data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d849d/d849d9e760a80e289ded79cb9477ca58da9ba3dd" alt=""
I spent part of the morning wandering the gorgeous Victorian courtyards of the University of Glasgow (they would seem familiar to you—it’s where they shot the exteriors for the Harry Potter films), trying to find the university chapel where I was supposed to give a lecture. Instead of that august sanctuary, I stumbled across the James Watt building—and with it a poignant set of reminders about just how quickly we’ve managed to bring the world to the edge of ruin.
(On the off chance that these dispatches are helpful or interesting, I hope you’ll subscribe; my share of the subscription revenues are helping launch Third Act, our effort to move older people into progressive organizing)
James Watt was a “mathematical instrument maker” at the University in the 1750s anbd 1760s—not a professor, but a guy who fixed stuff in a workshop. First he spent some years fixing up some astronomical equipment, and then he worked on some instruments for Joseph Black, the man who literally discovered carbon dioxide. And then a professor of natural philosophy handed him a model of the Newcomen steam engine “in need of repair.” That first engine, invented in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen, burned coal in order to pump water from coal mines so more coal could in fact be mined. But it didn’t work very well at all—certainly not well enough to spark an industrial revolution. In the process of repairing it, Watt figured out how to radically improve it (supposedly the thought came to him as he wandered over Glasgow Green). The details—essentially, a separate condenser—hardly matter; it worked incredibly well, and the rest is history.
Neither Watt nor Joseph Black, of course, had any idea that carbon dioxide would be a problem. (It was Eunice Foote, working almost a hundred years later, who first found that carbon dioxide trapped heat efficiently, and presciently noted “an atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature.” And since she was a woman, a man had to read her paper to the American scientific conference where it was presented). We can’t blame them for the climate crisis.
But we can note how very very quickly we’ve undermined the physical stability of the earth. It took almost no time—barely ten human generations—to burn enough fossil fuel in variants of Watt’s machine to melt the Arctic, to slow the Gulf Stream, to perturb the jet stream. In fact, the first century didn’t do much damage, nor perhaps the first half of the second—in 1988, when James Hansen issued the first public warnings about the climate crisis, the atmosphere was still about 350 parts per million co2, which is about where scientists draw the danger line. We’ve produced more co2 in the 33 years since than in all of human history before. Even the “abrupt” climate changes that have marked the five previous mass extinctions played out over much longer time periods—it took many thousands of years for volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires to burn off the massive quantities of hydrocarbons necessary to trigger those changes. Watt’s invention was more efficient by far; V8 engines, in sufficient quantity, far outperformed volcanoes.
We need to equal—to exceed—that efficiency now, just working in reverse. Because we’ve waited so long, we have precious little time to build out the solar panels and wind turbines that are the replacement for (and elegant successor to) Watt’s engine. This first week of the climate summit has given precious little sign that we’re going to move at anything like the necessary speed. Today a group of financial institutions announced plans to go net zero by 2050; they did not, however, announce plans to stop funding fossil fuel expansion, and since the stuff we build today will still be burning coal and oil and gas in 2050, that’s a fairly significant omission—it’s like announcing your intention to quit smoking soon, even as you stockpile a warehouse full of cigarettes and buy yourself a machine for making more.
So it was a pleasure to turn a corner in downtown Glasgow and come across Rev Lennox Yearwood, the indefatigable climate warrior and head of the Hip Hop Caucus. He is famous for always being on the front lines of climate action, and for his collection of baseball caps, each bearing the message of the moment: today’s read “9 Years.” Because that’s how long we have to cut emissions in half if we want to meet the Paris climate targets. Actually, that’s generous: 2030 is now eight years and loose change away.
Rev Yearwood spoke first at a spirited street demonstration demanding the local pension fund divest from fossil fuel. (It was exuberantly disco-themed, with a team of dancers working hard to Staying Alive: ‘It’s not alright, it’s not ok/We can’t look the other way/We’ve all got to understand/The need for a bold climate plan.’) And then we rounded a corner and found that the police had penned a bunch of Extinction Rebellion protesters on the block in front of the Lloyds Insurance building. Yearwood climbed a phone box, and in his booming voice urged them on. “All power to the people,” he was yelling—which was James Watt’s message too, I guess, though in a different key.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33097/3309719137ed172b013ae83dc1084bb576d66653" alt=""
In regards to the spiel or framing the narrative 'only' about "... our effort to move older people into 'progressive' organizing."
