-Marxist who wrote presciently about ecological destruction and capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s, is another important influence.

 That the origins of degrowth lie in the universities, and it remains largely an intellectual movement, is not incidental Many books and articles in the degrowth tradition are demanding to read for those who lack training in the social sciences. One wonders who the audience is for many of the books and articles: mainly activist-scholars, it appears. The academic exigency of publish (in specific refereed journals) or perish seems to have molded the expression of degrowth. Yet there is an effort to popularize the approach, such as in the perplexing slogan found on climate marches – “System Change, Not Climate Change.”           

What, in essence, is degrowth all about? I think nearly all advocates would agree the degrowth concerns “an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the national and global levels “- with degrowth starting in the rich countries, but soon including, with technological and monetary assistance, the countries of the global South. Proponents promise a good life for all within the planet’s ecological boundaries.

One problem with this approach, and the criticism that sparks anger in its adherents, is the improbability of achieving this transformative program within a couple of decades (which is the time we have available). The quandary of degrowth is captured by the ironic slogan that was scrawled on the walls of Paris in 1968: “Be realistic. Demand the Impossible.”

  • “Be realistic”: Degrowth’s central idea is realistic. The idea of infinite growth on a finite planet is absurd.

There is, in short, a major political problem with degrowth.

Consider the dimensions of this problem.

  • Who will vote for degrowth (besides you and me)? Degrowth has a negative connotation. “Post-growth” is more positive, if vague. “Post-capitalism” would scare many people – what actually is proposed? Right-wing populists would feast on the doctrine, were it to be a contender for power. They would swiftly discredit the program as the product of “woke” socialists whose real goal is to abolish private property and impose new taxes and restrictions on liberty. (Trump’s White House condemned even a rather tame version of the Green New Deal in 2019 “as seeking to achieve what Stalin tried, and failed, to achieve.”)
  • Where is the mass movement? Degrowth constitutes an intellectual movement, mainly of those associated with universities throughout the world. The doctrine is complex, assuming prior knowledge of economic history, ecology, and social theory. Many of the major works on the topic are unlikely to engage a mass audience.
  • Degrowth in one country will not work.   It is predictable what will happen if a degrowth-influenced government assumes power. Capital flight and capital strike will lead to a decline in the value of the national or regional currency; the resulting inflation of prices and growing unemployment and shortages will produce an economic crisis; and this economic crisis will precipitate a political crisis in which the government backs down or collapses. What is needed is a globally coordinated movement in several countries at once; but such coordination is hard to achieve and is nowhere in sight.
  • Will an ecological crisis galvanize support for a radical degrowth program? It might. However, we encountered such a crisis in 2023 in the form of extreme weather throughout the world, along with the warmest year on record, and it did not lead to a shift to the left. Indeed, a widespread ecological crisis, owing to the insecurity and fear it would unleash, might bolster the far right. Fascist themes of blood and earth and of imposed order might prevail, together with the scapegoating of migrants fleeing ecological and political disasters in their homelands.

In sum, degrowth is acute in identifying continuous economic growth as a problem, though its further argument that capitalism is inherently growth oriented is problematical. Its vision of a future society governed by the equitable and democratic downscaling of production and consumption is highly attractive. Degrowth advocates have also developed an array of worthy policies. But the political strategy is lacking, even though degrowthers recognize the political challenges.

If green growth (as previously argued) is inadequate to the climate challenge, degrowth is impracticable. We arrive at an impasse. But this reform-versus-revolution dichotomy is too crude: there is a third alternative (leaving fascist denialism and eco-anarchism aside): a radical-reformist Green New Deal. A later post will develop this idea.

World Bank suppprts the nmotion of inclusive green growth

Why “Green Growth” Is Not the Answer to the Climate Crisis

Leave a reply

Green growth is the dominant perspective, adhered to by governments, international organizations such as the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, corporations, and most people in their role as consumers.

The bold claim of this perspective is that countries can combine perpetual growth and prosperity with safeguarding ecological conditions for later generations. Such a positive outcome depends on following the right policies and maintaining support for technological development. The right policies include market-corrective and price-based policies, together with occasional green stimulus programs, such as the Inflation Control Act under President Joe Biden in the USA. Regulation, such as fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, are also part of this approach. Technological optimism pervades this viewpoint. Green growth thus focuses on making growth resource-efficient and cleaner, not reducing it.

Green growth entails a struggle without an enemy. Or rather, as Pogo observes in the famous cartoon, “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.” Greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of global warming, and we are all responsible, via our consumption, for these emissions. Neither neoliberalism nor capitalism is identified as problematical from an environmental perspective. To the contrary, the academic school of “ecological modernization” holds that continuing economic growth yields the resources and the middle-class demand for green capitalism.

I’m contending that green growth, though politically possible, is inadequate to the challenge of climate change. Three reasons lead me to conclude that green growth is a risky gamble.

First, we need global CO2 emissions to peak and substantially decline in this decade to have a chance to keep average temperatures below 2̊C. Yet this is not the trend. Global emissions grew by 56 percent between 1990 and 2019. (They dipped in 2020, during the depths of the pandemic, but have risen continuously since 2021). To achieve a prosperous world with net zero emissions, green growth must attain the absolute decoupling of growth from CO2 emissions. Decoupling has spawned a lively, even acrimonious, academic debate. I have space only to touch on that debate.

