<https://newrepublic.com/article/161575/climate-change-effects-hurtling-toward-global-suicide#>
<https://newrepublic.com/article/161575/climate-change-effects-hurtling-toward-global-suicide#><https://getpocket.com/edit?url=https://newrepublic.com/article/161575/climate-change-effects-hurtling-toward-global-suicide>
<mailto:?subject=&body=We%E2%80%99re%20Hurtling%20Toward%20Global%20Suicide%20%0A%0Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fnewrepublic.com%2Farticle%2F161575%2Fclimate-change-effects-hurtling-toward-global-suicide>
New Republic, Ben Ehrenreich
<https://newrepublic.com/authors/ben-ehrenreich>/March 18, 2021
We’re Hurtling Toward Global Suicide
Why we must do everything differently to ensure the planet’s survival
ILLUSTRATIONS BY JON HAN
On January 13, one week before the inauguration of Joe Biden as the
forty-sixth president of the United States and seven long days after the
storming of the Capitol by an armed right-wing mob, it was easy enough
to miss an article published in the journal/Frontiers in Conservation
Science/, despite its eye-catching title:“Underestimating the Challenges
of Avoiding a Ghastly Future.”
<https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full>The
headline was itself a train wreck: six dully innocuous words piling up
in front of a modifier more suitable to a 1950s horror comic than a
sober, academic journal. But there it was: The 17 scientists who
co-wrote the article, the experts who peer-reviewed it, and the
journal’s editors did not consider the word “ghastly” too sensational,
subjective, or value-laden to describe the future toward which our
society is advancing with all the prudence and caution of a runaway
locomotive. The article’s message was simple: Everything must change.
On its current track, the authors wrote, “humanity is causing a rapid
loss of biodiversity and, with it, Earth’s ability to support complex
life.” As many as a million animal species—and 20 percent of all
species—are facing near-term extinction. Humans have altered 70 percent
of the planet’s land surface and “compromised” or otherwise despoiled
two-thirds of its oceans, and the climate has only begun to warm.
Humanity—or some of us, anyway—“is running an ecological Ponzi scheme in
which society”—or some sectors of it—“robs nature and future generations
to pay for boosting incomes in the short term.” Only a radical
transformation of the systems that govern our relations to one another
and to the myriad forms of life with which we share the planet, the
authors concurred, could deliver any hope of a “less-ravaged future.”
One week later, Joe Biden took the oath of office and quickly signed
sweepingexecutive
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/>orders
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/>declaring
it the explicit policy of his administration “to listen to the science.”
He didn’t use the word “ghastly,” but he didmention
<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/20/joe-biden-inauguration-speech-transcript-full-text-460813>“a
cry for survival … from the planet itself,” one that “can’t be any more
desperate or any more clear.” This was strangely comforting to hear. He
rejoined the Paris accord, revoked a slew of Trump-era executive orders,
and restored, albeit temporarily, the moratorium on drilling in the
Arctic that President Barack Obama had issued on his way out the door.
However slow Biden had been to catch on to the true magnitude of the
climate crisis during the primaries, he had, after months of sustained
movement pressure, apparently begun to come around.
To his credit, in his first week in office, Biden went further than any
of his predecessors ever had. He ordered a “pause” on all new permits
and leases for oil and gas drilling offshore and on federal land and
shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which activists had beenfighting
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55816229>for more than a
decade. He ordered federal agencies to pursue a “carbon pollution–free
electricity sector no later than 2035,” and the full conversion of all
government fleets to zero-emissions vehicles.
Perhaps most significantly, Biden’s actions aimed to institutionalize
the mitigation of climate change as a priority in the daily workings of
the federal bureaucracy. He ordered the creation of an Office of
Domestic Climate Policy, a national climate adviser, a special
presidential envoy for climate, and, in an explicitecho
<https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-civilian-conservation-corps.htm>of the
New Deal program—though green only with a lowercase/g/—a Civilian
Climate Corps. He directed federal agencies to “implement a
Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector
of the economy,” to center climate in foreign policy decisions, to
eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and to “promote ending international
financing” of fossil fuels. There was even, in the very first section of
his first climate order, a mandate for environmental justice and the
protection of communities of color that had been disproportionately
harmed by polluters. Whether that would mean any real inclusion—“If
you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” as one South Carolina
environmental justice activist put it to me—remains an open question.
But as a signal of his administration’s priorities and its sense of
urgency, it was, all the climate activists I spoke to agreed, an
extremely solid start.
There was of course also a good deal of typical Democratic
half-stepping. Why a “pause” on drilling and not an outright ban? (And
why had the administration quietly gone ahead and approved31 new
drilling permits
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/biden-issues-dozens-of-oil-drilling-permits-in-first-few-days>anyway?)
Why no mention of fracking? Why not just shut down all the oil and gas
pipelines that “[disserve] the U.S. national interest,” as the executive
order put it, in exactly the same ways that Keystone XL did? And why not
immediately declare a climate emergency, which would have opened up
executive powers that would enable him to evade many of the roadblocks
erected by the 50 Republicans in the Senate? Even Senate Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer, no one’s idea of a radical, was urging Biden to do so.
“If there ever was an emergency,” Schumer said, “the climate crisis is one.”
Still, with these and more caveats and endless sound reasons for
mistrust, after four long years of Trump’s out-and-out denialist,
kleptocratic mayhem, the sheer momentum of Biden’s actions did feel
pretty good. At least it allowed us to contemplate the prospect ahead
with something other than pure dread. But a couple of months into the
Biden era, enough time has passed for it no longer to seem impolite to
point out that we should not be reassured. The “ghastly future” that
those 17 scientists were warning of will still arrive, right on schedule
or perhaps a little early, so long as Biden stays within the frame of
what now counts as pragmatic climate policy—which, it turns out, is not
very pragmatic at all.
Those 17 scientists did not want you to despair. “Ours is not a call to
surrender,” they wrote. It was meant as a kick in the ass—a reminder
that our only chance is a thoroughgoing transformation. Specifically:
“fundamental changes to global capitalism, education, and equality,
which include/inter alia/the abolition of perpetual economic growth.”
Radical as this call may seem, it was hardly an outlier demand from a
few oddball pinko Ph.Ds. In 2019, 11,258 scientists from 153 countries
signed a“Warning of a Climate Emergency”
<https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806>that called
for “bold and drastic” changes to the economy, including a shift away
“from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining
ecosystems and improving human well-being.” Two years before that, the
Alliance of World Scientists made a similar call in a“Warning to
Humanity”
<https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229>that
garnered 15,364 signatures. We are supposed to listen to science now.
This is what the scientists are saying: Everything must change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A strange sort of faith lies at the core of mainstream climate
advocacy—a largely unexamined belief that the very system that got us
into this mess is the one that will get us out of it. For a community
putatively committed to scientific empiricism, this is an extraordinary
conviction. Despite reams of increasingly apocalyptic research, and
despite 25 years of largely fruitless international climate
negotiations, carbon emissions have continued to rise, and temperatures
along with them. We are at nearly 1.2 degrees Celsius of warmingalready
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-02/global-temperatures-already-1-2-c-above-pre-industrial-levels>—more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over preindustrial averages—and three-tenths
of a degree away from blowing the Paris accord’s aspiration to limit
warming to a still-calamitous 1.5 degrees Celsius. Scientists now expect
us to hit that threshold in about 10 years, and large swaths of the
Arctic have been inactual flames
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/arctic-wildfires-emit-35-more-co2-so-far-in-2020-than-for-whole-of-2019>for
two summers running, but most governments with the option to do so are
still feeding the beast that got us here.
Even with the grim opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, which
slowed the economy so much that growth in fossil fuel production dropped
an almost unprecedented 7 percent last year, governments—ours very much
included—have so far dumped much more stimulus spending into high-carbon
industries than into renewable energy. It’s as if our economic system,
and the politics it breeds, will not allow us to diverge from the
straight path to self-obliteration.