Does the Third Act 'progressive' Big Tent have a door at the rear of the tent for older centrist democrats and other older persons interested in fighting for Climate Justice? Or, must we jump on the 'progressive' wagon?
This was my comment on an earlier The Crucial Years article.
TRUMPISM IS COMING BACK - THAT'S BAD FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE
I count myself as a Centrist / Moderate Democrat and cheer for like minded people and political candidates who can help to move us along a path toward Climate Justice and ending manmade Global Warming.
One of my friends, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, got his head handed to him last night in Virginia. Biden won Virginia over Trump by about 10 points in 2020. Last night McAuliffe lost by 2 points to the Trump supported Republican candidate Younkin.
In my book, McAuliffe lost by 12 points .... mainly Swing / Independent Voters and non loyal Democratic Voters.
These 12 points don't bode well for Democrats in 2022 nor in 2024 when Trump could likely be the Republican Presidential candidate or somebody he supports like DeSantis .... and that's a hell on earth scenario for Climate Justice ... specially if the Republicans also control the House and Senate.
I believe the younger and more vocal Green New Deal Elected Progressives in Office (and their supporters) need to garner more Third Act level wisdom and think better along the lines of just not winning a battle occasionally .... but alot more strategically about winning the war.
That's going to take some serious leadership, serious strategy and coalitions that can bring Climate Justice Centrist Democrats aboard along with Climate Justice Republicans.
If the two big bills in Congress 'had been passed', Terry McAuliffe 'would have won'. Plus, Biden would have done much better on the Glasgow world stage which has been described here as "Mostly Banal".
I personally know that McAuliffe did not throw his hat in the Democratic Presidential Arena in 2020 because he thought that Biden had that Democratic Center lane and could deliver a "Good New Deal" for the people of America.
It's just not me saying this about the "why" of the McAuliffe loss,, but it is also the assessment of other respected and experienced individuals as noted below.
I hope those here can join in by saying we can learn from failures and can persevere on the path toward Climate Justice.
"Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia told CNN that Democrats’ inability to approve the infrastructure bill and give McAuliffe a talking point on the campaign trail contributed to his defeat."
“I think it was on the shoulders of Democrats here who have the majority,” he said. “People had a lot of hope for Joe Biden and the Joe Biden agenda, but Democrats didn’t want to give Biden a win,” he said.
See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden/biden-returns-to-sobering-virginia-upset-democrat-battle-in-congress-idUSKBN2HO122
See: https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-start-knifing-each-other-even-before-official-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-defeat
Humanity is not prevailing — nor will it ever if left to the markets — over the fossil fuel industry supply and profits and consumer demand for status quo, if one reads the tea leaves in the UK and elsewhere.
Carbon dioxide was discovered in Glasgow by Joseph Black, who worked with James Watt in the 1750s and 1760s at the University of Glasgow to fix the first steam engine, invented in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen that was “in need of repair.”
So, here we are, some 250 years later at COP26 in Glasgow with all the nations of the world attempting to reverse the damage caused by the internal combustion engine and other combustion of natural gas and coal to generate electricity, along with all the uses of gas and oil in other processes. Our carbon budget is measured in years, not decades.
There is one person who is a resident of Glasgow who I know for sure is working along side scientists and engineers around the world to fix the problem of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and to #RemoveCO2 and #RemoveCH4 alongside means to #CoolTheArctic and #RefreezeArctic on an URGENT emergency basis while the global leaders wrestle with their National Determined Contributions (NDCs) struggling to reduce emissions, which will take decades to accomplish.
At what point and by what criteria do we finally decide to change course?
Please read and sign the petition if you are so inclined: https://www.change.org/p/john-kerry-tell-world-leaders-at-cop26-to-unite-now-on-a-climate-restoration-action-plan