A Real "All of the Above" Solution to the Climate Crisis

From Deep Green Philly

Last night during his State of the Union address President Obama urged Congress to adopt an “all of the above” approach to climate change. Wind energy, solar power and other “bipartisan market based solutions” were offered up as the way forward alongside a pledge to rapidly increase domestic oil and gas production. Shortly before acknowledging the seriousness of the climate crisis with a fairly in depth recitation of recent trends in natural disasters, President Obama declared, “We produce more oil at home than we have in fifteen years...we produce more natural gas than ever before.”

Like much of the speech, the portion focusing on the climate crisis and the solutions to the crisis contained the sort of Washington D.C. political establishment pragmatism dictated by deep rifts within the Houses of Congress. Within the national political establishment there are, tragically, heated disputes over the extent to which climate change is influenced by human activity, and outright climate change deniers occupying the extreme right wing of the spectrum are, as we know, not without significant political capital and influence.

So, when we hear President Obama speaking about the climate crisis while touting increases in domestic oil and gas production it must be assumed that he and his administration are engaging in a kind of realpolitik. It is true that within the context of the kabuki theater which passes for political leadership climate change deniers and those who are beholden to the oil and gas industry certainly do have the ability to derail the entire process and block much needed reforms. These pseudo-realities manufactured by the ruthlessly ambitious who dwell within the halls of power notwithstanding, as usual, the concerns of people, animals and ecosystems are eclipsed, disregarded and ignored. There's a reason why individuals impacted by the meteoric rise in popularity of hydraulic gas fracturing were excluded from the traditional “let's tug at their heart strings” denouement of the State of the Union address: focusing on the plight of people suffering collateral damage from those “market based solutions” would definitely undermine the President's assertion that the State of the Union is strong.

The “all of the above plan” and “market solutions” offered by the President which include cutting red tape to speed up oil and gas drilling permits are not only a nod to bipartisanship, they indicate a steadfast commitment to the fundamentally capitalist principles this country was built on. These capitalist principles are the bedrock foundation of the middle class which President Obama referred to as “the true engine of America's economic growth.” Ironically, the climate crisis we are now facing coincided with the rise of the middle class after the Industrial Revolution.

This morbid commitment to preserving and continuing the consumer driven and resource extraction dependent middle class way of life needs to be questioned and challenged; however, due to the massive persecution campaigns unleashed by the U.S. government against Communists, Anarchists and Socialists during the 19th and 20th centuries, we are lacking effective alternatives to the capitalist world view. Despite this, we must come to realize that if we want a living planet capable of supporting a relatively high quality of life we must seek out and resurrect those alternatives. We must do it quickly before it is too late, before countries like India and China with populations exceeding one billion fully commit themselves to achieving a carbon copy of destructive, Western middle class lifestyles.

When we examine what it would actually mean to speed up the burning of oil and gas, we see that given our current predicament the consequences of this kind of policywould be catastrophic. Feedback loops fueled by the continued burning of oil and gas are in fact already contributing to runaway climate change. The permafrost underneath the Arctic is melting, releasing CO2 laden methane into the atmosphere in ever increasing quantities. The Arctic ice covering the ancient permafrost is not just melting, it is withering due to the catastrophic increase in heat trapping gasses released during the past 250 years since the rise of the age of industry. Scientists, and even organizations like BP and the World Bank are predicting that, if we continue burning fossil fuels at current and predicted accelerated rates, we will experience an at least 4 degree C increase in global temperatures by 2030. With mass extinctions, food shortages, droughts and super storms already materializing after “just” 0.8 degrees C of warming, we can expect that by 2030 the situation will be quite nightmarish if the status quo is allowed to persevere. Traditional, land based communities, and those with limited access to resources are at the moment bearing the brunt of the crisis and will continue to do so until even the most privileged feel the effects. Mitigating the effects of climate change and preventing further damage is one of the most important human rights issues of our time.

