I really love the St. Augustine quote because it embraces anger as an epistemological tool that, when paired with the virtue of courage, leads to meaningful action.
This stands in stark contrast to stoicism, which denies anger's epistemological, ontological, and ethical value, telling us to accept what we cannot change. For this reason, I see stoicism as a philosophy of resignation rather than empowerment.
Interestingly, stoicism has seen a massive resurgence in our culture since around 2010—coinciding with the alarming acceleration of climate change. It's important to remind people that we do hold the keys to our material reality, and that the Stoic way of life, rather than fostering ethical courage, promotes a form of resignation that borders on cowardice. True ethical responsibility lies in recognizing our role in this material unfolding.
I see Stocism as a coping mechanism. Most people feel the anger but also feel powerless. They may be preoccupied with greater needs, such as trying to survive. Stoicism is a method to remain same in an unjust, insane world. But yes, it does not solve the problem one is angry about.
Henrik I just have one question, and I think I need to preface it with saying this is not a question about justice, fairness or morality, all incredibly important things, and all felt strongly by all humans.
But: isn’t the problem with your suggestions exactly what you write: that it may work? If the world’s wealth is redistributed to the poor (however it is done), the poor will use it to improve their standards of living, ie consumption, exasperating the entire problem.
The globe needs to degrow and lower resource use. This is only achieved by lowering consumption (obviously in the North). The lower, the better. We almost can’t imagine how low we should go, but it’s probably below living like the Amish, or Bangladeshians.
Looking at that from any angle - behaviorally, sytemicallly (economics, societally), geopolitically, game theoretically or historically - all make it clear: we ain’t gonna do it. We flatly refuse. And also, even if we wanted to, we can’t even imagine how to without having capitalism crash, pulling us all down with it. We basically can’t and won’t stop using fossil fuels, and we can’t continue using them.
The solutions are WAY outside the Overton window. Way, way, way outside. Such as encouraging senicide: altruistic self-sacrifice to relieve society from the burden of an old person. The paradigm shifts in consciousness we need are, quite frankly, so huge that it is naive to ever imagine them happening fast enough to mitigate much of the impending collapse.
Thanks for your feedback. I need criticism to be able to strengthen the argument. Here is how I see it:
1. The advantage with GCC is that it can be implemented easily from the top. If we start with a smaller number, such as $20 / tCO2, the effect on the global economy would be small. Thus, we have the option to test the plan.
2. I agree with you that people are neither rational nor altruistic. However, I believe that the global elite (aka the WEF crowd) may be interested in avoiding the collapse of the global world order. We will reach the political and social tipping point before we reach the climatic ones. If we continue with unabated climate change, it will soon lead to uprisings, revolutions, and wars. The elites might prefer higher taxes to the guillotine. I wrote of this in a previous post: https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/a-problem-of-moral-philosophy
3. We must also look at the geopolitical situation. Despite the desperate attempts of the Biden administration, it is now clear that the Global North does not rule the world. We will soon reach a point where the US, EU, China, Russia, and others will have to sit down for tough negotiations. GCC could be part of such negotiations.
4. I am under no illusion that I live in a democracy anymore. The voters in Sweden (where I come from) were not asked whether they wanted to sacrifice 200 years of neutrality and join NATO. Important decisions are above the pay grade of ordinary voters.
I appreciate Henrik's depth and clarity of reasoning and agree with almost all of his arguments - except the GCC idea. Simply because the proposed solution remains within the system (capitalism) that has created the problem. I understand that this seems to be the fastest implementable measure, but it has its drawbacks, which include the aforementioned increase in consumption by the poor.
Regarding the reduction of consumption and how low it should go, Václav Smil has an answer in his book Energy and Civilization. "Some societies have been able to secure adequate diets, basic health care and schooling, and a decent quality of life with an annual energy use as low as 40–50 GJ/capita. Relatively low infant mortalities, below 20/1,000 newborns; relatively high female life expectancies, above 75 years; and an HDI above 0.8 could be achieved with 60–65 GJ/capita, while the world’s top rates (infant mortality below 10/1,000 newborns, female life expectancies above 80, HDI > 0.9) require at least 110 GJ/capita.
