Rearranging nation states

Another issue raised by Bolsonaro’s crimes is how the concept of the Nation State can stop being useful to humans.

Legally the Amazon belongs to Brasil and some other South American countries. But the Amazon is bigger than Brasil – it has global importance and we are all affected by its fate. Does that mean the Brasil owes everyone some duty of care in its management? Who can enforce that duty of care? There seems to be something missing because it is not being enforced.

Now think of a human body. One day you wake up, feeling a bit chesty, and suddenly your lungs say: “We’ve had enough. We’re declaring independence. And we’re taking Sundays off.”

“Whaaaa?” You say – in unison with all the other organs. “You can’t do that. We need you. And you need the rest of us.”

“We’ll see about that,” says the left lung. “Yeah, we will,” adds the right lung. “We are clearly definable independent organs and we have the right to do what we want with ourselves.”

“Hmm,” thinks the heart to itself. “Not a bad idea. I might try that myself some day.”

“Yeah, me, too,” pipes up the appendix which can hear the thoughts of other organs.

“Fuck off,” bark the bowels, “noone needs you. you snively twat.”

And so on.

Perhaps we need to revise how we arrange nation states.

The state should not include ownership of the land and natural resources where it happens to be organised. It sits on top of the land natural resources and holds it in trust for the Living Planet. The natural resources are the interconnected living system of which all people and other life forms are part.

You are welcome to use the natural resources, but you need to put them back in good shape when you are done.

I think this is what indigenous people figured out years ago. It is obviously no longer relevant but might be useful for when life is reestablished on the planet and forms of political organisation get discussed.

Posted in Climate change policy | Leave a comment

Taking climate change seriously: regime change, state failure and anarchy

Regime change is where a country or coalition of countries intervene in another country where the leaders are engaging in genocide, crimes against humanity and so forth. Say, hypothetically, a small, rogue state was expanding its chemical industry. It builds a factory capable of producing annually 20 million tonnes of CFC13, a greenhouse gas 14,000 times more potent than CO2.

The rogue state, a thorn in the side of the rest of the world, then says: “When the factory is ready, I’m going to vent 20 million tonnes of CFC13 into the atmosphere every year. That’s gonna fry you all. Unless you pay me (he puts his little finger to the side of his mouth) … one hundred billion dollars a year not to.”

Scientists calculate that if the rogue leader carried out his threat, the ensuing warming would cause more suffering to humanity than previously disposed-of despots Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi and Milosevics together.

After failed, angry diplomacy, the UN agrees on a resolution to dismantle the rogue regime. Even the US voted for it! Although they don’t believe in the greenhouse effect, they do relish the chance to boost the military-industrial complex.

The principle is established that knowingly and wilfully causing the additional emissions of billions of tonnes CO2e of greenhouse gases is likely to cause additional suffering to millions of people and must therefore be prevented.

So in go the cruise missiles and take out the leaders of the rogue state.

It is in this light that I consider Brasil under Bolsonaro which is now deliberately and recklessly ramping up the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

The Amazon is one of the world’s lungs and a fundamental part of the global ecosystem, of life on Earth. Its destruction will add significantly to climate change – perhaps another 1.5 degrees of warming – and loss of innumerable living species.

Bolsonaro’s reckless, pugnacious encouragement of an acceleration in the destruction of the Amazon forest is a serious crime. Steadily it becomes a crime against humanity. Following the logic of the CFC13 instance, the prospect of regime change must come into focus.

I don’t see any political leader in the world with the clout or integrity to push this. This raises a further issue. If the state completely fails in its moral duties, are citizens morally obliged and entitled to step in to do the state’s dirty work?

Anarchy could ensue. But anarchy might just be the best organisational model for tackling the climate emergency just now.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

T3-PIP: the small payment which could save the world…

I have been curious about the idea of lots and lots of small, regular payments by lots of people adding up to a big sum of money. And then this money being put towards saving Planet Earth from man’s desecration.

I remember from accountancy exams that it is best to tax necessities because price elasticity of demand is low. Or is that high? The point being, if people have to pay more for bread, they still buy it because they really need to eat.

I also know that if you want to raise a levy, you don’t call it a tax because right-wing people will reject it. Something like “community contribution” is better framing for Conservatives. Or an insurance premium because that sounds like business.

A lesson from the EU Emissions Trading System is that you place burdens on countable numbers of things (e.g. power stations) rather than uncountable (e.g. cars). And preferably things which ordinary people don’t really care for (e.g. fossil fuel companies and not cars).

The good news is that the kind of money needed to save the planet is very doable. Experts say that $1trn a year would be ample to implement direct air capture to suck up all the CO2 emissions and more. A few hundred billion a year invested in restoration of soils, forests and wetlands would also make a massive dint in global emissions.

From all this emerges T3-PIP. Yup, a silly name.

T3-PIP stands for Telecom Trillion for Trees (that’s the T3 bit) Planetary Insurance Premium.