In 2030 those who are now babies and toddlers will be old enough to ask some tough questions. What will their response be when we tell them that we did not properly address the climate crisis because of the demands of capitalist markets? Can you imagine the looks of disgust on their faces when we explain that small minded, backwards, science deniers were allowed to hinder progress toward a more sustainable way of life? As they begin to comprehend their reality and realize that it is a tragic and chaotic one that could have and should have been avoided, how will they cope knowing that an “all of the above” solution which included accelerating the burning of fossil fuels was the best we could hope for?

At this moment we have a multiplicity of environmental organizations at the forefront of the fight against climate change; these mainstream organizations are all operating from basically the same premise of wanting to protect and preserve the environment while at the same time preserving middle class consumer lifestyles. Because of the homogenized political scene where capitalism reigns supreme, those of us who are not capitalists, not middle class and not interested in consumer based solutions have been silenced and sidelined for far too long. Letter writing campaigns, petitions, marches, rallies and appeals to the political system are not bad in and of themselves, but the fact that the spectrum of acceptable action has become so narrow and impotent is a testament to the fact that people who care about the environment need our own “all of the above” approach.

If we accept the reality of the current situation and if we truly care about preserving life on this planet we will come to terms with the fact that we need the Black Bloc just as much as we need the Quakers; we need the letter writers and petitioners just as much as those who are willing and able to chain themselves to pipeline construction equipment; those who are in favor of armed struggle are just as necessary as those who consider themselves to be pacifists. We need the grassroots with its ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions, and we need the mainstream with its access to much needed resources and political capital. We are entering a phase where some of us, those with less privilege than others, will be literally fighting for our lives. The disenfranchised and dispossessed in the industrial north, in the belly of the beast, will have to fight for and with those in the global south because we are the ones who have the most to lose if business as usual continues. Those with privilege will have to decide where they stand, and figure out how to use their privilege as an effective weapon in the revolution which must happen to save life on this planet from the ravages of unfettered, industrial capitalism and its associated maladies. Together, with everyone doing what they can and what they must without judging or hindering the work of others, we might be able to build the sort of world we can be proud to live in.

Centrists and radicals will not always agree on what course of action to take, but we should be able to arrive at a place where we all respect each others work enough to not call the cops on someone for destroying corporate property; we should also be able to refrain from publicly eviscerating someone for not holding to our same exact principles.

Differing world views, political affiliations and upbringings will make it impossible for everyone who cares about the environment to unite under the same banner; but who is really expecting that? Different tools do different things, but as long as we are all working towards building a more free, sustainable and just society, we should be able to put aside our differences for the greater good. The truth, like it or not, is that if we do not work together we will perish together. 2030 is not that far off and the 4 degree C warming mentioned earlier, while catastrophic, is actually one of the best case scenarios.

Green Anarchy For Life and a Sustainable Future

- Deep Green Philly



My life is not "corporate property" you hideous mentally ill soulless freak.


wait.. green anarchy? dgr?

Deep Green Philly's summary doesn't make sense. he say;

“Differing world views, political affiliations and upbringings will make it impossible for everyone who cares about the environment to unite under the same banner; but who is really expecting that? Different tools do different things, but as long as we are all working towards building a more free, sustainable and just society, we should be able to put aside our differences for the greater good. The truth, like it or not, is that if we do not work together we will perish together. 2030 is not that far off and the 4 degree C warming mentioned earlier, while catastrophic, is actually one of the best case scenarios.” .... “Mitigating the effects of climate change and preventing further damage is one of the most important human rights issues of our time”

his 'truth' is certainly not 'my truth', so after he talk about us all working together, then he declare his 'warmist belief' and declare that the battle of AGW is the 'most important human rights issues of our time'.

he also say;

"In 2030 those who are now babies and toddlers will be old enough to ask some tough questions."

one of them will be; "why did the herd follow al gore and the warmist control freaks and refocus attention away from real issues onto an anthropocentric/megalomanic boondoggle where they believed they were determining/controlling the unfolding of the universe, rather than just shitting into the unfolding?"

i will be able to say that i did what i could to undermine the intellectual premises of colonialism and its related authoritarian projects, including the AGW anthropocentrist-delusions-of-grandeur.

no you didn't, all you did was encourage colonialism you nazi piece of human shit.

they are all sadistic fascists born from a cult of poverty. the entire little cult should be put up against the wall and shot. they are all demented diseased and only cause harm to the earth, people, animals, and our children.