Although the relative decoupling of economic from emission levels (and other ecological harms) is common, absolute decoupling is rarer and appears insufficient to hold global warming below 2̊ C. Relative decoupling means that economic growth continues, but emissions remain constant or increase less than the rate of growth. Many countries have achieved this goal. Thirty-two countries have also achieved absolute decoupling over a period of 14 years, whereby growth continues while total emissions decline in absolute terms. It should be noted that this decoupling reportedly includes “consumption emissions” – emissions embedded in the goods consumed in a country, though produced abroad. The 32 cases include mainly rich countries that depend on a low-emissions service sector for their well-being. However, how one tallies “consumption emissions,” where polluting manufacturing industries are located offshore and export their goods, is subject to controversy. Also, some countries achieving absolute decoupling are major oil exporters, especially the United States, and the emissions resulting from these exports are not part of that exporter’s carbon tally. And the absolute decline in emissions is only gradual. In any event, heavy emitters such as China and India have not attained absolute decoupling. Unless their emissions peak and then decline in the next few years, we are unlikely to limit global; warming to 2°C – the upper limit proposed in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

Secondly, converting the energy system from fossil fuels to green sources (solar, wind, hydro and perhaps nuclear), at the current level of consumption, will cause widespread eco-system damage, especially in the Global South. This damage will arise from the exponential growth of mining for critical minerals. To build the batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, electrical infrastructure, electric vehicles and so on will require a massive increase in the production of lithium, graphite, cobalt, copper, nickel and rare earths. Global demand for critical minerals doubled between 2017 and 2022, and demand is still on a sharply upward trend. A World Bank study forecasts that, to limit global temperature rise to 2̊ C by 2100, demand for critical minerals – lithium, cobalt and graphite, for instance – would need to increase by 500 percent between 2020 and 2050. Whether sufficient supplies of copper and lithium can be rung from the earth is in contention.

Mining of these minerals exacts high environmental costs. More than half of the reserves of lithium, cobalt and nickel are currently located in the global South. This fact raises the question of whether energy transitions in the global North will occur at the expense of the people in areas of the global South. One of the most dire examples is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a country rich in mineral resources. Vast reserves of coltan, copper, and cobalt feed the electronic revolution. “As global finance gears up for ‘green growth’, the DRC’s resource wealth has again brought violence, robbery and ecological destruction.” A local mining activist trenchantly observed that “inside every phone is the blood of a Congolese person.” World-wide, as demand (for lithium, for example) exceeds supply, new mines are opened in ecologically sensitive areas such as rainforests, tundra, deserts, and, before long, the seabed. Ecological damage arises from some combination of violent gangs, open-pit mining, chemicals that pollute groundwater, tailings that remain contaminated, and dependence on copious supplies of water. Cleanup and maintenance costs are already astronomical. Many abandoned mines require continuing maintenance and even indefinite water treatment to prevent the pollution of waterways. Taxpayers are often left paying the bill. For example, the Faro Mine in the Yukon, abandoned in 1998, may end up costing the government $C2 billion for cleanup and continuous maintenance Such costs may be affordable in a rich country like Canada, but are not so in less developed countries.

This destructiveness, not surprisingly, has instigated local opposition movements, especially when indigenous land rights are also at issue. For example, where lithium mining moves globally, protest follows – whether the mine is located or proposed in Chile, Bolivia, Serbia or Portugal, protests delay or block lithium mines. Environmental damage, actual or predicted, will inspire widespread protests and delay the massive expansion of mining entailed in the energy transition.

The conclusion is obvious: we can’t make a global transition from fossil fuels to green energy at the current level of consumption. Hydro-electricity cannot fill the gap owing to the falling water levels of rivers world-wide as temperatures climb. Nuclear energy takes a long time to build, is very expensive, and has a reputation for danger. There is thus no alternative to reducing demand; for example, instead of thinking we can just shift to electrical vehicles of the same size as we now drive, we will need smaller and fewer vehicles on the road.

Pushing also in the direction of reducing consumption is the issue of land. It appears that we will depend heavily on solar and wind power. If that is the case, we will need to set aside thousands of square kilometers of land and sea for solar and wind farms. Such massive installations will have undesirable social and ecological effects. These include the displacement and dispossession of indigenous peoples and rural communities, together with the potential loss of agricultural land and bio-diversity. In the energy transition, it is not only displaced workers in the fossil fuel industry that deserve justice; so too do rural communities whose land is sacrificed for clear power.

We must guard against saving the earth in one way by destroying or despoiling it in another.

The third reason for skepticism about green growth is its technological optimism. It is certainly important to continue to invest heavily in promising technologies to reduce emissions. A technological breakthrough may happen. But can we count on it? Many highly touted green technologies are either ineffective, or too expensive, or too dangerous:

  • Carbon Capture and Storage: requires an expensive and carbon-intensive infrastructure and confronts the dangers of leakage from underground CO2 storage and the contamination of groundwater.
  • Direct Air Capture: exorbitantly expensive to capture carbon from the atmosphere, though some project costs will fall to $US100/tCO2.
  • Nuclear Fusion: has been touted for decades as a carbon-free energy source but it has never proven viable; it uses more energy to create fusion than it produces.
  • Small Modular Reactors: their design, financial viability and dangers are in question.
  • Nuclear Energy: Can new designs overcome the problems: it is expensive and carbon-intensive to build reactors, takes years to construct, and carries dangers in the proliferation of nuclear wastes and nuclear weapons.
  • Green Hydrogen: Perhaps the best bet, but it will take immense hydro, wind or solar energy to produce green hydrogen on a large scale.

Betting on a technological fix to arrive in time is risky. And geoengineering will not ride to the rescue. Even if it works,  it is not a cure for global warming, but rather a stop-gap measure. There is no alternative to reducing emissions and drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

In sum, green growth is not the answer to the challenge of climate heating. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

Climate and Capitalism: Is System Change the Answer?

Leave a reply

This 55-minute lecture assesses approaches for surmounting the accelerating climate crisis. i focus on the desirability, viability, and potential feasibility of these approaches.

The argument is simple.

What is possible (Green Growth) is inadequate to the challenge of climate change, whereas what is necessary and desirable (Degrowth) is impossible in the short time available to us. To escape this impasse, we need to forego reformism and radicalism in favour of radical reformism – a supplemented Green New Deal.

Report to the Club of Rome

The “Earth for All” Report: Good Policies, Inadequate Politics

Leave a reply

It is a harsh truth: no matter how sound the analysis of a problem and no matter how reasonable and progressive the proposed policy solutions, without a workable political strategy, the vision is more in the way of wishful thinking than a practical guide.

Good Policy

The latest report to the Club of Rome – Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity – falls victim to this truth. It does so, even though the volume is the outcome of collaboration among a multitude of eminent scientists and economists, and with impressive institutional support. The report presents many good ideas about how we might break out of the “business-as-usual” pattern to deal decisively and rapidly with the earth’s ecological decay. Its authors do not ignore the obstacles to the transformation, but they seem at a loss to know how to deal with them.

The report presents an appealing vision of a future world, a world that is ecologically sustainable, equitable and reasonably prosperous. It follows the ethos of The Limits of Growth, a report to the Club of Rome published five decades earlier. This earlier report created controversy in claiming that growth of industry and population was driving the earth close to its environmental limits. The current report accepts environmental limits, claims that the earth is breaking though these limits, and suggests what can be done to avert the looming catastrophe.

It advocates a “Giant Leap” to be achieved within a generation. Five laudable “turnarounds” will usher in this earth for all. They include an end to poverty, a reduction in gross inequality, empowering women, forging a food system that is healthy both for people and the ecosystem, and a transition to clean energy. It is a world which many of us would like to inhabit.

The authors declare that the five turnarounds are practicable in a period of about 30 years. The cost of this transformation is only 2-4 per cent of global income each year.

Obstacles and Technical Solutions

But, the report stipulates, gross global Income and wealth inequalities cannot continue at their present levels. They give rise to economic, ecological, and political pathologies. Concentrated economic power leads to concentrated political power, and hence to governmental resistance to turnarounds that threaten privileged interests. In addition, the wealthiest global ten per cent account for about half of all GHG emissions. This inequity cannot continue, say the authors. Nevertheless, the top ten per cent of income earners globally continue to do well under the earth4all model. By 2050, the top ten per cent will still account for 40 per cent of global income, down from the current 60 per cent.

The transitions will, the report acknowledges, be socially disruptive. To minimize disruptions (and opposition), generous safety nets will need to be established in all societies. A good idea is a “Citizens Fund” that distributes a “universal basic dividend.” The dividend will accrue from fees levied on the “commons” – on the use of natural resources (including freshwater), on the polluters of land, water and air, and on companies exploiting public data and knowledge. Each individual citizen will receive an equal disbursement, as an acknowledgement that the commons belong to all.

Nationally-based programs will be supplemented with international, mainly North-South, transfers. “Earth for all” includes the low- and middle-income countries, which must be compensated while also playing their part in reclaiming the natural world.  International transfers of income and green technology from the wealthy countries to the less wealthy (some already promised but not delivered) are necessary parts of the Great Leap. Intellectual property rights, which usually depend in part on public research organizations for innovations, will not stand in the way of the needed “green” technological diffusion.

The benefits from this giant leap will accrue to all, rich and poor, North and South. Benefits include clean air and water, sufficient and healthy food, the end of concern about ecological collapse, and a greater human harmony. It all sounds good.

But Where Is the Political Strategy?

But how will this giant leap be achieved?

The report acknowledges that the “winner-take-all” capitalism that emerged in the late 1970s is the major obstacle. Privileged elites will not surrender their exalted life-styles willingly. Right-wing populism, with its denialism of climate change, is a major problem. Thus, social movements will need to mobilize to overcome the political obstacles and clear the way for the five turnarounds, the report suggests. The authors cannot be accused of ignoring the political hurdles.

But acknowledging the obstacles is not enough. What is needed is a feasible political strategy. The latter consists of four interrelated elements: the goal(s) to be achieved, the agent who will mobilize to press the needed changes, the target of their political actions, and the tactics that might be effective. The report scores highly only of the first criterion.

