How to Stop Climate Change

  • Posted on: 5 September 2015
  • By: stimulator
How to Stop Climate Change by

To Watch this video visit

This week we re-think our critique of the People’s Climate March, then we go to Germany where trouble makers have been regularly shutting down Europe’s largest source of CO2. Then on to Greece, to look at a growing resistance against a gold mine and finally to the longest running blockade of oil and gas pipelines in Turtle Island. On the music break, we have Alas and Savage Fam with “Go Away.” We conclude with a special report from Ecuador, where indigenous peeps opposed to extractive industries, blockaded roads last month, paralyzing the country.



Man, Stim... you're too much into that Climate Change thing. Realize that there's many other environmental issues caused by the supermassively destructive industry we have now. There is such a thing as causality, though it isn't as simple as A + B = C. This also makes you sound embarrassingly liberal...

I don't think Stim knows exactly where he stands on a lot of things. When I saw him speak during the END:CIV tour in 2011, he was asked by an audience member what his understanding of anarchism was - his answer was a seemingly hesitant and uncertain construal as hyperlocalism, decisions being made on the smallest level possible. Certainly not how I'd answer the question...I appreciate aspects of his show and am definitely glad that he does it, but that reply made me take him less seriously when it comes to theory.

… or maybe that's a stupid question? Too broad, derailing a simple Q&A where other people probably had questions too. I couldn't answer that question properly unless me and the person asking were sitting, with a drink and had at least an hour to discuss.

What's wrong with talking about climate change?

Because the climate isn't a fixed thing, but interrelations in constant flux (with as well as before humans).

To think that what's in flux (and therefore not under human control) can be made fixed by human control/intervention would cause more interference, with all of the unforeseen consequences. Perhaps human's seeing themselves as annointed as something more or different than than the underlying relations they are a part of that sustain all life on the planet is the problem.

Besides, if humans were able to appear to synthetically manage (there's that word again) the climate, it would be to maintain business as usual, and to eventually export that knowledge to manage other planets (without a similar or any climate) for a continuation of the same.

Under it all is this attitude that nothing's wrong with this notion of continual unlimited growth (well unless the peasants must be made to sacrifice their potential), it's the climate that needs to change. Obviously many of the peeps in this vid would see a problem with the narrative of unlimited growth. But those that wieild that narrative? Get ready to insert the usual tropes of progress, ideas that we've outgrown the planet. We just need a better human scientific management strategy. Technology will help us curtail, and derail climate change.

We could take this conversation anywhere. We could speak about how the concept of growth is an illusion. Nothing has grown, only transformed.

… What the fuck are you talking about? If you haven't figured out how to meld your anti-capitalism with the larger issues of climate change … that's on you. Nothing "liberal" about it either. Any notion to the contrary demonstrates to me that people haven't fully grasped how big those problems are going to be, blasting away our silly little views on politics like a heap of dry leaves in the wind. You sound like you disappeared up your own ass in a philosophy class.

"You sound like you disappeared up your own ass in a philosophy class." Emile, would you care to respond 10,000-word data spew to that?

Seriously though, Stim's show has always been crass and grounded in the real world. The discourse around climate change can get vague because of the scope of the problems but it's really not abstract stuff at all. If you want to see the realities, you need only look to the parts of the world where shit is getting very real. Just cause you're lucky enough to not live in the affected areas doesn't mean it's a bunch of hot air and hype.

Then there's the ability to make a few simple connections between struggles. Where I live, it's oil and gas pipelines and hopefully I don't have to spell that one out but presumably, most regions would have something comparable, even if you're not dealing with floods, droughts, mass die-offs or any other apocalyptic type shit … yet.

Though I'm still unsure on a proper definition of the concept of "climate change" -that is really a meme started and spreaded by big wigs of of the ruthlessly authoritarian corpo-scientific community, that evolved out of "global warming"- I can't think of it as detached from capitalism.