James Hanson recommends that Climate Deniers (inc.) be charged with crimes against humanity.

Me, personally I agree

Kill yourself, Nazi.

You are not safe, Nazis.

Yes, there is no denying the fascist atmosphere that has been created by a few deranged people who want to silence everything but state lies. To deny it is like holocaust denial.

so, Emile........

you don't believe that humans are affecting climate change ?

I hate on emile a lot, but that's not at all what they said. Learn to read.

as i’ve said in ‘Organizing 101’, we are mesmerized by our own ‘linguistic idealizations’. nietzsche’s example is ‘lightning flashes’. in the same vein ‘climate changes’.

‘climate changes’ is ‘circular reasoning’.

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

we are included in this unbounded fluid dynamic; i.e. a continually transforming relational spatial Plenum. but because it is difficult to talk about something that is ‘a dynamic Unum’, ... we use language to label and define patterns of movement, resonance features in the flow-Unum, that seem to us to persist. when we do this we separate the ‘figure’ from the ‘ground’ so that the ‘ground’ becomes the invisible push-off reference, enabling us to impute all of the dynamic to the ‘figure’. e.g. ‘Katrina intensifies’ is the same circular reasoning as ‘climate changes’. katrina IS MOTION, motion within the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum. katrina IS NOT a thing-in-herself that authors her own development and behaviour.

the same applies to ‘climate changes’. climate IS MOTION, motion within the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum. climate IS NOT a thing-in-itself that authors its own development and behaviour.

we use the word ‘climate’ to imply an artificial ‘base’ for jumpstarting animation. this circular reasoning starts to sound crazy when we say, ‘climate change is ravaging the earth’. do you really believe that you can split apart ‘climate’ and ‘the earth’ and make it into a ‘thing-in-itself’?

yes, yes, i know that sciences split themselves into all kinds of specialties, like climatology and geology, but that doesn’t mean that nature is split up the way that science splits up its investigations.

if you examine the inside-climatology-science arguments, you get one camp insisting that ‘the climate is celestially forced’ by sun cycles, orbital wobbles, solar flare particles ionizing the atmosphere etc. etc. and another camp insisting that ‘the climate is internally forced’ mean that influences inside the system such as greenhouse effects, and human activities. and these camps have been knocking heads saying; ‘outside-inward celestial climate forcing dominates’, and the other side insisting ‘inside-outward internal climate forcing dominates’. and of course Machean physicists are not allowed to butt in, but they would say; ‘outside-inward influences and inside-outward influences’ are in conjugate relation, as in Mach’s principle. Or Howard Zinn might butt in, if he could, saying; ‘look, you always have these opposite views of historical development. there is the executioner’s view and the victim’s view. you’ll never reconcile them using the EITHER/OR logic of the excluded third, you need the BOTH/AND logic of the included third. there is good and bad in everything; i.e. you cannot dismiss the victim’s view of history, which is usually suppressed because the executioner gets to write the history.

do our human dynamics influence the dynamics of the habitat that we are included in? of course, that is Mach’s principle; “the dynamics of human inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the human inhabitants” [and the dynamics of all inhabitants].

there is no ‘base case’ for ‘climate’, therefore there is no justification for claiming that ‘climate changes’.

who says, as is implied by man-made-climate-change that the climate dynamic is separate from the human dynamic?

what we do know is what the aboriginals knew and tried to coach us on;

“Teach your children that we have taught our children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. ... Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.”

this non-dualist view suggests that we, as inhabitants of the habitat must live in harmony with the relational habitat dynamic we are included in, and that it is possible to do otherwise; i.e. to let our inhabitant dynamics induce dissonance in the relational habitat dynamic.

the dualist view is that the dynamics of man and the dynamics of climate are two separate things. in this view one can search for ‘correlations’ between the dynamics of the two separate systems. that is, one can search for correlations between human activity and parameters that are said to characterize this ‘thing-in-itself’ called ‘climate’, hence the perceived correlation between human carbon emissions and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and then again, the perceived correlation between ‘CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global temperature taken to be one of the vital signs of the independent beast called ‘climate’.