The goal is clear and highly appealing: a giant leap to an egalitarian, just, and ecologically sustainable world by means of five interrelated turnarounds.  So far, so good. But the “winner-take-all” capitalism stands in the way. How will this economic system be transformed, and into what? On these questions, the report is ambiguous. It doesn’t mention socialism as an option, but instead opts for an ambiguous “Earth -for-all” economy. Is this a reformed version of capitalism? A lacuna lies at the centre of the analysis.

Who are the agents of this Giant Leap? Apparently everyone. To achieve the goal, the report contends, an “engaged majority” must demand that governments act decisively. This majority will draw on “left and right, the centrists, greens, nationalists and globalists, workers and employers, rebels and traditionalists.” These social forces will come together in a powerful social movement. Such a plan is naïve. Populist parties, many of them climate deniers of one sort of another, command wide support. What will bring the disparate agents together in a common endeavour? If reason ruled the world, a socio-ecological transition would already be underway.

Who are the targets against which political action should be directed? The report does not provide a clear answer. The “winner-take-all” economy is a target for sure, but precisely what elements of this destructive economy – corporations? bankers? government? – are the enemies to be persuaded or overturned? The detrimental role of populist parties is alluded to, but no analysis of how to enlist or eliminate these entities is provided.

Effective tactics for dealing with opponents and impelling governments forward are unaddressed. Social movements will play an important role. That’s reasonable. However, how they will organize, who they will mobilize, and how they will influence government and abolish the existing predatory economy is not addressed. Some references are made to conventional politics, though without acknowledging that these tactics have been tried and found wanting.

Conclusion: Politics Are Key

Does the absence of a realistic political strategy mean that we consign “Earth for All” to the category of mere wishful thinking? That judgment is harsh. Even if the myriad authors do not know how to get it done, they do show the technological and financial feasibility of a radical giant leap. Globally, we have the money, the knowledge, and the means to save the earth. That’s important to state.

Nevertheless, the difficult task of constructing a realistic political pathway to a social-ecological transition remains. How do we rid ourselves of the winner-take-all economy, and what takes its place? What coalitions will cohere to take on the largest challenge in human history? This important part of the story remains to be written.

Image, supplied by Ukraine Department of Defense, illustrates the ferocity of the Ukraine war

In Ukraine, Neither Side Is Blameless

1 Reply

Richard Sandbrook and Arnd Jurgensen

Richard Sandbrook is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at University of Toronto. Arnd Jurgensen lectures in international relations at University of Toronto. Both are executive members of Science for Peace, whose board members debated the issues discussed here.

One prevalent explanation of the war in Ukraine pins the blame on Russia; the other, which has little institutional backing in the West, but far more outside the West, blames NATO. Proponents of each view largely ignore the opposing interpretation. Both sides agree the war is illegal under international law, but there the agreement ends. For those who blame NATO, their declaration of the illegality of the invasion is largely a formality because, from their viewpoint, NATO provoked Russia to invade Ukraine. For those who blame Russia, the invasion is not only illegal under international law but also a travesty of “unprovoked” aggression.

Yet neither side is blameless in this terrible war. To acknowledge that fact is an important step to envisioning a just and lasting settlement.

Conflicting Viewpoints

Consider first the anti-NATO interpretation. They see the existence of NATO as a problem. It is not hard to understand why.

NATO portrays itself as a strictly defensive club of democracies that share basic values and is compelled to admit other North Atlantic states that ascribe to them. Yet all military alliances need an enemy to justify their existence. The external threat that gave rise to the alliance – the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – disappeared in 1991, as should have NATO. NATO lost an opportunity in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union expired, to build bridges to Russia. NATO’s expansion to the borders of Russia and its willingness to arm and contemplate future membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO were provocations. Russia considers Ukraine as within its cultural, economic and political sphere of influence. Russia, of course, does not have a “right” to a sphere of influence, any more than does the United States in its own neighbourhood. But spheres of influence have always gone along with Great-Power status, whether we think it justified or not, Russia would inevitably feel threatened if NATO and the European Union incorporated Ukraine, with its close historical links and proximity to Russia, within its “Western” sphere.

However, from the opposing viewpoint, Russia for its part has made aggressive moves that frightened its neighbours. Eastern European states were not forced to join NATO; they applied for membership because, from historical experience, they mistrusted Russia. Within historical memory are Stain’s partnership with Hitler, 1939-1941, and the postwar imposition of Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe. In recent years, the intervention of Russian forces in Georgia and Moldova and covert use of Russian troops in Ukraine’s Donbass in support of separatists have rekindled the fears of former Soviet client states. Moreover, the brutality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has stirred further resentment and fear in neighbouring states, such as Finland and Sweden (who are now joining NATO). 

In short, neither side is without some responsibility for this dreadful and unnecessary war.

Blame and Conflict Resolution

Apportionment of blame for the current conflict, however, is currently a distraction from the need to bring the war to an end. Such discussions must at some point take place to determine issues of reparations in the context of negotiations, but they must not derail attempts to engineer a ceasefire. The same is true concerning international law. Clearly the invasion of Ukrainian territory was a violation of the sovereignty of a recognized state, and it is, as such, a crime of aggression (which, as Justice Robert Jackson of the Nuremberg tribunals explained, is the highest crime under international law as it entails all the evils war necessarily brings with it). The United Nations Charter also recognizes the right to self-determination of nations, which implies the right of the Donbass and Crimea to declare their independence from Ukraine (a principle that NATO endorsed with its armed intervention in Kosovo).