So basically … you can't be bothered to do enough reading on the subject? I get skepticism of the scientific establishment, I do. The pharmaceutical industry being one of the worst offenders but if you still can't define "climate change" at all..? It's sudden and severe changes to the climate and I would also include the rest of the biosphere, triggered by human activity. More specifically, human over-population and industrial activity.

relational transformation is the physical reality that we experience and it is the mother of us. Western capitalism and authoritarianism comes from the Oedipal notion of our being able to 'control the unfolding future' rather than being limited to 'interfering' with it, you say.

so, seeing climate aka 'relational transformation' as deriving from a list of local causal agencies is the kind of thing that science likes to do, as well as Western religions which foster the belief in men as independent beings with their own jumpstart causal agent powers, ... a belief copied over into Newtonian science [not without qualifications by Newton, who pointed out, in both his author's preface and again in his summarizing Scholium to his 'Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy], that he had been unable to capture, in mathematics, the phenomena of relational convergence-divergence as was clearly evident in physical phenomena].

in other words, there are no exact solutions to three or more bodies moving under one another's simultaneous mutual influence, not in a model based on independent material beings that reside in a space/habitat that is notionally independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it.

Newton, left the explanation of the really complex aspects of physical phenomena to God;

“I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy.” Newton, Author’s Preface in the ‘Principia’.
“… and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained ; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” — Newton, Scholium in the ‘Principia’

the science of newton 'works' because of the invented concept of 'local force' or 'local causal agency'. this is not a 'real physical influence' but a mathematical concept that can be used to explain 'why things move' [just because we can measure the force of a hurricane doesn't mean that that 'force' is 'local'; i.e. it can be a local expression of inherently non-local field of influence that is non-local, non-visible and non-material as in gravity and electromagnetism which are 'everywhere at the same time' or 'inherently non-local'].

of course the concept of 'things moving' is intellectual idealization that pre-empts an understanding of dynamics in terms of relational transformation in an environment where 'relations are all there are' in which relational forms/structures are visible appearances that are not 'things-in-themselves' but features within a relational flow-field. the subject-verb-constructs of language may over-ride this in our intellectual idealizing, but not in the physical reality of our actual experience.

thus the colonizer-settler can, using subject-verb-predicate constructs, claim; 'my activity is creating a new house' while the colonized-indigenous-people can claim' 'your activity is destroying the forest', and the colonizer [because of his Western belief that he was created equal and independent with internal process based drive and direction for his own behaviour] is never going to acknowledge that 'creation' and 'destruction' are not 'real' but are instead notional aspects of relational transformation that take on a reality of their own thanks to noun-and-verb language which is 'being-based' and employs 'subject-verb-predicate constructs' such as "I constructed this new house", a logical proposition that is a tautology in that it depends exclusively on itself and contains no extralogical references such as; 'you dumb shit, you are ruining the forest'.

in other words, science assumes that the corporation has the causal agency to produce products. the logical proposition: "general motors produces products" makes no extralogical reference [i.e. to how this activity is wounding and contaminating the relational space it is included in] since it would not be a logical proposition if it did; i.e. logical propositions get their explicit exactness and certainty by not making any extralogical references that would naturally open the door to all kinds of uncertainty and redefinition]. for example, relational social dynamics induce a pattern of relational activity that has been named 'university', and scientific analysis can describe the university in terms of its internal components (departments, faculties, buildings, campus) and internal processes. this is by way of scientific 'analytical inquiry' and it can impute 'being' and 'causal agency' to 'university' using logical propositions, portraying the university as an 'independently-existing systems that does stuff' as if it resided, operated and interacted in a habitat that was notionally independent of the inhabitants that resided, operated and interacted within it.

in other words, if we lift off all the verbiage and logical propositions, we see the suprasystem of relational social dynamic continually inducing a pattern of relational activity that we could endow with 'its own identity' [like the storm-cell Katrina] by popping a name on it, 'university'.

this is science's game, creating independent internal process power driven-and-directed systems, ... out of relational forms in a transforming relational activity continuum. that is, science's game is to use language and logical propositions to split the figures out of their inextricable figure-ground relation and reconstruct [RE-present] the world dynamic in the one-sided terms of 'what independent systems do'.

