Rom Coles speaks on different political modes of responding to climate change. A “smart political energy grid” to interweave multiple modes of social energy production to effect transformation is needed. #PolFutureAnth
Groups like XR seek to use "higher voltage" political impulses to jolt the system and overcoming unresponsiveness/disconnection of traditional climate politics. Generate renewable distributional energies triggering broader support and contagious political shifts.
But so far too disconnected from everyday lives and more diverse constituencies. Compression of time and space: regime change, citizens assembly and 5 year transition phase - obscures the diversity and expansiveness of change agency.
A 'smart political energy grid' should not homogenise political power but rather connect multiple diverse forms of power, with all having receptors to others' tactics and energies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Man skal være en meget stor retoriker - og det er Krasnik bestemt normalt - for a slippe afsted med denne leder om Gaza og retssagen. Men det mislykkes. En tråd 🧵
Vi skal forstå: at anklage Israel for folkemord skubber freden længere væk fordi det "vækker historiske traumer og stærke følelser" - hos Israelere. Det er deres følelser Krasnik kærere sig om, forstås. De skal ikke konfronteres i retten, det er bare 'spektakulært' - et stunt.
Vi i vesten har de sidste 3 måneder ellers forsøgt med den søde tilgang - gået med at sende dem flere våben, penge og holdt hånden over dem i FN, imens de har ifølge Krasnik dræbt "for alt for mange civile" og nok sikkert begået krigsforbydelser og forbrydelser mod menneskeden.
By coincidence, I read this piece on #geoengineering as 'the only solution' to climate injustice, just after picking up James C. Scott's 'Seeing Like a State' which analyses why some well-intentioned megaprojects have turned really effing lethal. /Thread. wired.com/story/geoengin…
Scott's classic asks why some well-intentioned schemes to improve the human condition have historically failed badly, killing or ruining countless lives ("fiasco" is too lighthearted a word he says). He identifies 4 necessary elements for worthy-but-deadly megaprojects. Here goes
1. Simplificatory schemas to render nature & society 'legible' for bureaucratic & commercial operations. 'Seeing' like this doesn't and isn't supposed to reveal the actual object, "only that slice of [it] that interested the official observer". The rest (most) becomes 'invisible'
What do 'pandemic politics' suggest about the political environment solar geoengineering might face?
A new comment in Communications Earth and Environment by @hollyjeanbuck@Oliver_Geden Masa Sugayama and myself offers 5 lessons. See Holly's thread 👇
+ here's my summary: /1
We posit "If the concept of stratospheric aerosol injection leaves the realm of modeling, it will be thrust into a multi-societal science–media-policy interface that operates in ways not currently anticipated—at least not in idealized model simulations/ governance scenarios". /2
Five observations: 1. Simple metrics (like R0 or global average temperature) cut through politically, but can gain a life of their own and obscure wider, diverse societal aims and values. /3
I agree that techno determinism is silly. On the other hand, total fungibility re the societal effects of a technology is also non-credible. The Q is what social and technical futures arise/are likely to be created by a particular tech in a particular social configuration.
A global solar manipulation system with single point delivery (if it were possible) is unlikely to facilitate a more decentralised set of power relations globally. In my view it's also not likely to be created without a concomitant concentration of geopower.
I agree the original binary of compatible/incompatible is
not helpful but in the blog the concept of democracy isn't defined either. If we think democracy is fundamentally about distributing power, then there is a case to say that certain SRM methods don't really excel at it
Thread/ 1 One of the risks of game theoretic models of policy dilemmas is translation back to real world. Firstly, model set-ups claim to be 'simplification' of a target system but this assumes we know the system's basic form already. Catch-22...
3/ Second, assuming this leap of faith (abstraction=simplification of actual real world) exacerbates already substantial risk of slippage IMO, from 'this model world works like this' to 'the target real world works like this'. I think this is an example of such slippage
There is plenty of racism in Western society and academia in general. More's the pity that a poorly crafted article singling out of Securitization Theory as 'avowedly conservative' (WTF?), anti-black and in the service of white supremacy was published in SD. Bad error.
From Buzan & Wæver's short reply in SD: "if one is interested in ..racism in relation to the formation of securitization theory, the obvious source to examine would be Wæver et al. (1993).(..) This is all about the risks involved in European security turning towards security..
policies on behalf of ‘identities’ and against supranational integration, other national and ethnic identities, and migrants. The explicit formulation of securitization theory grew out of its largely implicit role in this book, which deals with racism in several chapters."