There is no discernible improvement in fundamental quality of life above that level."
Conclusion:
Decent quality of life can be achieved with annual energy consumption 60-80 GJ/capita (which can be restored by the ecosystems within planetary boundaries). However, consumption of 300 or 385 GJ/capita in the US or Canada (in 2015) is a stupid waste of the energy and resources that requires 5 planets Earth. But, of course, the American way of life is non-negotiable...
Yes, humanity, a rogue species, is destroying the biosphere which is always in the way of civilization, a scab growing on this planet. Rogue species post:
The Keeling Curve illustrations perhaps intend to alarm people about climate change. Recent data-wrangling indicates that this planet was a lot hotter than even the extended top of that curve, for most of its existence. “A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature”, E.J. Judd et al.
Thus the frequent statements that “the planet is dying” are alarmist nonsense. The existential threats to humans are, in order of severity: Nuclear weapons/nuclear war, resulting from there being no genuine civilization on this planet; the proliferation of plastics into every part and level of the web of life; then lastly, the burning of fossil fuels which enables this over-population of the planet.
Climate change does not represent climate destruction; the climate is what it presently is, if you change it, it is now in that state. It is not a destructible entity, unless the Earth’s magnetic field collapses and the atmosphere is blown off (like Mars).
The chart on global energy demand is nice except that it should go back to the 1950s. And what was wrong with the 1950s? Life was good then, we did NOT need all this extravagance which has followed. People ask “what, do you want to destroy civilization and go back to the Stone Age? How about to the 1950s? For plastics we had bakelite, many small items came in flat metal boxes. Virtually no plastics. The use of fossil fuels ENABLED this massive population increase; both MUST be wound down in tandem.
In the slide “The solution to our problems is obvious,” the first two points are excellent, the last two are questionable. Fossil fuels are deliberately made cheap by governments which want votes. The whole economy revolves around the supply of cheap energy slaves. In making them artificially more costly, you untie a currency peg and destabilize your food supply, since farmers are in a pay-wall, or should I say a “sell-wall” and absolutely cannot pass along higher energy costs - they would just have to eat those costs.
Saying that Capitalism is an algorithm is the most naïve definition of it ever. Capitalism is the legalization of theft. The basic tenets of civilization are embodied in the Ten Commandments. Could Capitalism exist if “Thou shalt not steal” was fully respected? It amplifies the crudest aspects of humanity embracing individual greed and accumulation. It is about the polar opposite of Steiner’s Threefold Social Order, which, being in Switzerland, you can look it up at Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Switzerland.
The “market economy” is absolutely incapable of solving any aspect relating to Nature: the economy is an externality to Nature, see:
The “market economy” has been tampering with environmental issues far too long, to wit: carbon offsets.
Then the article falls off the rails, with the slide: “Global Climate Compensation.” Oh, sorry, that’s the name of your org! But it stinks. “We only need to agree on the price of CO2 emissions.” Wow, that’s easy! Not!
“All fossil fuel producers” - including Russian oil and gas in pipelines to China and India? Are you kidding me? So that the carbon signal is represented in all your toys made in China? Not! In what currency? Who keeps them from lying? You have no idea what has happened to the world economy and financial system in the past 3.5 years under the Biden admin. The US$ is no longer a petro-dollar. It is no longer the world reserve currency. The BRICS nations are going to push the Axis of Evil (USA-NATO-Israel) off to the side where they belong. You need to drop everything and read Jeff Rubin’s book https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/714717/a-map-of-the-new-normal-by-jeff-rubin/9780735246119
The economy as you knew it no longer exists, so prepare to reboot all economic notions.
Then there is the nonsense about redistributing the fund among the world’s nations. Through war zones? To the Taliban? You are presuming a civilization, which does not exist. Who exchanges the currencies? The exchange and inter-banking system has fractured and the global South no longer trusts IMF and World Bank. When a person with no experience in monetary theory starts pontificating about “guaranteed annual income” or “global yearly income,” my first question is “what is your currency peg?” The next would be “Don’t you realize that the financial system would eat that money for lunch, that such income level would be a new floor?”