Anyone who spent time on a telecom’s company telephone helpdesk has a healthy loathing for the telecom sector. Tick – suitable for political bullying.

Countable number of regulated entities. Tick – there are a few big companies dealing with data in each country.

Regular payments by lots of people. Tick – there are like four billion (4,000,000,000) mobile phone subscriptions in the world.

Budapest metro 4, October 2017: some of the four billion subscribers.

Small amounts. Tick – Say, you have four billion with a monthly contribution of $5.21 per subscription, you raise 4,000,000,000 x 12 x 5.21 = $250bn each year. I am saying, controversially, that $5 a month is a small amount for someone to pay for breaking the back of saving the planet’s biodiversity and climate.

Low elasticity. Tick – We need our datastreaming fix. Datastreaming now props up the bottom of the Maslow pyramid.

"And now tell them to add data-streaming underneath"

The charge would be borne by telecom companies and raised on megabytes of voice or data transmitted. In this way it would be progressive since marginal use of data is generally trivial. If the use is important, then people will pay for it.

The funds thus raised are then spent mainly on the large-scale restoration of soils, forests and wetlands, with a portion allocated to direct air capture.

The organisation of the whole thing would have to be outside the hands of politicians and policy-makers. It would have to be arranged by a cartel of the world’s large companies dealing in data. A cartel so powerful and with such noble intent, than it would be impossible for competition authorities to summon the political will to contest it.

Now that several countries have declared a climate emergency, I think it is timely to introduce this scheme.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Tyrannosaurus burgers were ok, but Big Macs aren’t.

Anthropocene ethics is a bit different from normal ethics. The rules change with population size [1]. We need to learn to accept this and live by it, now that we are in an ecological emergency.

If you are a caveman living 60,000 years ago and you need to catch a flight to a very swampy New York for the annual conference on dinosaur security, it wouldn’t be an ethical problem from the point of view of climate change. Yes, the ride would be bumpy – the stone seats uncomfortable, and the worm and locust paté so-so – but there only seven of you on the flight, and there’s only one scheduled flight from London to New York every three months. So we can overlook the emissions there.

If you are making the same flight in the 1970s, as a distinguished professor of anthropology, where there are only a few billion people on the planet, then … well only a very few insightful thinkers know about climate change … and yes there is an oil crisis and air pollution … but the impact is miniscule. Only the rich world has aeroplanes and the flying population is still relatively modest – about one tenth of today’s.

But now if you fly to New York it is very different. Yours is one of five billion passenger flights each spewing out from a few hundred kg to a few tonnes of CO2, each contributing to runaway climate change, whose effects are now well known.

So the same act in one age is ok ethically because it doesn’t cause any harm. But in another age it is a crime except in the very generous, avuncular legal system we enjoy.

The same goes with food. Your Tyrannosaurus burger was actually doing us all a favour back then – no-one liked the aggressive and egoistical Tyrannosaurus Rex, so when we did manage to bring one down with a plucky ,well-aimed slingshot, it was burgers all round and double chips for the lad with the sling. No-one was too worried about the impact of that burger on emissions, deforestation in Gondwana, the dead zone in the Tethis Sea, or plastic packaging clogging up the Panthalassic Ocean. Now, as we all know, or should know, meat eating is implicated in a myriad of ills. ( Now, it is very bad news to eat meat.

That is hard for us to grasp. It riles us. How come if it was ok to eat meat when we were little, it is now no longer ok to eat meat?

We are used to ethical rules being stable, permanent. If something is wrong, then it is wrong, full stop. Like the ten commandments. We also like our ethical rules to be unconditional – if such and such is wrong, it is always wrong. But with environmental ethics, right and wrong change as a function of the population. The more crowded the planet is, the wronger it becomes to eat meat and fly.

Why is that so, when the impact of the individual act is just the same? It is something to do with the “if everyone did” test. When contemplating an act in the Anthropocene age (i.e. the age of billions of humans trampling over all other living things), there is an extra test to apply to see if an act is ethical or not. We have to ask: “What if everyone did this?”

This requires recognising that we are not just individuals (hard to do in an age of individualism). We have to acknowledge that we are also nodes in a vast network of individuals like a swarm of bees. Each thing we do influences others, so that the act of eating the meat burger is no longer just a personal rite. It is a signal to all the others that the act is ok. Giving that signal increases the probability that “everyone else” will do the act. Since by committing the act, we increase the likelihood of others committing the same act, it is incumbent on us invoke the “if everyone did test” to see if that act is ok.

Obviously in times of large population, the outcome of the “if everyone did” test is different from in times of small population. Hence under Anthropocene ethics, when using the “if everyone did” test, we have to be much more careful than we used to be.