These principles, again, raise issues that must ultimately be resolved; but disagreements on these issues must not stand in the way of ending the killing and destruction in Ukraine. Other oft-cited issues are also irrelevant to a settlement, including corruption in Ukraine or autocracy in Russia. These issues are relevant for the people of Ukraine and Russia, as are the personality traits of their leaders, but not to the need to end this war.

At present, neither side is inclined toward negotiations and a cessation of hostilities. Negotiations will have to take place sometime – unless Russia achieves total victory (and it’s not clear what that would look like), or Ukraine does (which is highly unlikely, given Russia’s much larger pool of recruits for the armed forces and actual and potential firepower). A Ukrainian victory would also risk igniting a nuclear war. However, if the upcoming Ukraine counter-offensive ends in stalemate, both sides may judge that their interests are best served by negotiating a peace settlement.

Reconciling Conflicting Principles

What might be the terms of a settlement that is (barely) acceptable to both sides? If we accept the shared responsibility for this war, each side will have to compromise. A resolution demands that two principles of international law be recognized: the inadmissibility of aggression leading to land-grabs, and the right of peoples to self-determination, if a clear majority opts for this outcome. Boundaries will have to be drawn that reflect the preferences of those who live within them. Unless the borders reflect such preferences, they will remain unstable and a future source of conflict.

There is no prospect of the ongoing destruction moving in the direction of resolving this dimension of the conflict. Instead, a UN monitored process of consultation and popular referenda would be most likely to produce such an outcome. To have legitimacy, the vote must include those who have fled their homes as well as those who have stayed. These boundaries will also have to be secure. In the long term, that can only happen through neutrality for Ukraine, border guarantees, and the creation of a new security architecture including Russia (perhaps including the withdrawal of long-range missiles from Poland).

Recognizing the Dangers, Forging Peace

The need for action is acute. If Ukraine should strike into Russian-held territory, using western weapons and intelligence, the possibility of escalation and nuclear war rises ever higher. Ukraine has the right to defend itself, but can Ukraine ever defeat a nuclear power with a much larger armed forces, even with weapons from the West?

To let this conflict fester poses an unacceptable risk to the survival of humanity. The only sane position is peace negotiations now – based on the notion of shared responsibility for this war.

Disinformation, or Debating with a Bot

Leave a reply

Disinformation, or Debating with a Bot

“Disinformation” undoubtedly exists as a form of warfare in this contentious age of artificial intelligence. But how do we know disinformation when we come across it? The obvious danger is that officials and activists will dismiss strongly opposing views as disinformation, not to be taken seriously, or, at worse as potential sedition to be investigated.

An article in the March 30th (2023) Globe & Mail (Toronto) exemplifies this danger. Entitled “Pro-Kremlin Twitter Accounts ‘Weaponizing’ Users to Erode Canadians’ Support for Ukraine, Study Finds,” the article suggests that 200,000 Twitter accounts have been established in Canada that propagate the Kremlin’s line on Ukraine. The purported aim of this campaign is to undermine Canadian support for the Ukrainian government. Three centres, two at universities, conducted the study, which was supported financially by the Canadian and United States governments. Allegedly, the disinformation campaign succeeded to the extent that both “far right” and “far left” Twitter accounts extensively “shared’” the disinformation on their own networks.

What is the evidence for the impact of this alleged disinformation campaign? The article notes that 36 per cent of respondents in a recent Canadian survey believed that NATO was responsible for the war, or were unsure. Clearly, the writers of the report (entitled “Enemy of My Enemy”) believe that NATO holds no responsibility for the war. To uphold the opposite view is tantamount to disinformation or being uninformed.

And yet the idea that NATO provoked, or at least did not act to prevent, the war is not far-fetched or merely Russian propaganda. Neither side is blameless. NATO portrays itself as a strictly defensive club of democracies that share basic values and are compelled to admit other states that ascribe to them. Yet all military alliances need an enemy to justify their existence. The external threat that gave rise to the alliance – the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – disappeared in 1991, as should have NATO. NATO lost an opportunity in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union expired, to build bridges to Russia. NATO’s expansion to the borders of Russia and its willingness to arm and contemplate future membership of Ukraine in NATO were provocations. Russia considers Ukraine as within its cultural and political sphere of influence; Russian fears of NATO’s intentions are thus not unreasonable. However, Russia for its part has made aggressive moves in Georgia, Moldova and elsewhere that have rekindled the fears of former client states of the Soviet Union. The brutality of its invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable. Neither side is without some responsibility for this dreadful and unnecessary war.

Consequently, debates are raging in academic and activist circles over apportioning responsibility for the conflict. Moreover, the left (contrary to the report’s view of a homogeneity of views) is split in its interpretation of the war, leading to many acrimonious exchanges.

It might be argued that the report itself is an example of disinformation. The article that describes the report provides no criteria for distinguishing the Twitter accounts engaged in disinformation, other than that the views they propound cohere with themes of the Russian narrative. The report veers toward the Red Scare techniques of the Cold war. But let’s be clear: you can advocate the view that NATO shares part of the blame for the war without in any way being part of Russia’s disinformation campaign.

