Escalating heat, boiling questions | Meer

[Ashish Kothari]

India's thorough lack of preparedness for the extreme temperatures already hitting us, and what needs to be done.

https://www.meer.com/en/80900-escalating-heat-boiling-questions

Comments welcome, directly to me pl, not on the lists unless you want to start a discussion on one of them. PLEASE DO NOT DO REPLY ALL!

ashish

--

Ashish Kothari

Kalpavriksh

Apt 5 Shree Datta Krupa

908 Deccan Gymkhana

Pune 411004, India

Tel: 91-20-25654239

https://ashishkothari.in 

 

Kalpavriksh 

Vikalp Sangam

Radical Ecological Democracy 

Global Tapestry of Alternatives   

https://ashishkothari51.blogspot.com

Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Facebook 

 

[Saral Sarkar]

14.06.2024

Dear Ashish,

 

I have not been to India for many years now. And before that, when I went to my native land, I particularly avoided the summer months. So, many thanks for your article on the escalating heat phenomenon, which gave me up-to-date informations.

    I want to make a few critical comments on your article, which I think should also be read by the RED-list members, to which I got access through you. In what follows, I am not trying to write an article.These are only some assorted comments:

 

With warm regards

 

Saral Sarkar

 

    (1). I see that there is a group of teachers who call themselves “Teachers Against Climate Change”. I cannot understand this. How can you be against climate change, which is the end result of a whole process? If you dislike the end result, then you must try to stop, at least mitigate or modify, the process that is resulting in climate change.

    (2). It is general knowledge that climate change is resulting from the economic production process through which all nations and almost all individual humans are trying to become ever more affluent. In ecology literature, there is a widely used equation that sums up the factors involved in environmental degradation: I = P x A x T, where I stands for (ecological) impact, P for population, A for affluence and T for technology.

    Of course, ecological impact (degradation) means much more than escalating heat. But the latter is, particularly at present, a big chunk of the former.

    (3). The equation says, if any of the factors P, A, and T goes up, I (ecological degradation) also goes up. Now, in the past, in India as well as in the greater part of the world, all the three factors have been relentlessly going up. According to the latest news report on India that I heard in the TV, India’s economic growth in the last year amounted to 8% of the GDP. If you accept the equation I = P x A x T as correct, you should not wonder that with growing affluence, heat in the summer is also escalating. If you want to stop the result, that is escalating heat, you should fight against the causes, namely growing P, A, and T. In fact, you must fight for what, in ecology literature, is nowadays called “degrowth”, i.e., for a shrinking economy.

    Of course, escalating heat in India is a global matter. High up in the atmosphere there is no boundary. And climate change may take different forms in different countries. E.g., at the same time, when in India, summer heat has been escalating, in Germany, large parts of the country have been suffering from devastating floods.

    (4). In his article, Ashish has mentioned all the structural factors that are aggravating the sufferings of the poor from escalating heat. He has even mentioned capitalism and inequality (bravo!). But there is no mention of our thirst for affluence as a factor. In no non-capitalist and egalitarian conception of society has there been a criticism of our thirst for more and more affluence. Actually, all Indians would like to have air-conditioning, isn’t it? And a car too!

    But that would not be possible, never. Because there are limits to growth. And giving detailed advice to the ruling elite and their employees to reduce their disregard for the sufferings of the poor in the three summer months is of little value.

    (5). I see that there is a group in India called “Chuck the Carbon”. The economic production process is still being driven in the greatest part by burning fossil fuels. Why is it so difficult to chuck the carbon? Because blowing wind and sunshine – both touted as alternatives – are much inferior to fossil fuels in respect of their energy density. Their energy balance is simply too low. Much has been written on this question in the recent past.

 

[Vasishth, Ashwani]

Dear Saral,

Lots that can be said, but I’ll just say two things. 

1.  Language matters. Most often, when the words we speak are “climate change,” we mis-speak. What we actually mean is the bio-geo-chemical effects of increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. 

The “climate” has ALWAYS changed—from long before we emerged. In fact our ecosphere became inhabitable by humans because the climate changed.

In exactly this way, the climate will continue to change long after all traces of us have been wiped. 

So, yes, and in this sense, teachers CAN be “against climate change" and activists CAN  call to “end climate change”—I.e., GHG emissions by the UNTHINKING burning of fossil fuels. 

“No more fossil fuel” is an exhortation, not a target.   We will continue to burn SOME fossil fuels until we run dry. The question is only—how much, and how mindfully.

2.  You say:  “….(nor) has there been a criticism of our thirst for more and more affluence…”

Capitalism is another word used to point to many different things. 

For me, and today, it is “the single-minded pursuit of profit (wealth), irrespective of cost in other ways.”  

Counting only the single bottom line of monetary cost.  That is the most objectionable form of “capitalism.”

In this sense, capitalism IS a “thirst for more and more affluence.”

Hence the call for a “triple bottom line.”  If you MUST be a “capitalist,” then count ALL  forms of capital—monetary, human, social, natural.  

In the US, gasoline costs about $3 per gallon at the pump.  But, the PRICE, counting all costs, is more like $15 a gallon. 

The price we pay from our wallet is not necessarily what it it will cost “us”—all beings, living and otherwise. 

Unsustainability—at its core—is an accounting error, that grows out of a suspension of empathy. 

-- 
    Ashwani
       Vasishth      
Professor of Sustainability
vasi...@ramapo.edu         
(323) 206-1858 (cell phone)
                  
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week, at: 

calendly.com/vasishth/google-meet-30

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/28224ae1-8a56-42b2-83de-3955317a4ba0%40t-online.de.