like many people who have worked in the earth sciences, the psychological jump from ‘correlations’ to ‘causal relationship’ strikes me as unrealistic.

so, where you say;

“you don't believe that humans are affecting climate change ?

i don’t believe that ‘climate change’ is anything other than linguistic idealization and ‘circular reasoning’ of the ‘lightning flashes’ variety. the millions of times that ‘lightning flashes’ and/or ‘climate changes’ has been spoke, does not establish its meaningfulness.

the non-dualist aboriginal view, affirmed by the investigations of modern physics and incorporated in the non-dualist principle of Ernst Mach’s makes sense to me;

“Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. ... Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.”

the dualist notion of ‘man-made climate-change’ is linguistic idealization as are the associated correlations, ... ‘correlations’, which, in AGW, are imputed to be determinative, causal relationships. this, in my view, is Fiktion.

man does not determine and control the unfolding habitat dynamic. he can shit into it or infuse dissonance into it, yes, but his actions do not ‘determine it’, as is suggested when on imputes linear causal determinism to observed ‘correlations’.

Or if were following Bennys line of logic (see anarchism and torture porn) it is holocaust denial. But seriously its bad.

But not to defend it, its also bred a sense of urgency out of a culture war. Now the government, yes big g, is all upity abojt it with like, reports and shit and two thirds of the population are on board with the whole "holy fuck were going to die" thing. The next ten years are going to be very interesting if not scare. Rising food prices and shit. We might see anarchy without actually instigating it.

"Differing world views, political affiliations and upbringings will make it impossible for everyone who cares about the environment to unite under the same banner; but who is really expecting that? Different tools do different things, but as long as we are all working towards building a more free, sustainable and just society, we should be able to put aside our differences for the greater good. "

As much as I'm given a warm and fuzzy feeling inside by this kind of meaningless schlep, I have to drop my jaw in incredulity that this is what is passing now for critical writing in the world of Deep Green Whatever. I never thought I would say this, but looking back on 2001 2002 I think Im beginning to miss Green Anarchy mag and the primmies...At least they were critical and emphasized a degree of three dimensional theory to their practice.

There are so many problems with this piece it d really just take too long, but for starters:

1. It substitutes a focus on tactics for any considerations of the goals or strategy or political affinity of those involved. The idea that "different people doing different things" toward a positive end will automatically result in a greater good is way off - or rather, its so vague as to be meaningless. One has to look at the substance of the actions and participants themselves, why theyre doing what theyre doing, what their base is and their position in the whole thing. I can only imagine the warm fuzzy focus on diversity of tactics here, to the point of lacking any apparent cogent critique of political parties, demands, state sanctioned forms of protest, etc., has to be the result of DGR being a bizarrely contrived mix of social democrats, people with maoist leanings, old earth first style deep ecologists, primmies, and the occassional (confused) anarchist. Unable to come to any real substantial terms with questions of demands, party politics, or roles of different kinds of subjects in revolt against late capitalism, theyre stuck at the one-dimensional truism of "different strokes for different folks." *

2. This in turn leads to the next problem, a total lack of critique about the role and function of recuperating forces, which is a MAJOR issue in the world of environmentalist politics. There is a hint at it in here, as the author admits that the mainstream environmentalist project is basically a preservation of middle class living at the expense of everything else, but this acknowledgement is soon dropped for an implied affirmation that these groups still have an important role to play. Cue the acoustic guitars and "cumbayay" music. The political incoherency in DGR (coming not from a leninist perspective, but from an anarchist one) prevents them from growing a real critique of environmentalism and the role it has come to serve for 21st century capitalism, so theyre stuck working alongside people are our complete fucking enemies, and justifying it with this kind of "lets all get along bullshit." Yes, let's get along with others doing different things, but ONLY so far as in there is a real political affinity. Otherwise its meaningless.