Having said this much, I must also state that disinformation does exist. I know because I have debated with a bot. On a Canada-wide network of peace activists, I have been critical of those who jump to the conclusion that the war in Ukraine is a NATO war. Bots entered the intellectual fray, but one of them was very poorly programmed. It acted like a parody of a bot: in one message, claiming to speak on behalf of the ostensibly Western-oppressed “Third World” (this archaic term itself being a tip-off); in the next as an outraged representative of the people of the Donbass, allegedly brutalized by the “Nazi” government in Kyiv. It was over the top in the most extreme version of Russian disinformation and bombast. It was a stupid bot. Bots like this give artificial intelligence a bad name.

The global situation is complex. Yes, there is disinformation undertaken by Russian agencies. But let us be careful not to equate disinformation with any ideas that conflict with the dominant Western narrative. If we allow that to happen, we will find ourselves returning to the era of US Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, with his “unamerican activities committee” rooting out fellow travelers of the Communists.

Those in Canada who dissent on the war are not “unCanadian” and rarely are they engaging in disinformation. We may disagree with their positions. Yet that disagreement is a healthy aspect of our democracy. And yes, disinformation and bots are real; but some of the bots are laughably stupid.

Science for Peace and Sustainability? Not without a Strategy

Leave a reply

Humanity faces the gravest crisis in our short history. Our governmental leaders are unwilling or unable to grapple effectively with two looming catastrophes: escalating climatic disasters and growing arsenals of increasingly deadlier nuclear arsenals, combined with rising tensions among nuclear powers. Authoritarian tendencies throughout the world make matters worse, as far-right deniers and conspiracy theorists rise to the fore.

Grappling effectively with these problems certainly benefit from scientific analyses of why the problems exist and of what might serve as technically sufficient policy or programmatic solutions. But what is often lacking is an answer to the crucial how question: How, realistically, will the solution be implemented? By whom? With what coalition, ideology and set of tactics? Without rough answers to the political question, we are engaging merely in dreaming about desirable worlds.

The dangers are now so acute that only drastic action can avert catastrophe. Even holding global warming to a disastrous 2 degrees Celsius this century will require emergency action akin to mobilization for war. Preventing an accidental or intentional exchange of nuclear weapons requires a transformation of the dominant, military and nationally based conception of “national security.” With the proliferation of both nuclear-armed countries and the number and destructiveness of nuclear weapons, we are all becoming increasingly insecure. Avoiding the real possibility of civilizational collapse means rocking the boat, disrupting the status quo.

The challenges are urgent and complex; who will lead the way in confronting them?

Where Are the Universities? Think Tanks?

You might think that such emergencies would galvanize universities and colleges to prepare their students and the public to understand and transform this dangerous world. But universities are reluctant to take on this role. Of course, we can name commendable exceptions and scattered units within universities dedicated to environmental and peace and conflict studies. Dependent on financial contributions from governments, corporations and rich individuals, universities and colleges do not confront power structures and ingrained beliefs that buttress a dysfunctional system. This reluctance places a burden on independent think tanks in civil society.

Science for Peace, the Canadian voluntary organization to which I belong, is similar with independent thank tanks elsewhere striving to apply scientific knowledge to resolve crises. The value of a think tank lies in taking the longer view. Although it may engage in campaigns on immediate conflicts, its vocation lies in presenting a comprehensive and integrated vision of what should and can be done to remedy wicked problems.

Canada’s Fraser Institute, like similar right-wing think tanks elsewhere such as the UK’s Institute of Economic Affairs and  the US’s Cato Institute, is effective for three reasons. All its research and public education not only focus on promoting free-market solutions, but also reflects the vision. ingrained individualism, and paradigmatic policies of neoliberalism. Obviously, the massive funding that this viewpoint garners from corporations and the rick augments the Institute’s influence.

Science for Peace and other NGOs think tanks will never match the Fraser Institute (or the other two) in highly paid consultants, salaried professional managers, access to key policy-makers, and slick presentations. However, the positive side of our reliance on committed volunteers and shoe-string budgets is independence from both government and corporations. We can voice the uncomfortable truths about what needs to be done, and how.

Thinking Strategically

We “can,” but do we?

Not as well as we might like. If we are taking the longer view – if that is our goal – then what is the coherent message? As for Science for Peace, our “Peace/Ecological Manifesto” does integrate our thinking by linking the ecological crisis to the nuclear/militarist challenge and by offering a theoretical alternative to the current order, namely, “human security”.  We do not propose, however, a plausible pathway to the new order. And our webinars, lectures, statements, petitions, and articles address disparate, albeit important, topics. We have elaborated the severity of the nuclear and climate crises, though too much emphasis on the scope of the emergency can induce paralysis rather than action. We have probed the nature and origins of instances of human suffering, such as the war in Ukraine. Lately, we have focused on the promise and tactics of nonviolent resistance, especially in the context of authoritarian tendencies. And we have taken principled stands in petitions and statements on a range of peace and climate issues. Principles are important; however, sometimes the message is received by those already converted. In short, our offerings are pertinent, though not informed by a coherent strategy. Science for Peace is typical in this respect.

