The statue of Columbus in Barcelona is an abomination and it should be taken down. Colonization, genocide, mass enslavement and white supremacy—that's what Columbus stands for, and no decent city should tolerate him celebrated so prominently in their midst.
Barcelona's mayor @AdaColau needs to stop dithering and act on this. Her position—leave it up but install a critical placard at the base—is not good enough. Yes, put a placard, but first bring the statue down. Put it in a museum.
Colau argues that keeping the statue is important for historical consciousness, so we do not forget the crimes of the past. But you can have such consciousness without placing genocidaires on public pedestals. Just ask Germany.
Join the anti-colonial demonstrations this week and call for @AdaColau to replace Columbus with a symbol more suited to Barcelona's values in the 21st century. twitter.com/Descolonicemon1
Columbus no more "discovered" the Americas than tourists "discover" Barcelona. People were already there, living their lives. The difference between Columbus and tourists is that he enslaved the local population and stole their wealth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What are the drivers of progress in social indicators? Does it emerge spontaneously from the forces of capital accumulation, or is it won by progressive social movements? Three classic studies from the '80s and '90s reveal interesting results:
In 1981, Amartya Sen demonstrated that among developing countries, socialist societies tended to perform better in terms of social outcomes than capitalist ones. “One thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal,” he wrote. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12339005/
Sen found that this fact holds even when you correct for GDP. In other words, socialist policy delivers better social outcomes at any given level of GDP - a powerful finding.
I am proud to join thousands of other scientists calling for a binding Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty that will end new expansion and phase out existing production in a fair and just way. If you support this call, please sign on here and share: fossilfueltreaty.org/open-letter
To stay under 1.5C, we need to cut fossil fuel production by an average of at least 6% per year between 2020-2030, and rich countries need to lead on this.
To put this in clearer terms, total fossil fuel production and use needs to be cut in half in the course of this decade. That's the reality. And right now our governments' policy commitments are nowhere near that trajectory. It's not even on the agenda.
Here is a brief response to Noah Smith's recent article on degrowth. Most of the claims have already been dealt with in the published literature, and others I agree with, so there's not much interesting to say. But a few thoughts:
Smith relies heavily on McAfee's claims about the US "decoupling" GDP from resource use. Unfortunately the data he uses does not account for resources involved in offshored production. This is a significant empirical error that I have addressed here: foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/mor…
When we account for this, as the Material Footprint indicator does, the US economy is not absolutely decoupling GDP from resource use (not just the world as a whole). So too with other rich economies. This point is well established in the literature: pnas.org/content/112/20…
Western politicians are worried about women's rights in Afghanistan, and rightly so, but we should remember that Western intervention in the late 20th c. destroyed a gender-progressive government to replace it with Islamic fundamentalists. Perhaps some reflection is in order.
In 1978, Afghanistan's socialist government, the DRA, abolished sharia law, declared full equality for women, and prioritized women's education. The project was led by Masuma Esmati-Wardak, the first female member of the Afghan Parliament, who served as the Minister of Education.
Women held several leading positions in the DRA. Most notably, the feminist revolutionary Anahita Ratebzad served as deputy head of state from 1980-1986. Afghanistan had a female VP long before the US did.
Critics of degrowth simply don't read degrowth literature. This take on emissions keeps making the rounds, so here's a brief thread on what it gets wrong:
First, literally nobody argues that GDP cannot be absolutely decoupled from emissions. Such a claim would be absurd: to get to zero emissions, we would have to reduce GDP to zero. This is obviously ridiculous.
*Of course* GDP can be absolutely decoupled from emissions. Indeed, it has been happening in several rich nations for some time, even in consumption-based terms. We've known this for ages. Hello, renewable energy!
I'm excited to announce that we have a new article in Nature Energy today. This is an important piece, and we agonized over every sentence. It's behind a paywall, but you can get a free PDF here, and a short thread follows: static1.squarespace.com/static/59bc0e6…nature.com/articles/s4156…
1. Existing climate mitigation scenarios *start* with the assumption that all countries must grow, indefinitely, regardless of how rich they already are. The problem is that growth makes climate mitigation *much* more difficult to achieve... and this creates a real conundrum.
2. To square growth with the Paris goals, existing scenarios are forced to rely heavily on spectacular assumptions about technological change, including massive negative emissions schemes and unprecedented rates of GDP/energy decoupling.