3. This inability to actually develop a contemporary critique of capitalism and the State, not helped by the strangely anti anarchist sentiments of their esteemed leader mr. jenson, seems to condemn them back to the old earth first style eco activism, full of all the typical pitfalls of an activist approach, except here lacking even the organic and grassroots power of EF! in its heyday. Its all like a sad, sad play being reenacted again, but nobody is really watching.

(* Im not arguing here for more ideological discipline or anything of the sort - i think DGR is a bad joke and have no interest in suggesting it be anything other than disbanded. In any case, developing nuanced or multilayered critiques or theory hardly requires such an organizational discipline, anyway - but it does require a shared political affinity with those whom we work with, shared experiences beyond reading the same copy of endgame.)

Noone will care about your tactics, analysis or anarcho-purity on a dead planet you hipsterdudes.

FIVE SUPER WARMING FEEDBACKS that have potential to end human civilization and all life on earth:
1. Artic Ocean Methane Hydrates - Science March 2010 total possible methane released equal to 1000-10,000 gigatons of carbon compared to 226 gigatons of carbon put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolutions

2. Warm Atlantic Water is now traveling up through Fram Straights in Greenland directly into the arctic ocean. Arctic is predicted to be ice-free by 2015. Ice free arctic ocean hasn't happened for 3 million years, since before humans on the planet. Science January 2011

3. Siberian Methane release increase - some methane vents reported up to 1 kilometer in diameter - Tellus Feb 2011

4. Amazon Drought - Science Feb 2011 - because of drought, Amazon natural decomposition of organic materials released more CO2 than all the cars, trucks, planes, coal plants, etc... in the USA during the same year.

5. Antarctic methane, similar to Siberian methane will be released if melt continues. Total content is 10x all carbon now in the northern hemisphere.

Enjoy the party while it last, if you can manage that....

...as in "real democracy"?

BUt really, this article still doesn't answer the question... WHY SHOULD WE GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE???

The whole "climate change" issue is bogus greenwashing to hide to actual destruction of the land carried in parts by the very same people who promote it, damnit! Do we need fucking articles debating this? Lectures? Books?

Fucking activate yourselves and go do some serious sabotage, and post the communique on Anews, only then Deep Green will be worthy of respect.

you can't be serious...you're asking why we should "give a fuck" about climate change? Let me guess, you're white and live in the industrialized north

Did you finish reading the comment? Jensen sold a lot of books by alluding to this ultra-hardcore militant ecoterrorist underground that groups like DGR were supposed to develop infrastructure to support. All the DGR praxis is based on it. Everything they do is supposed to be the public face of their secret cells of saboteurs and blockaders (and I fucking love the idea to be honest) BUT the problem is, it doesn't exist.

Almost nobody is throwing down, with a few exceptions in texas recently and some promising initiatives north of the 49th but mostly all DGR does is front and strike the pose. So you can talk about how Derrick and Lierre are ridiculous and how stupid hippy college students are obnoxious but the REAL criticism is an almost total lack of real action.

PS True of much of the anarchist movement too in case you want to call us hypocrites.

True, and furthermore the same counter-commenter didn't answer my question.

Only anarchists that are hypocrites are those who don't question everything, especially the authority's consensus. 0f course, not doing much is a problem, but there's also such a thing as taking action out of deluded beliefs, herd mentality or just stupidity.

What does opinions on the issue of climate change has got anything to do with my skin complexion, troll?

I'm not very white, and neither middle-class or rich.

And coming from the "industrialized north" is not something you can accuse people of, especially when China is now perhaps the most industrialized place in the word and is not a northern place. But you sure can accuse people of working for the system or not opposing it in anyway, something that I DON'T DO!

Your comment reflects your poor reasoning.

We can all be uber anarquistas in the eternal void.

i love the void!
death drive all the way

The end of life of Earth is where the big capitalists are steering us towards, no matter global warming being a hoax or not. They got escape plans for the worst scenarios, you know...

Nobody is in control as far as steering goes.

Yeah, they control their industry, and their larger system. Or at least steer it, through terror and distribution of candies to the slaves.

Climate is a seven-letter word. It is an artefact of language and linguistic idealization. The ‘climate crisis’ is an ‘indoors’ tempest that is happening inside the Western psyche.

παντα ρει, in English: “Everything is in flux,” is the conclusion arrived at by the philosophers of all times and places, and not only the old thinkers of India but also the younger and contemporary explorers of nature. But, naive man, though he daily experiences the changes, does not believe in them and considers nothing so unchangeable as nature with its mountains and rivers. ---Franz Exner, Über Gesetze in Naturwissenschaft und Humanistik

So, what is one to do with a world that is an energy-charged fluid-dynamical Unum? there are no boundaries, nothing to separate ‘one thing from another’ in this self-recycling fluid-dynamical Plenum.

It is not really necessary to separate anything in order to live one’s life as a spirited form that develops within the Unum, the tornado does not need to dwell on its ‘separate development’ and ‘separate behaviour’ which is, in fact, NOT separate since the atmosphere, brought towards the ‘boil’ by solar irradiance, commences to flow more turbulently and manifests its infusions of energy by breaking out in a rash of storm-cells.

The tornado doesn’t need to ‘think’ about its development and behaviour as being ‘separate’ from the flux it is a feature within, neither does the phytoplankton. Flow-features do not have to grant themselves ‘individual being’. But for a human who wants to warn his fellow villagers of an impending threat, it useful to go beyond finger-pointing gestures, which could be interpreted as the arrival of a herd of antelope and thus be interpreted as a rallying call to the tribesmen to go back inside their huts and dig out their hunting gear, when it was intended to alert them to the ‘approach’ of dangerous turbulence in the atmosphere.

Our experiencing of inclusion in this flow-unum is variegated in a sequential sense. From our perspective, ‘events’ come one after the other; i.e. our experiences are ‘deposited on us’ like geological layers of sediment deposited on the globe of the earth.

The movement of the tornado towards us, is not the movement of a thing-in-itself but the movement of a rotational disturbance, as in the case of an ocean wave; i.e. such movement ‘bottoms out’ not in material dynamics, but in the manner in which things relate to one another, which is ultimately not based on matter but based on tensional/extensional influences as in ‘fields of influence’.

If our continuing experience is depositing layers of memory of two or three engagements with tornadoes, the separation of these ‘experiences’ in our memory does not ‘over-ride’ the fact that these tornadoes are flow-features within a flow-continuum [within a continually transforming relational spatial Plenum].

For us to explain our experience by drawing a ‘time line’ from left to right on the ground, and putting tick marks representing our memory of our experiencing of a succession of ‘winters’ and showing the ‘tornado experiences’ in relation to the ‘winter tick marks’ along the line, ... is a personally useful way of depicting our experience, that we tend to impose on the dynamics of nature. that is, such a RE-presentation of our experience, in terms of ‘things’ and ‘what they do’ in ‘time’ has its origins, in this time-line based form, NOT ‘out there’ but ‘in here’. As Mach says;

“In his ‘Leading Thoughts of my Theory of Knowledge in the Natural Sciences and their Reception from my Contemporaries’, Mach condensed his biological-economical theory of knowledge into a single slogan: “Adaptation of thoughts to facts and adaptation of facts to each other.” . This adaptation starts from instinctive experiences that make us isolate those features of the world which are of relevance to our practical life and imitate them in thought in order to communicate them to others. ... “But, within the short span of a human life and with man’s limited powers of memory, any stock of knowledge worthy of the name is unattainable except by the greatest economy of thoughts.” (Mach, ‘The Science of Mechanics. A Critical Account of Its Development’)

So, it is not the case that tornadoes are ‘out there in space’ and that ‘they develop and move about in time’,... it is our thoughts associated with the facts of our experience and our economical way of arranging them. A ‘language’ equips us with a ‘game’ for economically ‘adapting thoughts to facts and adapting facts to each other’.