[1] Not just population. Technology, too. And other things. But this is a short blog post not an essay.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Take write-offs on the chin; replace investment with legacy

This is a thought I have had great difficulty articulating, but with 120 months to cut emissions by 45%, I thought I would have a go … [1]

There is a sense in much writing and thought about climate policy that investing in mitigating climate change has to be profitable. That is why it is called “investing”. All the focus on mitigating climate change is centred around “investment”. By using the word “investment” we imply that the person who spends the money will make a return for themselves.

We argue that it has to be treated as a for-profit investment in order to attract people to spend money on it. Laws are sometimes changed to to make things become profitable which otherwise were not – through taxes, subsidies and trading schemes.

This assumes that there is always, somewhere, a profitable solution to the equation. What if there isn’t?

Imagine you have a hundred prisoners and one guard with a machine gun. Let’s say the prisoners are not chained up. If all the prisoners charged the guard, then the guard would eventually be overcome. It would be down to the physics of guns and masses of bodies piling on to the guard. He might take out ten, 20 people. Probably no more.

Imagine there is an old cathedral which desperately needs maintaining. A wealthy guy says quietly: “I will put up a couple of hundred million to maintain this cathedral. I get nothing from it, but it would be unreasonable to privatise the building just to finance its maintenance. So I know I will get no financial return. And it is in poor taste to change its name to the Bouillon Soup Incorporated Cathedral. Well, at least if the cathedral is maintained now, the chances of it burning down in a fire are much lower.”

The solution to the problem being contemplated by a prisoner or the Soup Magnate implies a high probability of loss of life or fortune. Yet, for the group, the solution is desirable. Any delay means the prisoners are already lined up against the wall and reinforcements have arrived; the Cathedral goes up in flames.

By framing the climate problem as one must have a profitable solution to those who pay for the solution, we are delaying and we are on a search where there is no guarantee of success.

There is another way of looking at it: we have to talk about write-offs in the interest of life on the planet. And we have to talk about building cathedrals.

There is a pile of equipment we have which we cling to but it is ecologically intolerable: factory farms, meat factories, fertiliser plants, cement plants, steel mills, coal-fired power stations, etc. etc. Virtually all current the owners and financiers of those plants knew or should have known about climate change when they took ownership. They are grown ups. They made their bet, or made their bed. Those assets need to be written off now, and the owners need to take the hit. The banks which have financed them need to take the hit, too.

That view needs to become socially accepted and we don’t need to have sympathy for the owners. Take the hit, it only hurts once.

Once those people have mentally taken the hit, they become more compliant in measures to shut down those assets and replace them with something cleaner.

Do we need what they produce? Yes but we should be able to get by if we are only talking about ten years. For ten years we can muddle by without new cement or steel, and quite a lot of other things.

Building cathedrals: you might say that the return was glory and the cementing of political power; that the funding was stolen from the peasants or the Jews anyway. I am saying: If it makes no return, or it cuts our wealth by 10% or 20%, does that really matter? We have to throw financial caution to the wind for ten years. There is enough accumulated human capital in our civilisation, that if we blow 10% of it on a very rapid transition to a low-carbon so be it.

Let’s blow 10%-20% of our wealth on a legacy which makes no financial return but which preserves life on the planet. Reframe investment as legacy, and the return becomes quiet, personal satisfaction, a knowledge that you are putting things right. The threshold for decision making suddenly becomes lower.

I put a chunk of my own wealth in creating a small native-species forest. It probably preserves its value in a conventional sense but makes no return. Imagine loads of people did that. It is a challenge for anyone with a surplus above what is enough to live off. Hospitals, schools, memorial parks, snooker clubs and cathedrals can all wait. Splurge on nature for ten years.


Another implication of this argument is also the nonsense of competitiveness. There is a mindset that associates tackling climate change with investment and technology and innovation and … competitiveness. I don’t care two hoots about competitiveness when there are 120 months to stop run away climate change. Just get on with it. It’s less than three political cycles. Does being top of the greasy pole really matter that much? At this stage, competitiveness is a mantra of the blinkered who are stuck in a mindset which emergency has made irrelevant.


At the core of this is the question of individual against group. Our values today tend towards the individualistic – everyone has the right to fulfilment in whatever field they want. I am not sure that right pertains any more in the age of climate collapse. I would rephrase it as everyone has the right to fulfilment in whatever field they want as long as it is restoring the natural world or reducing emissions. Sorry for the extreme revision to the theory of human rights, but we are in a critical 120 months which has not happened since the dinosaurs got hit by that meteor 65,633,982 years and 57 days ago. If we continue to mess up then you can fulfil yourself writing video games or searching for prime numbers or designing silent Velcro or organising pink elephant festivals … but it’s like one of the prisoners saying I am not going to rush the guard because I am busy designing a five dimensional swimming school for migrating lemmings. WTF.


[1] I assume that this thing about having to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change is a kind of fiction. I assume that we can’t avoid catastrophic climate change, but we can make things a bit better. Having a short-term target is a really useful motivator for people, so let’s have that target even if it is a bit of a self-deception.


Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment