Idiomdrottning’s homepage

State vs Climate

Anything we can do to fight climate change without a state, I’m all for. Keep up the good work. I’m not saying to throw anything out of our existing toolbox.

What are some meaningful interventions that a state or international organization like the UN can do more easily than we can do on our own?

If you can do any of those things (at least partially) without being a government, go ahead (and I wanna join you). I believe states can do it more easily. That’s all.

If the counterargument to what I’m saying is that the state is unlikely to do any of those things, well, I’m right there with you.

That’s like 99% of what I write about here, about how the politicians suck and how media sucks and how nothing is getting done.

But unlikely is less bad than impossible as far as I’m concerned.

Again, no-one is saying “hold off on action until we’ve unbroke the state”. If you can do action, do action.

I’m trying to think of ways to fix media, I’m trying to think of ways to fix politics, I’m trying to think of ways we can do those necessary things without media or politics. I’m trying to think of any route. Suggestions super welcome because no one person is gonna figure this out on her own.

Loyalty to an ideological flag such as the ol’ black&red, I can not afford when it’s climate knocking on the door. Especially when it’s toolbox, like federation and federalism, seem unusually poorly suited to address a problem where local freedom (such as “the freedom to pollute”) has global fallout. A factory in Wisconsin can make it so that Stockholm doesn’t have drinking water.

Also, the US isn’t the entire planet. I know that the GOP and the US coal lobby impacts the planet greatly. But American failures doesn’t have to mean the end of things like the EU and the UN.

One reason why I’m writing is to hold politicans responsible and encourage them to act.

I’ve mentioned the blame triangle many times. Corporate, politics, populace: all are passing the buck. Every time I mention this triangle, I’m saying please stop, to all three, whichever of the three roles applies to you; as a citizen, you can make changes to your life, and the corporate world certainly has the most to answer for. But politicians have a unique role in how they can legislate the other two.

Now all y’all who are anonymous on the internet can write about your tire-flattening, road-gluing shenanigans or whatever you’re up to. That’s great!

I’m not arguing against a solution, I’m not trying to stop a salvation. I’m arguing for a solution, for a practical route forward. If you can do other good stuff in parallel or even instead, that’s just awesome!

So if it’s…

  1. Ban fossils (with (and without) the help of the state)
  2. Enjoy your new fossil-free planet


  1. Smash the state (and finally succeed after 130 years of trying)
  2. ?????
  3. Fossils still gonna be around…?

I’m not super into that second option there.

I’ve been nerding out on anarchism stuff for decades but never seen them address pollution externalities. And I’m ready to be surprised. The Street Performer Protocol was an anarchist solution to funding free culture without copyright externalites, and it ushered in crowdfunding and changed the economic landscape. So I haven’t stopped listening.

It’s just… There are some religions where they don’t allow blood transfusion so they come up with these cockamamie alternative ways to do surgery which are much worse and riskier and can’t fit every use case. The human mind can contort itself like that. We fall so in love with one expression of an idea that we wreck everything around us to hammer that square peg in. That’s why I wanna get my number one priority straight: save the Earth!

“But what about extra-parliamentary, direct action?” I’m all for ‘em!