An aerial view showing a flooded New Road Cricket ground in Worcester, home of Worcestershire CCC. Flood warnings remained in place across the UK on Monday after Storm Ashley made its presence felt, October 21, 2024
THE “climate emergency” is not in the future. It is now, and each severe weather event exposes the fragility of systems we rely on on a daily basis.
Serious floods in western England caused by Storm Ashley are no anomaly: every year sees more such incidents. The State of the UK Climate report shows that Britain is getting wetter as well as hotter: five of the 10 wettest years on record have been in the 21st century, and rainfall over the last decade is 9 per cent higher than in the 1960s.
The consequences of such changes cannot be ignored indefinitely. England suffered its second-worst harvest on record this year, with the wheat crop down by more than a fifth, winter barley (primarily important for animal feed, but also for brewing) by more than a quarter and rapeseed (used for animal feed, cooking oil and many processed foods) by almost a third.
Britain imports about half its food: but then, climate change is a global phenomenon. France’s wheat harvest this year is nearly a fifth lower than usual. Drought has played havoc with olive oil harvests in Greece and Spain.
…
A serious government would be addressing the impact of climate change through mitigation. It would be ready to spend money on flood defences, to protect cities and to protect agriculture. It would not leave vital systems like water in the hands of a private sector that continues to pay its executives millions in bonuses even while paying millions in fines for polluting and poisoning our rivers.
It would, in short, be treating climate change as an emergency: a process which requires us to rethink the way we live from city planning to transport to food production.
The continued failure of politicians to acknowledge that is a case of system failure.
Capitalism cannot sacrifice short-term profit even facing a crisis of this scale. But that puts the responsibility on us to demand better.
There is a huge global issue that needs but is not getting immediate attention. It’s the climate crisis, that fossil fuels industries knew that they were killing our planet for profit.
We need to understand what’s happening. Let’s start:
Fossil fuel companies knew from 1960s that they were destroying the planet for their profits, to make themselves rich they knowingly destroyed the World. They must have had the attitude we don’t give a fuck for anyone else, we’re going to get rich. They fucking knew. They fucking knew because they had reports telling them that they were desroying the planet for their profits.
These fossil fuel companies knew in the 60s, 80 years ago and they decided to destroy the planet so that they would get rich. That’s Capitalism.
ed: There’s more of course.
80+ years after the oil companies were advised by their own research that they were destroying the planet, they’re still doing it.
dizzy: You’re going to have to object to it soon or it will be too late, you will have missed it. We need an immediate transition from fossil fuels.
dizzy: The world needs an immediate transition from fossil fuels to renewables. The immediacy cannot be overstated …
“The idea that rich and poor are equal before government in democratic societies is ludicrous,” writes Polychroniou. “As disparities in wealth and income grow, so do the disparities in political influence.” (Photo: flickr/Creative Commons)
Wealth taxation may sound like a good idea, but can it really address, let alone solve, the problem of inequality?
Economic inequality is the scourge of the 21st century. The rich are getting richer and faster than any other time since the onset of neoliberalism, which calls for “free-market” capitalism, regressive taxation, fiscal austerity and the rejection of the social state. They get richer not only when the economy is on an upswing but even amid crises. Billionaires more than doubled their net worth during the pandemic, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
The latest analysis shows that the richest 1 percent gained $42 trillion in new wealth over the past decade, which amounts to “nearly 34 times more than the entire bottom 50 percent of the world’s population.” In the meantime, the very poor and low-income people across the globe, including the U.S., are actually getting poorer. So much for trickle-down economics which was popularized during the 1980s by the Reagan administration’s vast capital gains and income tax cuts and continues to persist to this day in spite of its major flaws. Cutting taxes on the rich not only increases economic inequality but has no effect on economic growth and unemployment.
There must be something very rotten with an economic system that allows individuals to generate obscene amounts of wealth to the point they can hijack the political system and undermine democracy.
However, inequality should not be examined purely from an economic perspective. Over the years, numerous studies have shown that economic inequality influences public attitudes toward democracy by generating political disillusion and low trust in government and other institutions, like Congress. Inequality also undermines social mobility, contributes to political polarization and fuels authoritarianism.
Finally, inequality contributes to climate change. The richest 1 percent is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66 percent, according to a 2023 report by Oxfam. Of course, while the world’s wealthiest people make a huge contribution to climate change, they are also able to insulate themselves from the worst impacts of global warming.
In sum, the super-rich can be blamed for many of the most serious ills confronting societies in the twentieth-first century. The only consequential question here is this: what can be done about it then?