For a simple notion of currency peg, and actually quite stable in value over time, think of a loaf of bread. I consider its value almost constant over time, remember I said “value” not price. Price varies by variation in the value of the currency, and by population level. You heard this here first: The number of units in currency assigned to the VALUE of a loaf of bread MUST increase with an increase in population. AND, if you hive out a chunk of the economy (raiding oil’s value) and try to turn that into free revenue, you have just increased the number of currency units assigned to one loaf of bread; thus the financial system has again eaten your lunch. Poverty, like climate, cannot be abolished since it is relative. Poverty (my definition) is “Sulking in a state of denied affluence.” Stop sulking! The “good life” of the global North was a MISTAKE; do not try to emulate us!
re: “Problem: It might actually work”
The 200-300 companies around the world are NOT going to cooperate with this scheme, not to mention that they sell by long-term contract or by spot-price systems. That notion is totally impossible to achieve; the world economy is fracturing steadily away from any kind of globalization. “Business models that depend strongly on fossil fuels are invalidated.” Oh, like farming? A farmer CANNOT pass on increases in energy costs; they produce but not price, they are a special segment of the economy in which no wages are paid. See
No regulation? Oil companies are going to hand over your fund without use of compelling force? Dream on.
Yes, global North has caused the problem, but same as Marx’s dialectic, all people everywhere are both victims and beneficiaries. This massive human population cannot continue without fossil fuel usage; both must be wound down in tandem. We go build wells for them, sell them fertilizers, then wonder why they put 40 million people in postage-stamp-sized countries. That “goodwill” was a fallacy.
If a carbon tax at source, or in other words a fee for the privilege of carbon-mining (in forestry called “stumpage fee”), could work (but it can’t possibly), the funds should go into a structure such as the UN Green Fund so it mainly goes to the global South as reparations, mitigation and adaptation, with the concurrent requirement that they end their quest of “development.”
To pay part of the income back to people in the global North is a short-circuit, a bribe to encourage acceptance. Let them eat cake.
Here’s my letter to The Vancouver Sun, most of which was printed in their Sept 21 edition, page A17, at the bottom:
Dear Editors:
re: “No free lunch with climate change,” Vancouver Sun Opinion, 17 Sept, p A8
The notion of an ever-rising price on carbon to fight climate change remains an urban myth. Are there people who are too cheap or pigheaded to switch to an alternative fuel, that we must encourage them to do so with a price signal? The problem here is that there IS no alternative fuel in great-enough supply to replace fossil fuels, as Europeans are presently figuring out (see Jeff Rubin’s book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/714717/a-map-of-the-new-normal-by-jeff-rubin/9780735246119). This massive human population was enabled by fossil-fuel usage; to solve our predicament both must be wound down in tandem. A first step toward that end would be reducing the energy consumption of the global North which is typically 30x world-average. A high tax on all energy could push consumption in that direction. On a finite planet we cannot keep demanding more and more energy consumption; we need to find a simpler life more in balance with Nature.
---------------
In “GCC - a rational solution to our problems” - “We need to stop using fossil fuels, but we don’t know how quickly it can be done” Yes, we do - when we wind down either population and/or consumption, since population times consumption are inextricably tied to fuel usage. THAT is “degrowth.” In a democracy, the pickup drivers (who are armed), will NOT vote to impair their fuel supply.
It is a fallacy for people in the rich North to muse about “We should do this or that…” That notion is just so much malarkey. No such thought regimen can be implemented lacking a proper civilization, meaning a (global) society that has ended war as an instrument of policy many years ago. That also implies meaningful world governance and the total abstinence from international and corporate theft and covetousness. Achieving that is job #1; until then, all other thoughts and words are wasted.
Hi Kathleen, I am glad you liked my lecture. We seem to agree on most points, but you have given me some additional arguments to use in my upcoming presentations:
1. Fossil fuels have indeed enabled the overpopulation of the planet, which is why we need to get rid of them.
2. Plastic is made from fossil fuels, which is why we should tax fossil fuel extraction and not carbon emissions. GCC would automatically impose a tax on plastics.
3. As I showed in the presentation, the introduction of GCC would be beneficial for the Global South. Thus, China, India, Russia, and others would automatically be on board.
4. It is fascinating how people get upset about giving money to the Global South for doing something good. We currently give a lot of money to nasty dictators to pay for raw materials.
5. Your statement “that also implies meaningful world governance and the total abstinence from international and corporate theft and covetousness.” That sounds nice, but you do not provide any ideas on how to make it happen. My argument is that even if we cannot lock up all the crooks, we can at least make them pay a hefty fine.
6. The statement “our planet is dying” is a shorter way of stating that we are now in a process of thermodynamic decay, where photosynthesis is no longer capable of keeping up with the combined combustion processes from burning forests, combustion engines, and intensive meat production. Carbon dioxide and methane are the gases emanating from a rotting corpse. In addition to being easy to measure, greenhouse gases are the symptoms of the disease.
“A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.” I am not claiming that GCC will solve all our
problems. However, taxing fossil fuels is the largest lever we have if we want to act fast. Effective activism requires well-defined goals, which is why I also support the ecocide movement. The governments of the world (roughly 200) need to require any fossil-fuel-producing company (less than 300) to pay a fee to a global fund. Companies that do not comply are guilty of ecocide. This does not sound that difficult.
And finally, the "narcissism of small differences" is one of the main reasons for the failure of the environmental movement. Moral absolutism has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and destroyed Western democracies. I recently found a good quotation from the German author Jean Paul (1763 - 2025): "In order to get to the truth, everyone should try to defend the opinion of their opponent." That is really good advice.
Professor Nordburg, you are missing my main points. Plastics production has to cease, not just be taxed then they are back on the road. GCC CANNOT “impose a tax” on any nation that does not wish to participate. Even if they could be coerced into doing so, if you extract a free value from the fuel supply chain, everything will carry on unchanged; you have simply caused a bit of inflation; the financial market has eaten that amount for lunch. There is no feasible way to “give” money to the global South. Through the USA-based IMF and World Bank, which have been thoroughly discredited? To the Taliban? You cannot carry money to the many remaining uncontacted tribes, they don’t want you coming near them and they have no use for money. Like I said, all such tax revenue should go to the UN Green Fund (or other such fund) and not fed back to the stupid consumers of the global North as a buy-in bribe. There is no “thermodynamic decay”; the things disturbing photosynthesis mainly involve our destruction of the oceans, as I made perfectly clear in https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-total-eclipse-of-the-earth
The End-Permian extinction had about the present level of greenhouse gases, but the big problem was the ocean acidification and anoxia. You CANNOT reduce fossil fuel use without either drastically reducing population and/or consumption and a tax cannot entice people to switch to another energy source which does not exist (see my letter to the newspaper, and READ JEFF RUBIN’S BOOK!! If you were able to reduce consumption by even 10%, as supposed “degrowth,” remember that the Great Depression was a drop of only about 9% in global GDP. And you could enforce ecocide by what - International Court of Justice, when they cannot even end a genocide ongoing in plain sight? Again, saying “The governments of the world need to require…” is more of the “WE” need to this and that” while any such notion is totally dependent on a functioning world government. Meanwhile, it is just bafflegab.
I respectfully disagree. You are stuck in the old colonial thinking of the Global North. Fortunately, it looks like the US and the EU are rapidly losing power.
That's exactly what I was saying, that the West (as per Rubin's book) is being sidelined. I don't know where you see any colonial thinking. So I mentioned some overpopulated countries in the global South. So what. Why does Germany have 80 million people in an area the size of Montana? Either you can't or don't want to think deeply enough to understand these issues. Calling for proper world government is colonial? Looking at Earth from Space, see the wars going on? Actually destroying Nature for political or territorial gain? Why would there be wars if this planet actually had a civilization? THAT is problem #1 to solve.
I really love the St. Augustine quote because it embraces anger as an epistemological tool that, when paired with the virtue of courage, leads to meaningful action.
This stands in stark contrast to stoicism, which denies anger's epistemological, ontological, and ethical value, telling us to accept what we cannot change. For this reason, I see stoicism as a philosophy of resignation rather than empowerment.
Interestingly, stoicism has seen a massive resurgence in our culture since around 2010—coinciding with the alarming acceleration of climate change. It's important to remind people that we do hold the keys to our material reality, and that the Stoic way of life, rather than fostering ethical courage, promotes a form of resignation that borders on cowardice. True ethical responsibility lies in recognizing our role in this material unfolding.
I see Stocism as a coping mechanism. Most people feel the anger but also feel powerless. They may be preoccupied with greater needs, such as trying to survive. Stoicism is a method to remain same in an unjust, insane world. But yes, it does not solve the problem one is angry about.
Henrik I just have one question, and I think I need to preface it with saying this is not a question about justice, fairness or morality, all incredibly important things, and all felt strongly by all humans.
But: isn’t the problem with your suggestions exactly what you write: that it may work? If the world’s wealth is redistributed to the poor (however it is done), the poor will use it to improve their standards of living, ie consumption, exasperating the entire problem.
The globe needs to degrow and lower resource use. This is only achieved by lowering consumption (obviously in the North). The lower, the better. We almost can’t imagine how low we should go, but it’s probably below living like the Amish, or Bangladeshians.
Looking at that from any angle - behaviorally, sytemicallly (economics, societally), geopolitically, game theoretically or historically - all make it clear: we ain’t gonna do it. We flatly refuse. And also, even if we wanted to, we can’t even imagine how to without having capitalism crash, pulling us all down with it. We basically can’t and won’t stop using fossil fuels, and we can’t continue using them.
The solutions are WAY outside the Overton window. Way, way, way outside. Such as encouraging senicide: altruistic self-sacrifice to relieve society from the burden of an old person. The paradigm shifts in consciousness we need are, quite frankly, so huge that it is naive to ever imagine them happening fast enough to mitigate much of the impending collapse.
Thanks for your feedback. I need criticism to be able to strengthen the argument. Here is how I see it:
1. The advantage with GCC is that it can be implemented easily from the top. If we start with a smaller number, such as $20 / tCO2, the effect on the global economy would be small. Thus, we have the option to test the plan.
2. I agree with you that people are neither rational nor altruistic. However, I believe that the global elite (aka the WEF crowd) may be interested in avoiding the collapse of the global world order. We will reach the political and social tipping point before we reach the climatic ones. If we continue with unabated climate change, it will soon lead to uprisings, revolutions, and wars. The elites might prefer higher taxes to the guillotine. I wrote of this in a previous post: https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/a-problem-of-moral-philosophy
3. We must also look at the geopolitical situation. Despite the desperate attempts of the Biden administration, it is now clear that the Global North does not rule the world. We will soon reach a point where the US, EU, China, Russia, and others will have to sit down for tough negotiations. GCC could be part of such negotiations.
4. I am under no illusion that I live in a democracy anymore. The voters in Sweden (where I come from) were not asked whether they wanted to sacrifice 200 years of neutrality and join NATO. Important decisions are above the pay grade of ordinary voters.
I appreciate Henrik's depth and clarity of reasoning and agree with almost all of his arguments - except the GCC idea. Simply because the proposed solution remains within the system (capitalism) that has created the problem. I understand that this seems to be the fastest implementable measure, but it has its drawbacks, which include the aforementioned increase in consumption by the poor.
Regarding the reduction of consumption and how low it should go, Václav Smil has an answer in his book Energy and Civilization. "Some societies have been able to secure adequate diets, basic health care and schooling, and a decent quality of life with an annual energy use as low as 40–50 GJ/capita. Relatively low infant mortalities, below 20/1,000 newborns; relatively high female life expectancies, above 75 years; and an HDI above 0.8 could be achieved with 60–65 GJ/capita, while the world’s top rates (infant mortality below 10/1,000 newborns, female life expectancies above 80, HDI > 0.9) require at least 110 GJ/capita.
There is no discernible improvement in fundamental quality of life above that level."