Aboriginal languages did not use ‘subjectification’, the imputing of jumpstart sourcing of development and behaviour to a flow-feature such as a convection cell [hurricane, tornado, organism] to ‘break it out’ of the flow so as to ‘talk about it’, as one of those flow-features “of relevance to our practical life”, but retained the sense of ‘flow’ and avoided the concept of ‘time’ as ‘duration’; i.e. the counting of ‘winters’ or ‘summers’ lays on ‘tick-marks’ of experiences relative to the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum, the one ‘beast’ that is continually transforming. Standard Average European languages [Sapir, Whorf], however, fragment experience into ‘blocks of time’ such as ‘the summer of ‘42’, as if the events inside the block of time should make sense out of the context of the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum they are included in.

This ‘isolation’ of a block of time, and the discussion of ‘what happened within this block of time’ [e.g. the summers of ’42, ’45, ’69 etc.] is made possible by notionally reducing the sourcing of events to local coordinates in ‘space’ and ‘time’, notionally removing these unfolding dynamics from the relational continuum in which they are flow-features. In the process, the concepts of ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ are born.

As Nietzsche observes, this is done by infusing a ‘subject’ beneath an unfolding flow-feature so as to use it as the jumpstart animative sourcing of the flow-feature; i.e. as the ‘doer of the deed’ in a ‘cause-and-effect’ sense;

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

‘Climate’ is a seven letter word that we invent to capture our experience of being variably included in warmth or cold, wet or dry, calm air or turbulence etc. This is a departure from experience-words like ‘hurricane’ or ‘tornado’, conceived of as ‘things-in-themselves’ that can be ‘out there’ away from us in the distance, though approaching us, and when ‘they reach us’, we are suddenly ‘inside of them’. Other words, such as ‘atoms’, we conceive of as things like ‘grains of sand’ that are too small for us to capture us inside of them, but small enough that we can capture them inside of us. So, ‘climate’ is ‘different’ in that we conceive us as something that we are always included in, and that is never ‘apart from us’; i.e. climate is never something that is ‘over there’, or ‘in here’, ... we are ‘in it’ and inextricably so.

Our thoughts of our experience explain its construction; i.e. we construct this seven letter word, ‘climate’, in the usual manner described by nietzsche, as something that we can impose underneath a ‘result’ [an unfolding experience] so as to make it look as if it is the local jumpstart animative source[ror] responsible for the experience. Thus, ‘climate’ is invented as the local jumpstart animative source[ror] of our experiencing of warmth and cold, wetness and dryness, calmness and turbulence etc. If we look at the ‘geological record’ which is ‘tick-marked’ by winters and summers, like the growth rings of a tree, and/or the sedimentary deposition layers of a lakebed, these are the aboriginal-language like tick-marks that relate the experience of things at that time to the continually unfolding relational spatial Plenum, ... the continually developing ‘world-beast’.

But nowhere in this tick-marked record of relationships between experiences of things relative to the unfolding Plenum beast, is there the suggestion of the existence of a jumpstart animative source of the conditions experienced by the flow-forms unfolding at these tick-marked phases in the development of the relational spatial Plenum. That is, nowhere in this geological record is there evidence of the presence of a ghost-like source that is responsible for the current conditions. The geological/geophysical view suggests instead, that the conditions that we can reference relative to the tick-marked winters and summers, are part of the unfolding continuum, and have a history in common with the history of the celestial dynamics, the earth’s development and, inevitably, the whole unfolding continuum aka ‘the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum’.

Seen in this manner, the seven letter word, ‘climate’, becomes an archetype for our habit, aided by our SAE subjectizing language architecture, of collecting together a package of experiences and observations, and imputing a local jumpstart sourcing of them; i.e. to start with the experienced ‘effect’ and to use linguistic idealization to impute a local-in-space-and-in-time jumpstart source of the ‘effect’. ‘Lightning flashes’, ‘climate warms’.

Science, as Mach says, is an ‘economizing of thought’. It makes use of language to ‘construct knowledge’ where ‘knowledge’ is the “Adaptation of thoughts to facts and adaptation of facts to each other.”

One of these ‘economies of thought’ is the assumption that ‘the present depends only on the immediate past’ and another is that that ‘source’ of a dynamic effect is ‘local’. Instead of having to consider the whole evolutionary history of the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum in seeking to understand our present packet of experiences, we can impute the source of our experience to the local ‘here’ and ‘now’.