Independent think tanks can be more effective if they have a consistent and reasonable message, which they relay through all means of influence. Yes, we need a luminescent vision of a peaceful and sustainable world. However, the harder part is imagining and forging the feasible pathways for surmounting our predicament. Our research and education should reflect an integrated perspective.

A “pathway” is akin to a strategy in the broad sense. A strategy involves answering three questions:

  • Why does the problem arise? What essential features of the prevailing system lead to the negative outcomes?
  • What needs to be done to remedy this defect and therefore remedy the problem?
  • How will what we need to be done, get done? What is the politics of the transition? Who (what groups) will be the agent of the transition? Using what tactics?

In general, the “why” and “what” questions are easier to answer than the “how” question. The conservative think tanks have answers to all three questions. Independent think tanks emphasize the “what,” with some attention to “why.” Without answering the last question, however, one is engaging only in dreaming. We have enough scientific knowledge  to know what to do, but we don’t do it. We need to focus on how what needs to be done, gets done.

Reform, Revolution, or What?

What is the strategy? It doesn’t need to be spelled out in detail; we don’t have all the answers.

We are in the business of helping to avert two looming catastrophes. My view is that we should be explicit about the need for structural/system change, though without mentioning either capitalism or socialism (as both terms are vague and are weapons used in ideological/political warfare). We might use the more neutral term ’market system’: is there any doubt that the market system is obsolete when it is rapidly undermining the ecological basis of all life? We can oppose the market system, which destructively treats nature and labour as commodities, while still accepting the importance of markets in real commodities in adjusting supply to demand. “Human security” and “Postgrowth” are other positive terms to employ.

Too often analysts and activists frame the macro-strategic choices as revolutionary or reformist change. That is a false dichotomy. For one thing, system change does not necessarily mean the end of capitalism. Yes, we cannot continue with endless growth, especially in the rich countries. However, those who propose movement toward a steady-state economy, an idea associated  with ecological economist Herman Daly, or “postgrowth,” implicitly or explicitly contend that this transition can be made within capitalism. Through-puts of energy and resources remain constant, but competition, entrepreneurship and innovation continue to produce goods more efficiently and invent new products. A steady-state economy or postgrowth is our future.

For another thing, reformism breaks down into two categories: policy reforms that can be implemented within the existing power structures and economic system (usually the position of policy analysis as practised at universities), and radical reforms that will become feasible under foreseeable conditions (that is, human agency can shape the sociopolitical conditions). The last is implicitly, for example, what climate scientists are tending toward in their opaque reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists claim that “holistic and transformative change” is required to hold global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. Those changes could only come about via a shift in power structures. In short, the difference between those arguing for system change and those arguing for policy changes is, in some cases, not as deep as it may appear.

What we should aim for is radical reformism with respect both to global warming and to the nuclear threat arising from the international balance of power/terror system. Reforms within neoliberalism are unlikely to resolve the challenges; revolutionary change is not only highly uncertain, but also costly in human suffering. Radical reformism, linked to nonviolent civil resistance, is the only feasible and humane approach in averting catastrophes.

In Conclusion

This advocacy of radical reformism is becoming mainstream. On the issue of postgrowth, for example, consider this project funded by the European Research Council with a budget of €10 million. On the issue of dealing with the threat of nuclear annihilation, refer to this appeal, which is supported by many prominent scholars and activists globally. The manifesto calls for the establishment of a new international order, based on a massive global mobilization of civil societies.

The conclusion is simple. We are in a dangerous era in which boldness is essential in dealing with looming catastrophes. For Science for Peace and other peace and climate organizations to act effectively, we must offer an integrated, reasonable, comprehensive, and radical message.

The barrel of a revolver tied in a knot to symbolize nonviolence

10 Essential Things to Know about Nonviolent Resistance

Leave a reply

  1. Two traditions of thinking about nonviolence hold sway.

    • Principled nonviolence: Adherents decide to use nonviolent means on ethical grounds. In the Gandhian approach, nonviolence is a way of living a moral life.
    • Pragmatic nonviolence: Activists, seeking to win rights, freedom, or justice, choose to use nonviolent techniques because they are more effective than violent means in achieving these goals. Gene Sharp is a major proponent of this approach.

However, in practice, principled proponents, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, proved to be adept at pragmatically using nonviolent methods, Equally, some pragmatists, in their hearts, are pacifists as well as hard-headed realists.

  2. Nonviolent resistance (NVR), from the pragmatic viewpoint, is a form of political struggle.

Unarmed civilians employ coordinated and unconventional methods to deter or defend against usurpers and foreign aggressors or to overturn injustices, though without causing or threatening bodily harm to their opponents. Examples of nonviolent methods include demonstrations, protests, strikes, stay-at-homes, boycotts, street theatre, derision of authorities, rebellious graffiti and other communications, shunning of collaborators, building alternative institutions, and many more.

  3. NVR is not a doctrine of passive resistance or acceptance of weakness.

It is not passive, but active, demanding coordinated and unconventional struggle. Far from evincing weakness, NVR demands immense courage of resisters, who are aware their resistance may lead to injury, imprisonment, torture, or even death. NVR is thus not for the weak-hearted. It is a strategy only for those with the determination to persist in the face of repression.