Conclusion:
Decent quality of life can be achieved with annual energy consumption 60-80 GJ/capita (which can be restored by the ecosystems within planetary boundaries). However, consumption of 300 or 385 GJ/capita in the US or Canada (in 2015) is a stupid waste of the energy and resources that requires 5 planets Earth. But, of course, the American way of life is non-negotiable...
re:
https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/lecture-on-global-climate-compensation
This article has so many flaws; I will go over them in order of presentation.
The planet is NOT dying; the planet will be fine if we stop destruction of the oceans. See my latest post on this topic, which took many hours to write, for the reading pleasure of only 88 readers. https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-total-eclipse-of-the-earth
Yes, humanity, a rogue species, is destroying the biosphere which is always in the way of civilization, a scab growing on this planet. Rogue species post:
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/limits-to-progress
The Keeling Curve illustrations perhaps intend to alarm people about climate change. Recent data-wrangling indicates that this planet was a lot hotter than even the extended top of that curve, for most of its existence. “A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature”, E.J. Judd et al.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
Thus the frequent statements that “the planet is dying” are alarmist nonsense. The existential threats to humans are, in order of severity: Nuclear weapons/nuclear war, resulting from there being no genuine civilization on this planet; the proliferation of plastics into every part and level of the web of life; then lastly, the burning of fossil fuels which enables this over-population of the planet.
Climate change does not represent climate destruction; the climate is what it presently is, if you change it, it is now in that state. It is not a destructible entity, unless the Earth’s magnetic field collapses and the atmosphere is blown off (like Mars).
The chart on global energy demand is nice except that it should go back to the 1950s. And what was wrong with the 1950s? Life was good then, we did NOT need all this extravagance which has followed. People ask “what, do you want to destroy civilization and go back to the Stone Age? How about to the 1950s? For plastics we had bakelite, many small items came in flat metal boxes. Virtually no plastics. The use of fossil fuels ENABLED this massive population increase; both MUST be wound down in tandem.
In the slide “The solution to our problems is obvious,” the first two points are excellent, the last two are questionable. Fossil fuels are deliberately made cheap by governments which want votes. The whole economy revolves around the supply of cheap energy slaves. In making them artificially more costly, you untie a currency peg and destabilize your food supply, since farmers are in a pay-wall, or should I say a “sell-wall” and absolutely cannot pass along higher energy costs - they would just have to eat those costs.
Saying that Capitalism is an algorithm is the most naïve definition of it ever. Capitalism is the legalization of theft. The basic tenets of civilization are embodied in the Ten Commandments. Could Capitalism exist if “Thou shalt not steal” was fully respected? It amplifies the crudest aspects of humanity embracing individual greed and accumulation. It is about the polar opposite of Steiner’s Threefold Social Order, which, being in Switzerland, you can look it up at Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Switzerland.
The “market economy” is absolutely incapable of solving any aspect relating to Nature: the economy is an externality to Nature, see:
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/lets-get-on-the-same-page-in-this (climate catastrophe).
The “market economy” has been tampering with environmental issues far too long, to wit: carbon offsets.
Then the article falls off the rails, with the slide: “Global Climate Compensation.” Oh, sorry, that’s the name of your org! But it stinks. “We only need to agree on the price of CO2 emissions.” Wow, that’s easy! Not!
“All fossil fuel producers” - including Russian oil and gas in pipelines to China and India? Are you kidding me? So that the carbon signal is represented in all your toys made in China? Not! In what currency? Who keeps them from lying? You have no idea what has happened to the world economy and financial system in the past 3.5 years under the Biden admin. The US$ is no longer a petro-dollar. It is no longer the world reserve currency. The BRICS nations are going to push the Axis of Evil (USA-NATO-Israel) off to the side where they belong. You need to drop everything and read Jeff Rubin’s book https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/714717/a-map-of-the-new-normal-by-jeff-rubin/9780735246119
The economy as you knew it no longer exists, so prepare to reboot all economic notions.
Then there is the nonsense about redistributing the fund among the world’s nations. Through war zones? To the Taliban? You are presuming a civilization, which does not exist. Who exchanges the currencies? The exchange and inter-banking system has fractured and the global South no longer trusts IMF and World Bank. When a person with no experience in monetary theory starts pontificating about “guaranteed annual income” or “global yearly income,” my first question is “what is your currency peg?” The next would be “Don’t you realize that the financial system would eat that money for lunch, that such income level would be a new floor?”