One of the most frequent responses to the problem of rising inequality is a call for the implementation of a wealth tax. Wealth taxation may sound like a good idea, but can it really address, let alone solve, the problem of inequality? The answer is an unqualified “no.” At least for the world’s advanced economies. Indeed, even if it’s possible to discover all the wealth that the very rich people own (much of which is hidden in companies or put in trusts) and then proceed with an accurate asset valuation, this will have very little impact, if any, on the daily lives of people who try to survive on minimum wages. Wealth taxation alone will have no impact on workers without social protection and no bargaining power at companies. It won’t protect workers at the “gig economy” and part-time workers.
To effectively address economic inequality, we must identify the root cause of the problem, and one simple way to do this is by asking a rather simple question: How does one become superrich? Where does this immense wealth come from? Because as the renowned progressive economist James K. Boyce recently put it “nobody ‘earns’ a billion dollars.
There must be something very rotten with an economic system that allows individuals to generate obscene amounts of wealth to the point they can hijack the political system and undermine democracy. Democracy cannot exist when we have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. The idea that rich and poor are equal before government in democratic societies is ludicrous. As disparities in wealth and income grow, so do the disparities in political influence.
Take corporations, for example, which exert enormous influence, thanks primarily to campaign donations and lobbying Their actions, which range from opposing labor laws and policies that benefit workers to restricting unionization, exacerbate inequalities at all levels of society and across the globe. Moreover, the surge in billionaire wealth and the surge in “corporate power and monopoly power” form a powerful connection. The very rich are not simply beneficiaries of the existing economic order. They are in control of the working arrangements of the global economic system. Yet despite the enormous power that corporations have on people’s lives and the communities in which they operate, there are very few policies and mechanisms at national or international level to curtail that power.
Of course, we know that billionaires and big corporations pay very little in taxes, but we need much more than wealth and corporate taxation. We need ways to curb the power of big corporations and their drive to maximize shareholder value at the expense of everything else. We should also set a cap on extreme wealth. There is no social value for having billionaires. We should abolish the superrich, perhaps an easier task, politically speaking, than finding ways to tax them. Democratic societies could hold a referendum on whether we should abolish extreme wealth.
In addition, we could create economic arrangements that provide a minimum income to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. This can be done either through universal basic income or guaranteed income programs.
Last, but not least, we can challenge the rule of capital by advancing democratic forms of economic governance and economic planning. Participatory economics is one such alternative that would change the economy as we know it since it entails social ownership of production and self-managed workplaces. Worker cooperatives are established is various parts of Europe, particularly in Italy and Spain. The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain is owned by its workers and represents the biggest and most successful case of worker cooperatives. Of course, for economic transformation to occur, breaking down hierarchical structures and putting workers in charge of business activities is not enough. What needs to happen is that the values of worker cooperatives spread across the economy and that power is wrested away from the capitalist class.In today’s world, we can tackle economic inequality only by shifting the conversation to its root causes and then coming up with blends of policies that work together to put an end to the driving forces behind inequality. Spending all political capital on something like a wealth tax will only help to prolong the life of an immensely cruel and dangerous economic system. An easier and far more effective way to end plutocracy is through the power of democracy via a binding referendum that calls on citizens to decide whether or not we should abolish altogether extreme wealth.
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves speaking about the economy at the Association of British Insurers in the City of London, May 7, 2024
“LABOUR and the Tories move closer on economy.”
Thus a headline in the Financial Times last week. The FT speaks not just to and for British finance capital, but to capitalists worldwide needing a steer on British and international politics.
Unlike the bought-and-paid-for Tory press, it usually does so without demagogy or partisan point-scoring. Its conclusions are therefore to be taken seriously.
It writes: “Despite being the official opposition, Labour has signally refused to oppose many of [Jeremy] Hunt’s recent economic policies…” including the cuts to National Insurance.
Further: “Hunt set out 110 measures to boost the economy in his 2023 autumn statement and Labour opposed none of them. The same applied to all of the policies announced in the chancellor’s spring budget this year.”
Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has also agreed with all Chancellor Hunt’s financial services reforms, has accepted his target of ensuring falling debt as a share of national income within five years, and adopted his corporation tax rate.
The Tories have repaid the compliment up to a point, stealing Labour proposals on taxing non-doms and the North Sea oil and gas industries.
But this convergence is mainly on Tory terms, with Labour dumping any proposal, like its green investment plans, which sit outside the consensus around a new austerity.
For that is what is on offer at the general election. It is a further squeeze on public services and wages to help improve the competitive position of British capitalism.
