Poor Sods

Spent time finishing up an article over at the Nations.  I actually went out and bought the book reviewed and if anything, it might have been more poorly written and thought out than the review.

The Review is:

https://www.thenation.com/article/political-theory-for-an-age-of-climate-change/

The Book is:

Climate Leviathan published by Verso Books

I think that folks should read these and get back to me.   My take is that the left is just as lost to the illusion as the right ever thought of being.

Look, the core of the review and the book article boils down to one sentence and the corresponding conclusion.  First comes the money quote.

no one really wants to think about something so depressing, and what politician in his or her right mind would call for lowering living standards in order to decrease carbon emissions?

Having gotten this uncomfortable little bit aside, Mr. Mann, Mr. Wainwright, and Ms. Battistoni then goes on to enumerate which of the three impressively ucky futures we have ahead of us and holds out hope for some as-yet-undisclosed "eureka" solution that is astonishingly vague.

The three "ucky" solutions are remarkably unoriginal:

1. Climate Leviathan, which is effectively a one world government set out to save the planet.
2. Climate Behemoth, which is a rewording of mercantilism where corporations continue oppressing and put in subsystems to save their marketshare
3. Climate Mao, which is one of the more remarkable pieces of backdoor racism and hatheting of the yellow peril that I have ever seen.
4. and Climate X which is astoundingly vague.

Nowhere does any of the authors come up with an original idea.  Nowhere does any of the authors deviate from the academic "truths" thought up in the past.  They toss about theorist names and derive a set of outcome oddly comforting in their familiarity.

I get the impression that the authors and the reviewer were excellent students of the new system.  Certain that, should they study hard enough, will find the right answer in a book.

The world has changed.  It will change even more as global warming gains traction.  These authors only see the future as increasingly monoculture, one way or another.  Nothing can be more myopic.

The future won't look like the past.  M (slope of line/curve) is either negative or getting that way.   The authors want to promise everyone a future of "more" when only a future of "less" is an option.