  4. The aim of NVR is to build support and undermine the pillars of the opponent’s power.

NVR movements succeed by building up a large and diverse following of activists, winning over passive supporters, and precipitating demoralization and defections among the pillars of the established order (the police, army, bureaucrats, insiders).

  5. NVR is stunningly effective in comparison to violent campaigns.

Erica Chenoworth, who has undertaken path-breaking research, discovers that, of the 627 revolutionary campaigns waged worldwide between 1900 and 2019, more than half of the nonviolent campaigns succeeded in achieving their goals, whereas only about a quarter of the violent ones succeeded. Nonviolent struggles are twice as effective as violent struggles. Yet the influence of the military-industrial complex, the widespread glorification of violence in popular culture and the equating of masculinity with domination obscure the superiority of nonviolence as a political stratagem.

  6. The leverage of NVR stems from the dependence of rulers on the consent of significant sectors of the population (Gene Sharp).

Rulers cannot rule if bureaucrats obstruct, armed forces and police hold back, people shirk work and ignore laws and regulations, and foreign powers desert. Rulers do not need the support of entire populations; the Nazis could destroy Jews, Roma, the mentally and physically disabled, socialists and union leaders, so long as the ethnic Germans acquiesced to their rule. Hence, the task of nonviolent resisters is fourfold: -to build a large and diverse movement -to attract the loyalty of passive supporters -to encourage the defection of pillars of the regime -to build support in the international community.

  7. The effectiveness of NVR depends on many factors. 

  • Organization: to attract the support of a large and diverse group of supporters.
    1. prior coalition building ensures a core of committed activists
    2. as unity is critical, the coalition needs both clear, unifying goals, and processes to resolve internal disputes
    3. leadership is needed, but it must be decentralized, to make it difficult for rulers to decapitate resistance by arresting its top leaders.
  • Training in nonviolent methods: an effective movement must be able to shift tactics as circumstances change. Noncooperation with the regime is one of the most effective set of methods in the playbook, but these methods require coordinated action.
  • Strategic and tactical agility: protests and demonstrations are only the public face of nonviolent action; effective movements employ the full panoply of strategies, depending on the degree of repression by the rulers. The resisters win when they attract the support of passive supporters and precipitate mass defections among the pillars of the established order.
  • Nonviolent discipline. Rulers respond to NVR by neutralizing the leaders of the opposition, undermining the movement’s unity, and fomenting a violent response on the part of protesters. If the last tactic works, the government can then justify violent repression. It can portray the resisters as a terrorist threat. The resisters can succeed only if it is clear to everyone who is the major threat, namely a ruthless and violent governing elite. Thus, destruction of property (such as the destruction of bridges as enemy forces advance) is permissible, so long as it entails no loss of life or injury. Collaborators of the regime can be shunned, but not assassinated. Such nonviolent discipline is difficult to maintain. It runs counter to one’s inclination to respond to violence with violence. The need for discipline underlines the importance of training.

  1. NVR can be employed to deter and defeat foreign aggressors, as well as to prevent or overthrow dictatorships and establish rights and justice.

Civilian-based defence, in the words of Gene Sharp in his book of that name (1990) is “a policy [whereby] the whole population and the society’s institutions become the fighting forces. Their weaponry consists of a vast variety of forms of psychological, economic, social, and political resistance and counter-attack. This policy aims to deter attacks and to defend against them by preparations to make the society unrulable by would-be tyrants and aggressors. The trained population and the society’s institutions would be prepared to deny attackers their objectives and to make consolidation of political control impossible. These aims would be achieved by applying massive and selective noncooperation and defiance. In addition, where possible, the defending country would aim to create maximum international problems for the attackers and to subvert the reliability of their troops and functionaries.” History holds many examples of civilian defence, including in Denmark and Norway during Nazi occupation and in Czechoslovakia following the 1968 “Prague Spring,” when a Warsaw Pact army sought to reimpose rigid Soviet-style Communism.

  1. NVR became less effective in the period since 2010.

Although nonviolent campaigns worldwide reached unprecedented numbers prior to the 2020 pandemic, their success rate fell. Erica Chenoworth in her 2021 book Civil Resistance provides the statistics. (However, nonviolent resistance remained more effective than violent campaigns.) Chenoworth also offers some tentative reasons for this comparative decline. She highlights “smart repression” by governments and strategic errors on the part of resistance movements. Each is a major subject, and each demands attention if NVR is not to repeat the errors of the past. Restrictions accompanying the pandemic (2020-2022) dampened NVR by rendering mass gatherings illegal and/or dangerous.

  1. “Smart repression” needs to be better understood and counteracted.

Nonviolent movements’ strength depends on maintaining unity among a diverse following, sustaining nonviolent discipline, and demonstrating versatility in nonviolent methods. Determined rulers will undermine the movement’s unity, provoke violent responses, and neutralize the leadership. Digital means of communication have assisted NVR movements in mobilizing large numbers of protesters and in spreading their messages via social media. But there is a dark side to digital technology. It allows governments to enhance surveillance of dissidents, identify leaders, and sow discord through misinformation campaigns. The effectiveness of the next phase of NVR depends both on neutralizing smart resistance and returning to the fundamentals of nonviolence: organization, training, nonviolent discipline, and the versatile use of the full panoply of nonviolent techniques