Reeves and the Labour Party pretend that their approach represents “change” because it offers “stability” after years of Tory chaos.
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
Over the last year, our oceans have been hotter than any time ever recorded. Our instrumental record covers the last 150 years. But based on proxy observations, we can say our oceans are now hotter than well before the rise of human civilisation, very likely for at least 100,000 years.
This isn’t wholly unexpected. Ocean temperatures have been steadily rising due to human-caused global warming, which in turn means record hottest years have become increasingly common. The last time ocean temperature records were broken was 2016 and before that it was 2015. The last year we experienced a record cold year was way back at the start of the 20th century.
But what is remarkable about the past year is the huge ongoing spike in global ocean temperature which began in April last year. Last year was hotter than the previous record year by a whopping 0.25°C. In contrast the margins of other previous record years were all less than 0.1°C.
Why? Global warming is the main reason. But it doesn’t explain why the heat spike has been so large. Climate drivers such as El Niño likely play a role, as do the random alignment of certain weather events and possibly the reduction in sulfur emissions from shipping. Researchers around the world are trying to understand what’s going on.
Averaged ocean surface temperatures between 60 degrees south and 60 degrees north of the equator, inspired by ClimateReanalyzer.org. Each coloured line represents the temperature of a single year. Author provided, CC BY
The trend is clear to see. Earlier years (in blue) are typically cooler than later years (in red), reflecting the relentless march of global warming. But even with this trend, there are outliers. In 2023 and 2024, you can see a huge jump above previous years.
These record temperatures have been widespread, with the oceans of the southern hemisphere, northern hemisphere and the tropics all reaching record temperatures.
What’s behind the surge?
We don’t yet have a complete explanation for this record burst of warming. But it’s likely several factors are involved.
First, and most obvious, is global warming. Year on year the ocean is gaining heat through the enhanced greenhouse effect – indeed over 90% of the heat associated with human-caused global warming has gone into the oceans.
The extra heat pouring into the oceans results in a gradual rise in temperature, with the trend possibly accelerating. But this alone doesn’t explain why we have experienced such a big jump in the last year.
Then there are the natural drivers. The El Niño event developing in June last year has certainly played a substantial role.
El Niño and its partner, La Niña, are opposite ends of a natural oscillation, the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which plays out in the tropical Pacific ocean. This cycle moves heat vertically between the ocean’s deeper waters and the surface. When El Niño arrives, warmer water comes up to the surface. During La Niña, the opposite occurs.
You can see the impact of an El Niño on short term temperature spikes clearly, even against a backdrop of strong long-term warming.
But even climate change and El Niño combined aren’t enough to explain it.
Other natural heat-transferring oscillations, such as the Indian Ocean Dipole or the North Atlantic Oscillation, may play a role.
It may also be that our successful efforts to cut aerosol pollution from the dirty fuel shipping relies on has had an unwanted side effect: more warming. With less reflective aerosols in the atmosphere, more of the Sun’s energy can reach the surface.
But there’s probably also a level of random chance. Chaotic weather systems over the ocean can reduce cloud cover, which can let in more solar radiation. Or these weather systems could weaken winds, reducing cooling evaporation.
Why is this important?
To us, a warmer ocean might feel pleasant. But the extra heat manifests underwater as an unprecedented series of major marine heatwaves. The ocean’s organisms are picky about their preferred temperature range. If the heat spikes too much and for too long, they have to move or die.
Marine heatwaves can lead to mass death or mass migration for marine mammals, seabirds, fish and invertebrates. They can cause vital kelp forests and seagrass meadows to die, leaving the animals depending on them without shelter or food. And they can disrupt species important for fisheries and tourism.
This year’s heat stress has caused widespread coral bleaching around the world. Bleaching has been seen on reefs in the Caribbean, Florida, Egypt, and the Great Barrier Reef.
In the cooler waters of Tasmania, extraordinary conservation efforts have been put in place to try and protect endangered fish species such as the red handfish from the heat, while in the Canary Islands, small scale commercial fisheries have popped up for species not normally found there.
Last year, Peru’s anchovy fishery – the country’s largest – was closed for long periods, leading to export losses estimated at A$2.1 billion.
What’s going to happen next?
Given the record temperatures stem from a combination of human-induced climate change and natural sources, it’s very likely ocean temperatures will drop back to more “normal” temperatures. Normal now is, of course, much warmer than in previous decades.
If this eventuates, we might see slightly cooler temperatures than the new normal, but it’s still too early to know for sure.
One thing is certain though. As we struggle to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, the steady march of global warming will keep adding more heat to the oceans. And another spike in global ocean warming won’t be too far away.