For a simple notion of currency peg, and actually quite stable in value over time, think of a loaf of bread. I consider its value almost constant over time, remember I said “value” not price. Price varies by variation in the value of the currency, and by population level. You heard this here first: The number of units in currency assigned to the VALUE of a loaf of bread MUST increase with an increase in population. AND, if you hive out a chunk of the economy (raiding oil’s value) and try to turn that into free revenue, you have just increased the number of currency units assigned to one loaf of bread; thus the financial system has again eaten your lunch. Poverty, like climate, cannot be abolished since it is relative. Poverty (my definition) is “Sulking in a state of denied affluence.” Stop sulking! The “good life” of the global North was a MISTAKE; do not try to emulate us!
re: “Problem: It might actually work”
The 200-300 companies around the world are NOT going to cooperate with this scheme, not to mention that they sell by long-term contract or by spot-price systems. That notion is totally impossible to achieve; the world economy is fracturing steadily away from any kind of globalization. “Business models that depend strongly on fossil fuels are invalidated.” Oh, like farming? A farmer CANNOT pass on increases in energy costs; they produce but not price, they are a special segment of the economy in which no wages are paid. See
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/can-oxygen-pricing-help-save-the (environment).
No regulation? Oil companies are going to hand over your fund without use of compelling force? Dream on.
Yes, global North has caused the problem, but same as Marx’s dialectic, all people everywhere are both victims and beneficiaries. This massive human population cannot continue without fossil fuel usage; both must be wound down in tandem. We go build wells for them, sell them fertilizers, then wonder why they put 40 million people in postage-stamp-sized countries. That “goodwill” was a fallacy.
If a carbon tax at source, or in other words a fee for the privilege of carbon-mining (in forestry called “stumpage fee”), could work (but it can’t possibly), the funds should go into a structure such as the UN Green Fund so it mainly goes to the global South as reparations, mitigation and adaptation, with the concurrent requirement that they end their quest of “development.”
To pay part of the income back to people in the global North is a short-circuit, a bribe to encourage acceptance. Let them eat cake.
Here’s my letter to The Vancouver Sun, most of which was printed in their Sept 21 edition, page A17, at the bottom:
Dear Editors:
re: “No free lunch with climate change,” Vancouver Sun Opinion, 17 Sept, p A8
The notion of an ever-rising price on carbon to fight climate change remains an urban myth. Are there people who are too cheap or pigheaded to switch to an alternative fuel, that we must encourage them to do so with a price signal? The problem here is that there IS no alternative fuel in great-enough supply to replace fossil fuels, as Europeans are presently figuring out (see Jeff Rubin’s book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/714717/a-map-of-the-new-normal-by-jeff-rubin/9780735246119). This massive human population was enabled by fossil-fuel usage; to solve our predicament both must be wound down in tandem. A first step toward that end would be reducing the energy consumption of the global North which is typically 30x world-average. A high tax on all energy could push consumption in that direction. On a finite planet we cannot keep demanding more and more energy consumption; we need to find a simpler life more in balance with Nature.
---------------
In “GCC - a rational solution to our problems” - “We need to stop using fossil fuels, but we don’t know how quickly it can be done” Yes, we do - when we wind down either population and/or consumption, since population times consumption are inextricably tied to fuel usage. THAT is “degrowth.” In a democracy, the pickup drivers (who are armed), will NOT vote to impair their fuel supply.
It is a fallacy for people in the rich North to muse about “We should do this or that…” That notion is just so much malarkey. No such thought regimen can be implemented lacking a proper civilization, meaning a (global) society that has ended war as an instrument of policy many years ago. That also implies meaningful world governance and the total abstinence from international and corporate theft and covetousness. Achieving that is job #1; until then, all other thoughts and words are wasted.
