Atelier WeekNotes w/c 1 Jul
0/DETECTING. UK General Election: complex! Punished for incompetence; BANI-world politics. Climate: best of times / worst of times / even worse times.
I am writing newsletter of #weeknotes of starting the Atelier of What’s Next (a studio for initiatives at the frontier of generating a better future). For my rationale for starting the Atelier see here.
This week has many big reflections. Apparently it is too long for email, so you might have to click through to read the cliamte-related stuff in the second half.
0/DETECTING
UK General Election
- Let there be complexities and contradictions!
- Tories punished for incompetence, in delivery and in national strategy.
- BANI-world politics (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible)
Climate: best of times / worst of times / even worse times.
- Rocky Mountain Institute: cleantech is exponential, disruptive and now.
- 'Hard to abate' sectors: an increasingly obsolete term?
- Banning advertising
- Climate in the media
- Could the climate be more sensitive to emissions than we thought?
- North Atlantic circulation collapse
How can the Atelier of What's Next be of service to you, and your purposes? We'd love to hear from you. Perhaps you have a challenge or idea to put in the studio. Maybe one of our existing topics appeals to you. What if you love to make new things happen by being part of the studio? Or if you have feedback or comments that would improve this deck. Either click the button below or email davidbent@atelierwhatsnext.org.
0/DETECTING
UK General Election
Let there be complexities and contradictions!
My immediate General Election reflection, written at 6am that morning (as the results were still coming in):
-It’s an unprecedented landslide.
-It’s a broad-but-shallow, (& very vulnerable) sandcastle.
-It’s won from the centre.
-It’s won because the far right had a good night in many places.
-It’s a dismissal of ‘the party of government’ because they failed to govern; all their big bets failed the UK (austerity, Brexit, fast tax cuts, slow tax cuts) and they were consistently incompetent on fundamentals.
-It’s not (yet) enthusiasm for the winner’s values or promises.
-it’s a mandate for fast-paced Net Zero.
-it’s a warning on being seen to prioritise Net Zero over cost of living.
-It’s assembling a wide electoral coalition.
-It’s losing some key minorities, especially on Gaza.
-It’s a call for competent, quiet delivery, so people don’t need to pay attention to politics.
-It’s the next phase of a far right insurgency, with loud voices on immigration and other culture wars.
-It’s ‘change to stability’.
-Its ’delivery will need radical change’.
-It’s Scotland not supporting independence.
-Its many regions and places voting for local reasons and for local priorities.
-It’s big win.
-It’s not clear cut.
Tories punished for incompetence, in delivery and in national strategy.
A further reflection through last few days is just how much the Tories messed up. They had a large electoral coalition in 2019, a good majority and a friendly media. If they have focused on delivering that manifesto, then they would have got another term.
Yes, the centrepiece was 'Get Brexit Done'. And, yes, in 2019 many voted to keep Corbyn out.
But the content of the 2019 Tory manifesto was using the power of the state to help people to help themselves. This article by one of the manifesto co-authors has 3 key aspects:
"recognising the contract between people and the state: we expect everyone who can to contribute, we will look after those who need help, and we will punish those who break the rules."
"public services. In five years, people need to find it easier to get a GP appointment, think A&E and social care is better not worse, and not believe that their schools are struggling with budgets."
"place...this manifesto had a massive focus on towns, on buses and local transport and reversing Beeching cuts, and also on all the civic and cultural infrastructure that makes a town worth living in."
The Tories abjectly failed to deliver on all of those. But not because of COVID. That was a crisis, but the government could have tuned the emergency phase and then the recovery to delivering on these themes.
Instead, they didn't. Partygate symbolises the broken contract between people and the state. On public services , you can read my own tale of interacting with the NHS for a laugh. (You will have your own, with or without laughter.) On place, well, have you been anywhere in the UK lately? Did it look dynamic and on the up? Or did it look 'tired', with boarded up shops, and more?
More recently, the latest PM made undeliverable promises on immigration. He wanted to increase the salience of the issue, in order to make a wedge. But then he didn't deliver zero small boats (impossible). He allowed the refugee backlog to explode (avoidable). So he pissed off everyone (those who want to reduce immigration for not delivering; those who like immigration for trying something cruel and economically stupid).
The delivery incompetence was high. Very high. Really, very, very high.
But. A great deal of that delivery incompetence came from incompetence in national strategy.
Austerity underfunded the public sector, which significantly reduced the ability to deliver public services and, well, anything.
It also directly reduced public investment, and also the induced private investment which rides off public spending, needed to grow the economy. Result: stagnant productivity, stagnant wages, weak tax take, weak ability to fund public services.
The snake began to eat its own tail. Stagnation begat stagnation. And fed the legitimate resentment -- at being left behind economically, left out culturally and let down politically -- that was the breeding ground for the Brexit result.
Worth remember that the early 2010s were a time of unprecedentedly low interest rates. The UK could have borrowed huge amounts of money, effectively for no interest, and invested in all the things we need: schools that don't fall down; health and social care ready for an aging population; transport infrastructure to create growth-primed regions; an underlying energy infrastructure for the renewables transition. We did not.
Truly, David Cameron is the worst PM of recent times. And, given his successors, that is saying something. (Yes, I am still livid at Cameron and 'brains of the operation' Osborne for austerity. Don't get me started on Clegg allowing himself to be bounced into austerity.)
So, austerity set the scene for terrible public services. Brexit turned that up to eleven, partly through economics and partly through purity tests.
The economics: from the referendum result in 2016, businesses held back on investing in the UK until there was more clarity. (They still are, which gives potential to Starmer now.) And then, on top, there is the drag of putting up trade barriers when we left.
The purity tests: to be a senior Tory you now had to be pro Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit. Which means nothing.
that became an escalation game of people claiming their adherence to the most Brexit-y form of Brexit. Each version was more divorced from reality, the reality of modern trading (the gravity model: places close together trade much more than those far apart) and the reality of today's supply chains (the important organising unit of trade now is not nations but companies; a national boundary forces a company to choose whether to let its interim production be 'behind a paywall'; often it chooses not to).
So reality-based Tories, those with a regard for evidence of some kind, were jettisoned.
It turns out that people who are not led by evidence, who prioritise posturing and bluster over performance, they are really bad at delivery. Who knew? (Lots of people. Lots of people knew.)
Back to the 2019 General Election. Johnson wins a large majority on a ticket of Get Brexit Done, keep out Corbyn, and help people to help themselves. Once Brexit is done (and effectively irreversible), and Corbyn is gone (and not coming back), that leaves delivery.
But the government machinery is severely eroded by austerity. The party severely eroded by purity tests. The first PM is engulfed in scandals of their own making. The second PM is engulfed in reality hitting back on impossible promises (as Torsten Bell put it, "You believing in markets doesn’t mean they believe in you.") The third PM tried some culture war moves, and economically was just a 'same but slower' version of the Truss.
The General Election is people voting against the Tories based on lived experience. Things have got worse. Because of execution incompetence (especially since 2019) and strategic incompetence (austerity, Brexit).
Politically engaged people like me, who are motivated by particular values, believe that people should vote on values. In the UK, I suspect, for the most part, they don't. (The exception is when an Opposition Leader offends on patriotism or other deep taboo, as Corbyn did.)
My hypothesis is that they vote on experiences. ‘Is my life better? Can I make a GP appointment? Is my kids' school any good?’ And so on. If broadly the answer is yes, then let's give the incumbents another go. That's the easiest thing.
They don't care much on the 'how', how the policy choices that drive the performance, or how the values and ideology that form the policy choices. They care about their lives (and don't want to have to pay attention to politics all the time).
In a weird way, that is a great way to make a choice. Not based on a mental model of what the world should be like (which is highly uncertain), but a lived experience of how things have turned out (which is more knowable and known). Also, a politics where people choose based on values leads to US-style hyper-partisan culture wars, where you will vote for Trump regardless.
All of which points to how Labour wins the next election. Deliver.
Deliver on the 5 missions -- and be seen to deliver on them, starting with small wins now, but building over time.
Use the inevitable disruptions and crises as chances to deliver tangible improvements in people's lives.
Don't get distracted into trying to outflank Reform (a fool's errand; you can be respectful to people's concerns on immigration without entering an escalation game with Farage).
All of which is far easier to write than to do.
BANI-world politics (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible)
In Oct 2021, Sunday Times political correspondent Tim Shipman tweeted that:
"Boris Johnson now squats like a giant toad across British politics. He has expanded the Overton window in both directions. Praising bankers and drug companies, while tight on immigration and woke history. Cheered for lauding the NHS and pro LGBT. Where does Labour find a gap?"
What a difference 33 months makes.
As a futurist, I have to admit I got my predictions very wrong. After the 2019 General Election, I thought that my youngest, born in Feb 2010, would be under a Tory government until at least their first vote.
I didn't spot how likely it was that Johnson would implode under his own character traits. Also, just how much the electorate is no longer loyal to a party.
Futurist Jamais Cascio has a new acronym for the world we are in. It is no longer enough to think in terms of VUCA: Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous.
We are now in BANI -- Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible.
Brittle. The 2019 Tory majority of 80 seats has snapped under the pressure of leader personalities, choices, and also events (see next point).
Anxious. A world waiting for the next show to drop. Since 2019 we've had 'events, dear boy, events': COVID, Ukraine, and resulting supply shock, 'cost of living' inflation. As I write, we are waiting on the French Parliamentary elections, with the US elections later in the year. More black swans to come.
Nonlinear. First Past The Post dials up the nonlinear feedback loops, so Labour gets a huge majority on a not-at-all huge vote share. (Given they choose their strategy to match the FPTP system, criticism on vote share are missing the point; maybe Team Starmer would have made different choices if you got power through number of votes, but you don't.)
Incomprehensible. There are many competing, conflicting dynamics underneath the big trends. Almost no one predicted the Gaza protests would lead to successful independent MPs.
WHAT NEXT.
Pray for a Starmer government to get the early big calls right, show quick small wins, focus on delivery -- and not to vacate the media space, but to keep having a message of national renewal, public service and brick-by-brick change. Deliver, deliver, deliver. Even when there are wildcard events.
Keep going with Hard Investigations (see last week). In his acceptance speech, Farage spoke of creating a movement behind the values of his party, which are (my take) exclusive, rose-tinted, nostalgic and protective of 'us' but cruel to 'them'. What would it be to build a movement that was active on different values: inclusive, reality-based (eg on climate), future-facing, plus caring for a larger us?
Climate: best of times / worst of times.
Here are some observations on the rolling BANI (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible) situation that is climate change. I'll try to keep these snappy!
Rocky Mountain Institute: cleantech is exponential, disruptive and now.
The Rocky Mountain Institute, legendary NGO on "transforming the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all", released its latest roundup on renewables. It is called Cleantech Revolution.
To call it bullish would be an insult to bulls. It is not so much 'glass half full', as 'tidal wave incoming'.
To summarise in one chart, they think the mainstream modelling is wrong on the pace, cost and opportunity of renewable eneergy technologies.
There are tens of charts and these conclusions:
"This is the pivot decade when cleantech manufacturing capacity is built, renewables get too cheap to resist, and fossil fuel demand reaches the end of its plateau.
We need to continue building out the renewable system, speed up electrification in the OECD, and increase focus on efficiency.
We should make good bets on solutions that work: small modular technologies and efficiency measures. Equally, we need to avoid high-cost, inefficient, and unproven bets.
Companies need to move from tactics to strategy.
Investors should retool for the megatheme of the energy transition.
Energy modelers need to change their approach or become stranded experts.
We are in a race between climate and economic tipping points. The direction is inevitable, but speed is up to us."
WHAT NEXT. Prepare to be surprised by how much difference ever-cheaper renewable energy (and related storage) makes. As Hemingway said of going broke, it happens in two ways: gradually, then suddenly. We are moving into the 'suddenly' phase.
For instance, investment is not a rational appraisal of future discounted cashflows (the Capital Asset Pricing Model I was taught as a trainee accountant). As Keynes said, they are more like a beauty contest where judges are rewarded for selecting the most popular faces among all judges (slightly informed by expectations on future cashflows).
What will happen to the shareprices of oil majors, say when investors believe other investors no longer find fossil fuel companies attractive? Or the sovereign debt of petronations? What will leaders of those companies and companies do, out of increasing desparation, to forestall this herd effect?
Conversely, maybe the transition in rich countries will get easier and easier, if communities can be rewarded for allowing new infrastructure.
Maybe the arguments 'strong degrowth' fall away. By 'strong degrowth', I mean the position where the only way to a large-scale, complex, global human society is an absolute reduction in GDP as currently measured. (My own position is more of a 'weak degrowth as part': degrowth of damaging sectors in our current economy; growth in new or transformed sectors that align with nature and increase people's capailities. For instance, in the chemical industry: out with fossil-fuel plastic; in with reduced demand and organic feedstocks and circularity. Not snappy. More possible.)
'Hard to abate' sectors: an increasingly obsolete term?
Relatedly, I listened to several Volts podcasts (highly, higliy recommend), including about sectors which we have historically called 'hard to abate': electric aviation and carbon-free steel.
The theme: the huge reductions in price of renewable electricity mean that the set of sectors which are truly hard to abate might is shrinking. The term might be going out of date.
That said, there are two blindspots in David Roberts' method. He is often interviewing with a strong vested interest. So, beware of hype / necessary and authentic entrepreneur confidence that is misplaced.
Also, interviewing someone deep in the tech can mean the wider effects are not explored. On the electric aviation I was thinking (1) rebound effect and (2) accelerating concentration of who gets to use resources.
Risk is the tech becomes something which allows rich Americans to move stuff around (with huge potential second order effects on manufacturing / value webs…) but pulling available resources into that, rather than what poorer nations need on basics.
’Twas ever thus, I guess. But the wider societal risks are not discussed.
WHAT NEXT. Progress on supposed 'hard-to-abate' sectors reduces resistance and increases political buy-in? Does it also reinforce the status quo economic model which has an underlying Winner Takes All dynamic?
Banning advertising
The UN Secretary General António Guterres said that the world's fossil fuel industries should be banned from advertising to help save the world from climate change,
This is hardly a new recommendation. (Basically, about half the left-leaning 'how we fix the world' books I've read recommend this.)
What is new is who is saying it. The UN Secretary General! (Just like back in April on climate as a moral debt on rich countries, old notion, new type of person -- in that case an Economics Nobel Prize winner.)
SIDEBAR: It did remind me of when I was working on the Guadian newspaper's first ever sustainability vision in the late 2000s. (I want to say 2007.)
I interview all the senior executives on the commercial side, plus a few on the editorial side. My memory is every one of the commercial interviews started with them saying, "I support sustainability, and, of course, we are not going to ban any advertising."
At the time the Guardian was till primarily a physical newspaper, and a huge portion of the adverts were for cars and low cost airlines.
I said that was interesting, because I wasn't advocating either way. Perhaps they might consider it in the future? They said they never would.
Interestingly in 2020 the Guardian said it would no longer accept fossil fuel advertising.
Change can take a long time.
Guterres' remarks come as there are other initiatives having traction in the advertising world. I'm thinking in particular of Purpose Disruptors which is on a mission to catalyse the advertising industry’s climate transition to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degree global warming target (one of the co-founders, Jonathon Wise, did the same Masters as me, though in a different year).