These ‘economies’ have been built into mathematical physics and are described by Poincaré as follows;

“Origin of Mathematical Physics. Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics. We recognise at the outset the efforts of men of science have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena, and that in three different ways.
First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past.Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton.
Next, we try to decompose the phenomena in space. What experiment gives us is a confused aggregate of facts spread over a scene of considerable extent. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon, which will still be localised in a very small region of space.” —Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics.

So, to conclude, ... ‘climate’ is a seven-letter word. It has no basis in physical phenomena. It is a linguistic idealization that we constructed using language to adapt our thoughts to the facts of our experience/observations.

The ‘climate crisis’ is an ‘indoors’ tempest that is happening inside the Western psyche; the psyche that invented the concept of ‘climate’ and the concept of ‘cause-effect’, concepts that are thought-based and language-imputed.

Language allows us to play games in which we arrange and rearrange thoughts and facts that trigger different thoughts. While our experience doesn’t lie, our manner of interpreting our experience in thoughts and language gives us plenty of scope for lies. Our experience in is the continually unfolding present. It is our experience of inclusion within the continually transforming relational spatial Plenum.

[N.B. Thoughts allow us to arrange other thoughts and facts in whatever patterns we wish. We can think that the earth is the centre of the universe and that everything in the universe is to serve man, as in the geo-centric world view. Then we can rearrange the same thoughts and facts and make the sun the notional centre of the world. We can build a thinking tool called a ‘geographical globe’ that shows the earth as a ball out there in front of us, kind of like a fruit or orange, that we can think of as something to segment and apportion pieces of to different groups of people called 'nations' to exploit.]

So, thoughts allow us to arrange our thoughts and experiences/observations to invent a notional phantom-power, the notional local in space and time source of our experiencing of hotness and coldness, wetness and dryness, calmness and turbulence, and give this thought a seven-letter word, to recall if from memory back into active thinking; i.e. ‘climate’.

The associating of human CO2 production with rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the associating of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with rising temperatures are the “Adaptation of thoughts to facts and adaptation of facts to each other.”

The thought that is suggested, in this case, is that humans can ‘determine climate warming’, however, ‘climate is a seven-letter word’; it is not a real physical phenomenon. There is no physical-phenomenological, ‘local-in-space-and-time’ jumpstarting sourcing for our experiencing/observing and factual assemblages of same. This is an artefact of our economizing on thought.

It’s not that unusual for Western man to use his thoughts and SAE language games to come up with the thought that he is determining some result. When he goes through this process of “Adaptation of thoughts to facts and adaptation of facts to each other.”, he can come up with the concept of ‘farming’ wherein the ‘effect’ of fields full of ripened foodcrops, can be tracked back to jumpstart causal sourcing by ‘the activities of the farmer’, so as to deliver the thought that ‘the farmer produces foodcrops’.

The ‘farmer’ is a six-letter word. It does not represent a ‘physical phenomenon in itself’. The ‘farmer farms’ is in the same category as ‘lightning flashes’ and ‘climate warms’, ... it is an “Adaptation of thoughts to facts and adaptation of facts to each other.”

The ‘climate crisis’ is a tempest in a ‘thought-pot’.

As George Carlin might have said, 'no need to sweat today's changing climate if a swarm of meteors is headed our way'. That is, our clever adaptations of thought and fact, arranged so as to achieve 'economizing' on the amount of thinking we have to do, do not represent the reality of our experienced inclusion in a continually transforming relational spatial Plenum [that may contain a lot of bullets heading our way that we are oblivious to, that commenced their journey before human's were even a twinkle in nature's eye.], .... our language-facilitated adaptations of thought and fact are simply that; an adaption of thought and fact arranged so as to achieve an 'economy of thought'.

It's about time to talk about YOUR carbon footprint, sheep. Buy eco cars or offer paid rideshares, stop making babies... while Bill Gates is fucking up the gene code of most known species on the planet and BP and the nuke industry still fuck up the land and seas in every profitable way.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for " A Real &quot;All of the Above&quot; Solution to the Climate Crisis"