Jonathan Cloud February 7th, 2025
It’s important to take a moment in the midst of the current political turmoil to consider what‘s really at stake. What we’re seeing from the Trump White House may be a symptom of the breakdown occurring as the new Administration tries to turn back the clock in several critical areas—climate, equity, foreign aid, and public service—while pursuing global triumphalism. But the consequences of a world economy built on fossil fuels, mass consumerism, and conventional agriculture are unavoidable. We need to understand that we are in the midst of collapse, and that chaos and conflict will only accelerate it. Here’s what even ChatGPT recognizes to be the situation we face.
The Reality of Accelerating Collapse
Civilization as we know it is under immense strain. Climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification, and ocean acidification are just some of the existential crises unfolding at an accelerating pace. These environmental pressures are compounded by political instability, economic fragility, and disruptive social movements seeking to overturn the status quo. We are in the midst of what scientists and historians may come to call the most decisive decade of the 21st century. What we do—or fail to do—will determine whether the future remains habitable for humanity and countless other species
Defining a Habitable Future
A habitable future is one in which humans and ecosystems can thrive within planetary boundaries. It is a future where temperatures remain within a range that sustains food production and human health, where biodiversity supports resilient ecosystems, and where economic and social systems allow for well-being without the relentless exploitation of people and nature. It is a future in which our air, water, and soil are clean, and our societies are structured around cooperation, equity, and resilience rather than competition, extraction, and collapse Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud January 26th, 2025
Something led me to start reading the text of Donald Trump’s Executive Order on energy, “Unleashing American Energy,” and I was astonished to discover an assault on an economic and scientific concept, the “social cost of carbon.”
The calculation of the “social cost of carbon” is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation. Its abuse arbitrarily slows regulatory decisions and, by rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive, encourages a greater human impact on the environment by affording less efficient foreign energy producers a greater share of the global energy and natural resource market. Consequently, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA shall issue guidance to address these harmful and detrimental inadequacies, including consideration of eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision. ((Source))
It’s been some years since Delton Chen and I worked on the real cost of carbon emissions on the planet, and I don’t remember all the arguments we made, except that we also distinguished a separate “risk cost of carbon” that took into account more than just the immediate deleterious effects of increasing greenhouse gases. But while we may not like estimating and reporting on the economic costs of increased carbon pollution, it’s just not useful to stick our heads in the sand.
And I very much wonder who came up with the idea of simply doing away with the concept. Continue Reading »
Jonathan Cloud January 30th, 2024
The more I play with ChatGPT, the more it seems to me to have a bias — a bias toward the conventional, toward an incorrectly “balanced” view, as well as a superficial tone and an attraction for clichés and bad writing.
As an example of what I’m talking about, consider the Chatbot’s response to Jonathan Rowson’s recent provocation on war and peace:
“Do we have a theory and practice of peace that is worthy of the risks and challenges of the 21st century? If not, how do we expect to survive? And if so, what would that look like?”[1]
Continue Reading »