The faith nonetheless persists: The market will provide. It has not done
so yet, but renewables are perhaps finally cheap enough—cheaper at last
than conventional energy sources—that the transition is now inevitable.
So the credo goes. The change that is coming will be largely
technological: a bold new era of “green growth.” Modern societies
erected on dirty coal and oil can be jacked up and shifted to cleaner
forms of energy like an old house in need of a new foundation.
Government may have a larger role in this transition than neoliberal
dogma has recently allowed, but its primary task will still be to
encourage innovation and feed the markets by shepherding the resulting
growth.
It is no coincidence that some version of this faith, so all-pervasive
now that it does not register as a piety, has been reshaping the planet
for almost precisely as long as fossil energy—first coal, then oil—has
been altering the atmosphere. Capitalism is guided by a carbon creed, an
ecstatic vision of a market that chugs along eternally, needing only new
inputs—the earth itself, commodified as minerals, orwater
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/business/colorado-river-water-rights.html>,
housing, health care, or almost any living thing—to spew out wealth that
can be shoveled back into the machine, converting more and more of the
biosphere into zeros in a digital account: more fleshless, magical money
that can be invested once again. If appetites are bottomless, and
apparently they are, shouldn’t growth be endless too?
The market’s grip on the political imagination so effectively blinds us
to alternatives that we are unable fully to grasp that this is the basic
script that the new administration is following. Even the Green New Deal
does not substantively diverge from it. The climate crisis, an
existential threat to planetary life, must be sold to Wall Street and
the public at large as a growth opportunity. On January 31, John Kerry,
acting as Biden’s new climate envoy,enthused
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2101/31/fzgps.01.html>to CNN’s
Fareed Zakaria about “literally millions of jobs” that would soon be
created, about all the “new products coming online,” and about oil
companies’ newfound passion for “carbon capture and storage and so
forth.” The private sector, he said, “has already made the decision that
there is money to be made here, that’s capitalism, and they are
investing in that future.” If that makes you nervous, it shouldn’t,
Kerry insisted. The changes ahead would be like the analog-to-digital
shift of the 1990s, only better: “the important point, Fareed, for
people to really focus on is it’s a very exciting economic transition.”
If Kerry struck a cheerier tone than that of the doomsaying consensus in
the scientific community, it wasn’t just a question of polishing a turd.
“Green growth” is mainstream climate discourse. A “green transition”
that does not significantly alter existing economic structures—or their
vast inequities—is still, for most climate advocates, the only
imaginable way forward. Kerry was speaking a made-for-TV version of the
sole language available to him—one that in its most basic assumptions
excludes the possibility of fundamental social transformation, and of
any heresy that casts doubt on the Great God Growth. The one thing all
those thousands of scientists agree on is our only hope—that the
economic structures that mediate our relation to the planet must be
profoundly altered—is the one thing that Kerry and Biden are quite
careful not to consider at all.
In climate policy jargon, the crucial concept is“decoupling.”
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2016.1263077>The
notion lies deep in the hidden heart of the “sustainable development
goals” held dear by international bodies such as the United Nations and
the World Bank: Economic growth can be safely divorced from the
ecological damage that it has heretofore almost universally wreaked. If
the train of capital appears to be hurtling us toward the abyss, we can
cut the engine loose and cruise someplace more comfortable: same train,
same speed, different destination. Like millions of clean-tech jobs and
a crisis-induced transition magically unlocking unimaginable wealth, it
is an attractive and reassuring idea. The only problem is that there is
next to no evidence that anything analogous has ever occurred, or that
it is likely to occur in the future.