Hi Kathleen, I am glad you liked my lecture. We seem to agree on most points, but you have given me some additional arguments to use in my upcoming presentations:
1. Fossil fuels have indeed enabled the overpopulation of the planet, which is why we need to get rid of them.
2. Plastic is made from fossil fuels, which is why we should tax fossil fuel extraction and not carbon emissions. GCC would automatically impose a tax on plastics.
3. As I showed in the presentation, the introduction of GCC would be beneficial for the Global South. Thus, China, India, Russia, and others would automatically be on board.
4. It is fascinating how people get upset about giving money to the Global South for doing something good. We currently give a lot of money to nasty dictators to pay for raw materials.
5. Your statement “that also implies meaningful world governance and the total abstinence from international and corporate theft and covetousness.” That sounds nice, but you do not provide any ideas on how to make it happen. My argument is that even if we cannot lock up all the crooks, we can at least make them pay a hefty fine.
6. The statement “our planet is dying” is a shorter way of stating that we are now in a process of thermodynamic decay, where photosynthesis is no longer capable of keeping up with the combined combustion processes from burning forests, combustion engines, and intensive meat production. Carbon dioxide and methane are the gases emanating from a rotting corpse. In addition to being easy to measure, greenhouse gases are the symptoms of the disease.
“A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.” I am not claiming that GCC will solve all our
problems. However, taxing fossil fuels is the largest lever we have if we want to act fast. Effective activism requires well-defined goals, which is why I also support the ecocide movement. The governments of the world (roughly 200) need to require any fossil-fuel-producing company (less than 300) to pay a fee to a global fund. Companies that do not comply are guilty of ecocide. This does not sound that difficult.
And finally, the "narcissism of small differences" is one of the main reasons for the failure of the environmental movement. Moral absolutism has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and destroyed Western democracies. I recently found a good quotation from the German author Jean Paul (1763 - 2025): "In order to get to the truth, everyone should try to defend the opinion of their opponent." That is really good advice.
Professor Nordburg, you are missing my main points. Plastics production has to cease, not just be taxed then they are back on the road. GCC CANNOT “impose a tax” on any nation that does not wish to participate. Even if they could be coerced into doing so, if you extract a free value from the fuel supply chain, everything will carry on unchanged; you have simply caused a bit of inflation; the financial market has eaten that amount for lunch. There is no feasible way to “give” money to the global South. Through the USA-based IMF and World Bank, which have been thoroughly discredited? To the Taliban? You cannot carry money to the many remaining uncontacted tribes, they don’t want you coming near them and they have no use for money. Like I said, all such tax revenue should go to the UN Green Fund (or other such fund) and not fed back to the stupid consumers of the global North as a buy-in bribe. There is no “thermodynamic decay”; the things disturbing photosynthesis mainly involve our destruction of the oceans, as I made perfectly clear in https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-total-eclipse-of-the-earth
The End-Permian extinction had about the present level of greenhouse gases, but the big problem was the ocean acidification and anoxia. You CANNOT reduce fossil fuel use without either drastically reducing population and/or consumption and a tax cannot entice people to switch to another energy source which does not exist (see my letter to the newspaper, and READ JEFF RUBIN’S BOOK!! If you were able to reduce consumption by even 10%, as supposed “degrowth,” remember that the Great Depression was a drop of only about 9% in global GDP. And you could enforce ecocide by what - International Court of Justice, when they cannot even end a genocide ongoing in plain sight? Again, saying “The governments of the world need to require…” is more of the “WE” need to this and that” while any such notion is totally dependent on a functioning world government. Meanwhile, it is just bafflegab.
I respectfully disagree. You are stuck in the old colonial thinking of the Global North. Fortunately, it looks like the US and the EU are rapidly losing power.
That's exactly what I was saying, that the West (as per Rubin's book) is being sidelined. I don't know where you see any colonial thinking. So I mentioned some overpopulated countries in the global South. So what. Why does Germany have 80 million people in an area the size of Montana? Either you can't or don't want to think deeply enough to understand these issues. Calling for proper world government is colonial? Looking at Earth from Space, see the wars going on? Actually destroying Nature for political or territorial gain? Why would there be wars if this planet actually had a civilization? THAT is problem #1 to solve.
https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/we-have-created-a-monster-and-it