WHAT NEXT. Still in the 'slowly' phase, at best, I suspect. But I expect more momentum over time
Climate in the media
The editor of the Guardian in 2007ish was Alan Rusbridger. I remember speaking with him and the other editorial staff about climate change. They all strongly believed that it did not need a different approach than any other issue.
At that point The Independent was trying to be a 'viewspaper', with a front page campaigning slogan nearly every day. The Guardian, I was told, would never campaign on climate change, as that would undermine people's trust in the Guardian..
In 2009, still under Rusbridger, they did start the 10:10 Climate Change Campaign. (Sometimes change doesn't take as long as you fear.) This was the build up to the climate negotiations hosted by Denmark, the ill-fated 'Hopenhagen'. (Sometimes changes takes longer.)
In June this year, now as editor of left-leaning news magazine Prospect, Rusbridger explored the challenges of covering climate, prompted by Wolfgan Blau's Oxford Climate Journalism Network.
He writes of his response to the Blau's presentation:
"Was I the only journalist in the room who stared at those graphics and wondered why they weren’t leading every news bulletin and dominating every front page? Would we go down in history as a generation of sleepwalkers?"
The charts will be a bit more detailed than in 2007. But the science is, fundamentally, the same. But yes, Alan, you will -- we will -- go down as a generation of sleepwalkers. It is not too late to make a difference, though.
He ends the article hoping that Prince Charles can step in to get people talking, because that 'neutral' convenor is the only way to transcend the culture war aspect. A weak recommendation, given the rest of the article.
WHAT NEXT. Watching brief. See if the media step up. But don't expect or rely on it.
Could the climate be more sensitive to emissions than we thought?
A slightly nerdy and hard to follow climate science thread here.
The key point I take: Carbon dioxide is running near (slightly below) pathway SSP2-4.5 but global temperature is tracking nowhere near the IPCC AR6 projections for that -- it's far higher.
Put another way, on these carbon emissions we should be on track for (roughly) 3.5C warming by 2050, but the actual temperature readings now imply far higher than that in 2100.
Which would be very, very bad news.
The climate may be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we thought, so to avoid the most dangerous zones, we might have to cut more emissions, faster than we had thought (and then do even more CDR, Carbon Dioxide Removal).
Understanding this gap, and acting on the findings, is probably 100 times more important than any election this year.
I’m reminded of this piece by Prof Bent Flyvbjerg. Basically, if you face uncertainty with extreme negative outcomes act urgently, at scale to reduce their probability (& create contingencies).
Put another way, we don't need to wait to have complete certainty before we act as if this is an emergency.
WHAT NEXT. See next section.
North Atlantic circulation collapse
"Just attending a 3-day workshop on the danger of abrupt ocean circulation changes. Discussions are quite worrying. E.g. in 35 to 45 % of high quality models, convection in the open North Atlantic collapses in the 2030s due to #globalheating. -> Major climate disruption. ☹️" Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth System Analysis @ Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research & professor of Physics of the Oceans @ Potsdam University. here.
"A 2030s collapse of North Atlantic convection is deeply alarming, and has never been on the cards before." Dr Nafeez Ahmed here
"This is absolutely terrifying. Public debate in the UK is in complete denial about this possibility and what it would mean." Dr Will McDowall (the lead for the UCL module I teach on) here.
I remember this kind of jetstream collapse being talked abut as a possibility, but for the 2100s, not the 2030s.
Why is it terrifying? Because Northern Europe is roughly on the same latitudes as northern Canada and Siberia. We are warmer than those places because (in one line) we get a delivery of warm water and air from the Caribbean. Without that, we would be colder. Probably too cold for our European agriculture.
WHAT NEXT. Watching the science. Preparing for those urgent actions when there is deeper realisation. Bringing the realisation closer (another link to the Hard Investigations strand).