Examples of successful decoupling tend to involve shifts in the location
rather than the nature of industrial production: Rich countries green
their economies by offshoring the manufacture of the goods they consume
to China and countries in the global south, which they can then chastise
for their lax emissions standards. But Earth’s atmosphere is not divided
by national boundaries. Greenhouse gases cause the same degree of global
warming no matter where they are produced, and to the extent that this
kind of decoupling is a meaningful measure of anything, it is only of
the colonial relations that still set the terms for the shell game of
global capital.
What policy wonks call “absolute decoupling”—the only kind that would do
the climate any good—turns out to be a fantasy akin to a perpetual
motion machine, a chimera of growth unhindered by material constraints.
One recentanalysis
<https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a/pdf&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1613603236530000&usg=AOvVaw3N77ADEbXLV-2M0oHwfWny>of
835 peer-reviewed articles on the subject found that the kind of massive
and speedy reductions in emissions that would be necessary to halt
global warming “cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates.”
The mechanism on which mainstream climate policy is betting the future
of the species, and on which the possibility of green growth rests,
appears to be a fiction.
This fiction is nonetheless fundamental to the very math used by
international climate institutions. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change’s benchmark/Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC/
<https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/>—which announced in no uncertain terms that
global emissions must be decreased by nearly half by 2030 and reach net
zero by 2050 to avoid cataclysm at an almost unthinkable scale—set out a
number of possible scenarios for policymakers to consider. It relied on
algorithmic models linking greenhouse gas emissions and their climate
impacts to various socioeconomic “pathways.” Whatever other variables
they accounted for, though, all of the scenarios envisioned by the IPCC
assumed the continuation of economic growth comparable to the past
half-century’s. Even as they acknowledged levels of atmospheric carbon
unseen in the last three million years, they were unable to conceive of
an economy that does not perpetually expand. Fredric Jameson’s oft-cited
dictum that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of
capitalism was baked into the actual modeling.
At the same time, all but one of the IPCC’s scenarios that envision us
successfully limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius rely on the use of
technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere after the fact. (The one
exception involves converting an area more than half the size of the
United States toforest
<https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ipccs-special-report-on-climate-change-at-one-point-five-c>.
None of the scenarios imagines that we can reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius
target by cutting emissions alone.) But the technology in question is at
this point largely speculative. “No proposed technology is close to
deployment at scale,” the report’s authors concede, and “there is
substantial uncertainty” about possible “adverse effects” on the
environment. The international body, in other words, is more willing to
gamble on potentially destructive technologies that do not currently
exist than to even run the math on a more substantive economic
transformation.
A version of this same wager animates the Biden climate plan, which, as
Canada, the European Union, the U.K., and South Korea all have, commits
to “net-zero emissions no later than 2050.” (China plans to reach the
same goal by 2060.) This sounds like great news, and is without doubt
worlds better than the status quo ante of no ambitions at all. But “net
zero” is a slippery notion. It does not mean zero at all. To avoid
exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, emissions need to fall 7.6
percent every year for the next 10 years. Even with the pandemic-induced
slowdown, global emissions shrank only 6.4 percent in 2020. Since, as
Bidenreassured
<https://www.npr.org/2020/11/23/935378223/why-the-oil-industry-doesnt-fear-biden>a
nervous oil industry during the campaign, “We’re not getting rid of
fossil fuels for a long time,” net-zero calculations assume some degree
of “overshoot”—i.e., they stipulate that we’re not going to be able to
cut emissions fast enough, and that we’ll therefore have to rely on
those same untested carbon removal technologies to eventually bring us
to zero.
But a planet is not a balance sheet. The climate has tipping points—the
collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and the Himalayan
glaciers, the deterioration of Atlantic Ocean currents, the melting of
the permafrost, the transition of the Amazon from rain forest to
savannah. We are perilously close to hitting some of them already: In
February, 31 people were killed and 165 went missing when a chunk of a
Himalayan glacierbroke off
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/02/08/uttarakhand-india-glacier-burst-what-to-know/4434591001/>,
releasing an explosive burst of meltwater and debris. In the most
nightmarish scenario, which could be tripped with less than 2 degrees
Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, those tipping points could
begin to trigger one another and cascade, locking us in, as one widely
citedstudy <https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252>put it, to
“conditions that would be inhospitable to current human societies and to
many other contemporary species.” Without major emissions cuts, we may
reach 2 degrees Celsius of warming before 2050.