[Ashish Kothari]

Hi Saral, Ashwani, re. the first point, that is a mistake in the way the name appears (my mistake!), it is actually Teachers Against Climate Crisis. But of course the points you both make re. what we should be struggling against, including 'thirst for affluence' (and/or, what I've written about separately, 'convenience' defined in narrow ways; or aspirations and how they are incited/created), are well taken. Many more can be added, including our alienation from the rest of nature (and thinking of ourselves as being outside of it), and as humans from each other (perhaps what Ashwani means by 'suspension of empathy'); and the need to challenge the growing demand for energy (and its unequal distribution/consumption) which makes any source, fossil fuel or so-called renewable, unsustainable. Many of these are symptoms of the structural aspects I've mentioned or you folks have added, as Ashwani recognises for instance in how capitalism engenders or sustains the 'thirst for affluence', or power concentration in the state / men and so on.

Other comments are welcome!

Ashish

Ashish Kothari

Kalpavriksh

Apt 5 Shree Datta Krupa

908 Deccan Gymkhana

Pune 411004, India

Tel: 91-20-25654239

https://ashishkothari.in 

 

Kalpavriksh 

Vikalp Sangam

Radical Ecological Democracy 

Global Tapestry of Alternatives   

https://ashishkothari51.blogspot.com

Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Facebook 

 

[milind...@gmail.com]

The term affluence ( latin affluentia .." a flow towards)) refers to  "wealth and abundance"...But in a capitlist society such as ours, "largely" the term seems prone to be interpreted as wealth and abundance measured in economic and quantifiable terms [GDP, lifestyle (ultimately quantifiable), quantity of money and property one owns, etc]..and  not in  potentially alternative unquantifiable ways ("wealth of friends", " spiritual abundance" and so on)   ..Understood this way,  was not Capitalism  always  a philosophy (par excellence) of affluence ( of a particular kind)? One can perhaps even apply this to the protestant ethic of thrift (which intuitively seems opposed to the idea of affluence)..by asking "thrift towards what? " The answer being "accumulation of wealth"...which can further lead to the question, "wealth of what kind"...and so on till one reaches the idea of affluence as interpreted above in its capitalist connotations..Seen this way, both the terms are almost synonymous..To speak of capitalism is to speak of affluence...to rationalise affluence...of the capitalist kind of course....

Milind

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

[milind...@gmail.com]

The term affluence ( latin affluentia .." a flow towards)) refers to  "wealth and abundance"...But in a capitlist society such as ours, largely the term seems prone to be interpreted as wealth and abundance measured in economic and quantifiable terms [GDP, lifestyle (ultimately quantifiable), quantity of money and property one owns, etc]..and  not in  potentially alternative unquantifiable ways ("wealth of friends", " spiritual abundance" and so on)   ..Understood this way,  was not Capitalism  always  a philosophy (par excellence) of affluence ( of a particular kind)? One can perhaps even apply this to the protestant ethic of thrift (which intuitively seems opposed to the idea of affluence)..by asking "thrift towards what? " The answer being "accumulation of wealth"...which can further lead to the question, "wealth of what kind"...and so on till one reaches the idea of affluence as interpreted above in its capitalist connotations..Seen this way, both the terms are almost synonymous..To speak of capitalism is to speak of affluence...to rationalise affluence...of the capitalist kind of course....

Milind

--

[Vasishth, Ashwani]

Dear Milind,

Curious…..where in the world, or in history, are there instances of any form of capitalism that can be characterized “in  potentially alternative unquantifiable ways ("wealth of friends", " spiritual abundance" and so on…”?

Capital-ism….the valorization of capital over all other “factors of production”…

Note that in the mid-1700s, with the emergence of industrialism and capitalistic thinking, wealth, money, capital, actually was in short supply. So, focusing on growing societal wealth seems understandable.  

But now?  We literally have more wealth than “god….”

-- 
    Ashwani
       Vasishth      
Professor of Sustainability
vasi...@ramapo.edu         
(323) 206-1858 (cell phone)
                  
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week, at: 

calendly.com/vasishth/google-meet-30

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/1412485535.6303725.1718469557571%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Milind Wani]

Hi ashiwini
My response below..

On Sun, Jun 16, 2024, 1:50 AM Vasishth, Ashwani <vasi...@ramapo.edu> wrote:

Dear Milind,

Curious…..where in the world, or in history, are there instances of any form of capitalism that can be characterized “in  potentially alternative unquantifiable ways ("wealth of friends", " spiritual abundance" and so on…”?

>>>> perhaps I misarticulated this...I didn't mean to say that there are forms of capitalism that allows one to measure affluence in alternative ways..On re-reading, I can see why you thought so..Thanx for pointing this out. However, on another note ( and perhaps contradicting myself a bit), I do feel that to believe that capitalistic societies  absolutely do not allow for "wealth of friendships" to develop or that they make "spiritual abundance" impossible  is also a form of simplistic and blanket reductionism that we ought to be wary of.....The main issue of capitalism ( among others!) is that it makes promises that it cannot fulfill but for the tiny minority ( even as it does so while inflicting immense and unnecessary suffering on other sentient life while destroying existing natural conditions that make life on earth possible).. Perhaps for this tiny minority capitalism creates possibility of accumulating wealth that is not necessarily quantifiable...( "wealth of friends", "richness of spiritual realizations" etc..)..[ as an aside, but relevant to our discussin i think-  in a remark on differential distribution of talents and geniuses within capitalism, Marx ascribes this to Division of Labour that capitalist production process engenders]. The argument for communism ( or whatever one wants to call a post capitalist society) is that it would create non-explotative , non-oppressive conditions for/of life that makes it possible for all to develop this other kind of wealth, not only for the few, because it will be a society based on the eudoministic principle " free and full development of each as the condition for free and full development of all" ( measured not merely in quantifiable values)...