If Florida gleaned anything from Hurricane Andrew, the intensely powerful storm that tore a deadly trail of destruction across Miami-Dade County almost exactly 25 years to the day that Hurricane Harvey barrelled into the Texas coastline, it was that living in areas exposed to the wrath of Mother Nature can come at a substantial cost.
Bram Buscher and Robert Fletcher, aeon, August 18, 2017
Edward O Wilson is one of the world’s most revered, reviled and referenced conservation biologists. In his new book (and Aeon essay) Half-Earth, he comes out with all guns blazing, proclaiming the terrible fate of biodiversity, the need for radical conservation, and humanity’s centrality in both.
Fossil fuels have two major problems that paint a dim picture for their future energy dominance. These problems are inter-related but still should be discussed separately. First, they cause climate change.
There are few subjects more reliably depressing than the problem of impending climate chaos. In some ways the daily dumpster fire that is the Trump administration is a welcome distraction from the increasingly dire predictions that describe the Hell on Earth that awaits us if we do not drastically and immediately alter our current trajectory.
Nearly 50 years ago, the U.S. electric utility industry was warned about potential risks posed by climate change if it continued to rely on fossil fuels. Rather than heed those warnings, the industry spent the following decades instilling public doubt and making substantial investments in fossil fuels—according to a report released Tuesday by the Energy and Policy Institute (EPI).
Debates around the intersection between oil production, inter-state rivalry and climate change, have become more acute in the period following Trump’s election.
To see this solely in terms of Trump is to underestimate the systemic tensions that had built up across oil producing parts of the world.
In this article Jonny Jones and Brian Parkin try to develop the concept of an emerging and potentially deadly intersection of further imperialist carbon wars against the inexorable threat of catastrophic climate change.
A recent Washington Post and ABC poll finds that just 37 percent of Americans think that the Democratic Party “stands for something.” Fifty two percent say it’s about nothing more than opposing Trump.
The 37 percent is right. The Democratic Party stands for something, alright. It stands for the socio-pathological system of class rule and environmental ruin called capitalism – and for capitalism’s evil Siamese twin imperialism.
It was the left who diagnosed the ills of globalization. So why is the right eating our lunch?
Free trade and the freedom of capital to move across borders have been the cutting edge of globalization. They’ve also led to the succession of crises that have led to the widespread questioning of capitalism as a way of organizing economic life — and of its paramount ideological expression, neoliberalism.
To stave off disaster, we must transform the economic system driving climate change.
New York Magazine’s latest 7,000-word cover story about climate change freaked a lot of people out. Like the reality of climate change itself, the story is depressing. Author David Wallace-Wells—collating several academic papers and interviews with climate scientists—meticulously lays out the possibility of melting ice caps releasing literal plagues, our air becoming unbreathable and geopolitics devolving into endless war.