That’s a heavy risk to bet against, but there it is, pulsing away inside
the net-zero promises that not only politicians but corporate boards
have been proudly rolling out. Over the last two years, more and more
corporations in fossil fuel–intensive industries—BP
<https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bernard-looney-announces-new-ambition-for-bp.html>,Shell
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-emissions/shell-sets-emission-ambition-of-net-zero-by-2050-with-customer-help-idUSKCN21Y0MW>,Maersk
<https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2019/06/26/towards-a-zero-carbon-future>,GM
<https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131102_gm-s-all-electric-pledge-no-tailpipes-by-2035-net-zero-carbon-by-2040>,Ford
<https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2020/06/24/ford-expands-climate-change-goals.html>,Volkswagen
<https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/12/what-volkswagen-is-doing-for-the-environment.html>,
at least adozen
<https://www.edie.net/news/6/13-major-airlines-commit-to-joint-2050-net-zero-vision/>major
airlines—have made similar pledges. Shell’s plan alone would require
tree planting over an area nearly the size of Brazil. By the estimate of
the NGOActionAid
<https://actionaid.org/publications/2020/not-zero-how-net-zero-targets-disguise-climate-inaction>,
“there is simply not enough available land on the planet to accommodate
all of the combined corporate and government ‘net zero’ plans” for
offsets and carbon-sinking tree plantations. To save this planet, it
appears we’ll need another one. This is what currently counts as pragmatism.
“If there is any one thing that global warming has made perfectly
clear,”Amitav Ghosh <https://bookshop.org/a/1620/9780226526812>wrote in
2016, “it is that to think about the world as it is amounts to a formula
for collective suicide.” Five years later, the pandemic has drilled the
point painfully home. The societies most geared toward individual
profit, and most worshipful of economic expansion, have proved least
capable of saving themselves. Decades of almost unbroken GDP growth have
piled up riches in a few gated compounds while leaving the vast majority
of Americans poorer and more vulnerable to illness, imprisonment,
homelessness, and the ghastly futures that we know all too well await
us. That vulnerability is far from uniform. Covid has charted a precise
map of its variegated terrain, of who gets to live and who gets pushed
out to die. The same map applies to the climate crisis, too.
It is at this point a truism that the responsibility for global warming
is not the common property of humanity but lies overwhelmingly with the
few wealthy countries, the United States above all others, that profited
most from early industrialization. The corollary truism is that the poor
countries that disproportionately suffer the impacts of climate change
contributed next to nothing to the problem. We have since learned that
what is true in global macrocosm applies at the societal level as well.
The wealthy consume far more resources and emit far more carbon than the
rest of us. According to a recentOxfam
<https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/the-carbon-inequality-era-an-assessment-of-the-global-distribution-of-consumpti-621049/>report,
the richest one percent produce 100 times more emissions than the
poorest half of the planet’s population, and the richest 5 percent were
responsible for more than a third of all emissions growth between 1990
and 2015. Leveling this gross inequity is a question of survival.
As transcendent as the notion is made to sound, the “economy” is not a
god or a temple. It is the order that maintains these inequalities: a
highly contingent network of relations among human beings and between
humans and the rest of the planet. Like everything we might ever hope to
make, it is transitory and eminently changeable. Homo sapiens have
walked the earth for at least 300,000 years, but coal-fueled industrial
capitalism is less than 200 years old. Its latest, fully globalized
stage has been around for just a few decades, even if its roots lie in
colonial dynamics that date back a few centuries. Our specific modern
exaltation of “growth” dates only to the years that followed World War
II. It is younger than Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and
Donald Trump. Like them, it cannot survive much longer.