'man', seen through science's intellectually idealizing eyes, is one of those independent, internal components and processes-driven systems.

next comes 'climate' which is a relational activity and NOT a 'noun' as in 'the climate is an independently existing system with its own internal process driven and directed behaviour. [it is a relational feature within the transforming relational activity continuum aka 'universe' shaped by solar irradiation variations, orbital variations, milky-way spirallings, solar flares interfering with geomagnetic variations in electromagnetic field dynamic, cosmic rays, expanding planetary movements etc. etc.].

but science likes to first impute closed system operations to an activity so that it can use analytical inquiry to define internal processes with causal agency that can be held 'responsible' for behaviour that is firstly and foremostly outside-inwardly orchestrated and shaped by the transforming relational activity continuum that it is included in [as a relational feature].

so, the problem with capitalism, corporatism and nationalism that comes from science's synthetic splitting apart of figure and ground and PORTRAYING the figure as an 'independently-existing system with its own internal process driven and directed behaviour' that resides, operates and interacts in a habitat that is notionally independent of the inhabitants that reside, operate and interact within it, is the same problem as crops up with 'climate change'; i.e. in portraying 'climate' as being a dynamic activity driven and directed from its interior.

who wants to pay attention to the 'deniers' who claim that climate behaviour is celestially induced/orchestrated?

science is all about 'economy of thought' as Mach points out, science doesn't like 'complexity' and understanding the world as a transforming relational activity continuum is the epitome of complexity which takes away all beginnings, even the beginning of logical analysis intended to make sense of the relational complexity one is included in, which incubated the logical analyst trying to perform this logical analysis.

as you say, man [the relational form that derives his power and steerage NOT from his own interior but, like a sailboater, from the relational dynamics he is situationally included in] can interfere in the dynamic we call 'climate' but he sure as hell cannot 'control it'. insofar as his interference triggers an avalanche of warming, which is highly doubtful, he cannot put the snow that tumbled down the mountain slopes back in place so as to 'reverse the effects he caused'. in other words, he did not 'cause' them because 'causality' is a one-sided all-hitting, no-fielding scientific intellectual idealization, like 'constructing a house' [hey, let's not talk about how it is impossible, in the physical reality of our actual expeirence, to construct a house without, in the same fell stroke, destroying forest]. Science supports the one-sided producer-product concept of the corporation that 'produces goods and services' without talking about simultaneous reciprocal complementary impact in the relational space in which the corporation is an included relational feature [the corporation is an activity, not an independent being (as the lawyers say) that is the local jumpstart author of cause-and-effect results].

'growth' is a one-sided all-hitting, no-fielding concept that exists only in subject-verb-predicate intellectual language-and-grammar idealization. in a transforming relational activity continuum, relational transformation is the only possibility, construction of new houses really do destroy forest; the same dynamic can be RE-presented in opposite terms leading to contradiction. the contradiction dissolves with the acknowledging that the physical reality of our natural experience is one in which relational transformation prevails [where relational activity is reduced to 'independent material beings with their own internal process driven and directed behaviour' such as human beings, corporations, nations etc. for 'economy of thought'; i.e. to avoid having to deal with the inherent complexity in nature].

science's economizing on thought is not a bad game so long as one doesn't forget that it is 'just a game' and start putting it in precedence over the physical reality of our natural experience which is fucking complex and well beyond the sorting-out capabilities of our simple analytical reasoning with its neat and tidy logical propositioning that allows no extralogical referencing.

“We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

"Nothing has grown, only transformed."

The solution to climate change: read Heidegger

Ja mein fraü!!! Seig heils für Reichleiter Musk!

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.