Last year, GDP growth in the United States fell 3.5 percent. Emissions
tumbled, too. The only other time in the last three decades that they
have dropped significantly was, not coincidentally, also the last time
the economy contracted. But if it’s guided with intent, the cessation of
endless growth does not have to mean impoverishment. The most
recent“Emissions Gap Report”
<https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020>from the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) projects that warming could be successfully
limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius if the richest one percent reduced “their
current emissions by at least a factor of 30,” which would allow the
poorest 50 percent of the planet’s population to/increase/their per
capita emissions “by around three times their current levels.” For the
latter, a threefold jump in consumption is the difference between
constant want and a life of basic dignity. Billionaires who drop to
1/30th of their fortunes are still multimillionaires.
As innocuous as it may sound, “growth” should be understood to describe
the frenzied ruination of nearly every ecosystem on the planet so that
its richest human inhabitants can hold on to their privileges for
another generation or two. Rejecting the idolatry of growth means
tilting the organization of our societies toward other social
goods—health, for instance, and the freedom to exist on a planet that is
not on fire. This should not be unimaginable. There are infinite other
ways to organize a society, and the fact that we are not widely and
urgently discussing them is at this point nothing short of criminal.
There are voluminous literatures on degrowth, on circular economies, on
mutual aid, and, yes, on socialism, too. There is the 99.999 percent of
human history during which we managed to not significantly alter the
atmosphere or wipe out such an enormous portion of the species with whom
we share the planet. There is the living experience of every indigenous
community in the United States, and of others around the globe that have
been forced to invent ways to resist and survive a system determined to
erase them.
Everything must change. The energy system that is heating the atmosphere
was poisoning Black and brown communities in America long before climate
change emerged as an issue. The industrial food chain that produces
roughly half of all global greenhouse gas emissions is also leaving more
than a quarter of U.S. families with children without secure access to
food and millions more with a uniquely American combination of obesity
and undernourishment. The globalized supply chains that fuel
international shipping and aviation—which, per the UNEP, “are projected
to consume between 60 and 220 percent of allowable CO2 emissions by
2050”—were deadly to local economies as well as to breathing individuals
long before the pandemic revealed their extraordinary fragility.
Transportation, health care, housing, education, everything that the
Covid-19 outbreak has revealed to be so murderously broken, every aspect
of our lives currently controlled by shareholder profits—does that even
leave anything out?—must be rethought and rebuilt in the context of
terrestrial survival. The white supremacy that threatens to tear the
country down while strangling the rest of the globe has proved
inseparable from an ecocidal urge to dominate all forms of planetary
life. (W.E.B. Du Bois
<https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4770-the-souls-of-white-folk>saw it
clearly 100 years ago: “whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever
and ever.”) It must be confronted head on. A foreign policy constructed
to at all costs preserve a hegemony that for most of the last century
has hinged on control of the planet’s oil reserves must be radically
reconfigured.
It is of course foolish to the point of derangement to imagine that Joe
Biden would consent to any such transformation, much less lead the
country toward one. Given the current political geography, it would be
equally whimsical to suppose that any American politician or movement
could ride to power on the message that this planet does not belong to
us, that we share it with the dead and the still-to-be-born and with
species we have not bothered to notice, and that we must learn to live
among them with generosity, humility, and the sort of wisdom that does
not come to human beings cheaply. However, it would be just as naïve to
believe that current political configurations are any more stable or
permanent than the climate, or any less vulnerable to concerted human
action. If we do actually listen to the science, then we understand what
ghastly futures await us and we know how bold we must be to avoid them.
Any politics that presumes to be anything other than suicidal must take
that knowledge as its starting point.
Ben Ehrenreich
<https://newrepublic.com/authors/ben-ehrenreich>@BenEhrenreich
<https://twitter.com/BenEhrenreich>
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of/Desert Notebooks: A Roadmap for the End
of Time/, which was published by Counterpoint Press.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#7363): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/7363
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81428141/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
