Spinning Out Of Control by Lesley Docksey

by Lesley Docksey
Writer, Dandelion Salad
March 12, 2013

Forward on Climate  19813

Image by tedeytan via Flickr

Being born ‘with a silver spoon in your mouth’ means that you start with an advantage that others don’t have: parents with money, property, influence, business connections and so on, connections that can last for generations.  A silver spoon that appeared recently was the exceedingly generous compensation paid to British slave owners when the UK abolished slavery in 1833, though not one penny went to the freed slaves.  The ancestors of many well-connected people (including David Cameron) benefited.  One way or another, the silver spoon allows you to inherit the best of old boys’ networks and a guaranteed place at all sorts of top tables.  These days you also appear to be born with a revolving door.

As I pointed out in Revolving Wars, the door between retiring senior military personnel or ministerial-level politicians and a well-paid position in companies supplying the military revolves at great speed, although sadly not at a fast enough rate as to fire the users into outer space – nor would they go without a profitable contract in place.  But other such doors exist.  And just as the links between government ministers, senior armed forces personnel and the arms trade make it almost impossible to stop our forces from fighting illegal and unnecessary wars, so the links between the government, banks and fossil fuel companies make it impossible to get politicians to take action to mitigate climate change or achieve realistic funding for renewable energy.

The World Development Movement has just published a briefing, Web of Power: the UK government and the energy-finance complex fuelling climate change, and it makes for disheartening reading.  Of the 125 MPs and Lords that make up the UK government, no less than 32% have links with finance and/or fossil fuel companies, while the top 5 banks give financial backing to fossil fuel companies and politicians (the City funded David Cameron’s campaign for the leadership of the Tory Party), and the fossil fuel companies give financial backing to government while lobbying hard for their industry.  There is a merry-go-round of people serving in government and sitting on the boards of financial institutions and energy companies.  It creates a cosy closed shop resulting in a lack of funding for research into and building the infrastructure for renewable energy.

Even worse, despite the noises made by politicians, any effective action to halt climate change is blocked because that would damage business.  It would ‘harm’ the economy – meaning that they, all of them, would lose money.  But they probably think they are the economy.  And of course their mantra – that climate change is not caused by human activity and we can therefore go on chasing and making money from every scrap of oil or gas to fuel our modern lives – is funded and publicised by some very rich people indeed, many of them with links to… you’ve guessed it… fossil fuels and high finance.  Anything that might puncture that magic bubble of oil, money and power has to be fought (or bought) off by whatever means.

The thought of losing our comfortable lifestyle is challenging, which is why we are persuaded by their spin machine to see that as more of a threat than the destruction of our climate would be.  Even while we are asked to put up with cuts forced upon us by the government, they are proposing to, despite undertaking not to, subsidise companies like EDF with our money, in the hope that they will build nuclear reactors here.  And don’t even mention fracking and the carrot they hold out about ‘cheap’ gas.  It won’t be.  We are also encouraged to allow the bankers to continue paying themselves too much; otherwise they will all go somewhere else.  And of course, they’d all far rather we worried about the price we pay to fuel our lives than think about a warming world.  Because business as usual means profits as usual.  And also because, whatever else happens, the economy (by which I mean that we remain poor and live economically while the rich grow in riches) must be encouraged to grow.

And here is a very basic question that no one is asking, not politicians, bankers nor economists.  Even those campaigning about environmental destruction and climate change are not asking it.  Why do we have to have growth?

Nothing grows forever, even though it may live for a very long time.  Humans, having reached their maximum height, stop growing.  Either that or they collapse.  Their bones cannot support a body too tall or too fat.  It is the same for anything else that grows.  Everything has limits.  Endless growth is not sustainable.  We cannot grow beyond what this planet can supply, nor should we assume that it can, no matter how much we are persuaded to.  So why is it a given that the ‘economy’ has to grow?  Why can’t it drop back to a level where it might be more sustainable, and maintain a steady position instead?

What most of us want is stability and security, and we have let ourselves be persuaded that these only come if we have more – more money, more possessions, bigger televisions, faster cars – more, more, more.  Yet the majority of humanity has spent not centuries but millennia successfully existing by having sufficient.  We need enough, not more.  And let’s face it, the growth that is demanded by governments and corporations always has and always will go into the pockets of those who are already rich, already have far more than they need and certainly far more than their fair share.

Years ago manufacturers made things that could be serviced and repaired, things that we went on using until they fell to pieces.  Then what we bought came with ‘built-in obsolescence’.  It wasn’t a question of buying something new when the old had collapsed.  The new was designed to collapse and be replaced.  Then we were treated to ‘the latest model’ and encouraged to throw away anything that was out of date.  But students at Brighton University are now being asked to design a toaster that the buyer would want to keep!  On the Today programme Professor Jonathon Chapman explained: “It’s actually very easy to design and manufacture a toaster that will last 20 years; that can be done. What’s not so easy is to design and manufacture a toaster that someone will want to keep for 20 years, because as people, as consumers, we haven’t been trained to do that.”

No.  We’ve been trained to always think there is something better out there, and that we both want and need it.  And in the same way the people with their revolving doors are doing their best to train us into thinking that, as consumers, our behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and we can carry on as usual while the government ‘fixes’ the problem, the banks lend our money to companies we wouldn’t give the time of day to, and the energy companies dig up our back gardens while they frack for gas.

Well, you know what?  As a ‘consumer’ I have decided that governments, banks and fossil fuels also have built-in obsolescence.  They have reached the point of collapse and I want to bin the lot.  I don’t want their ‘latest model’ either because it always turns out to be more of the same with a different coat of paint.  I want to try something new – or rather, something both radical and reactionary – radical because the idea would be considered ‘impossible’, and reactionary because I want to turn back the clock.  I want to return to an old way of life that was sustainable and sufficient to our needs.  And, I suspect, far more satisfying than the constant hunger of consumerism.   Whether climate change will allow me to do that I don’t know.  My time may run out before the toaster fails.


The Last Possible Refuge by Tristan A. Shaw

Robert Jensen: We Are All Apocalyptic Now: Moral Responsibilities in Crisis Times

New report: Governments must protect land, food systems as trade liberalization accelerates land grabbing by Sophia Murphy

Capitalism Stands As A Death Sentinel Over Planetary Life by Chris Williams

The Empire is an Able Servant of Oil Companies and The War Machine by Cindy Sheehan + Tour de Peace by David Swanson

The Myth of Human Progress by Chris Hedges

14 thoughts on “Spinning Out Of Control by Lesley Docksey

  1. Pingback: Global Heat Emergency by Alex Smith | Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: How Can We Face A Future Of Climate Change If We Have Forgotten Our Past? by Lesley Docksey | Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: How Much Change On Climate Change? by Chris Williams | Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Unnatural England by Lesley Docksey | Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: Humanity Imperiled–The Path to Disaster by Noam Chomsky | Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: Noam Chomsky: Wrecking Nature For Short-Term Profit + Q&A | Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: If We Love Our Children, Why Are We Dooming Them? by Ed Ciaccio | Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: Marxism, Capitalism and The Environment by Deirdre Griswold | Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: Chris Hedges and Andrew Harvey: The Time For Action Is Now Before It’s Too Late | Dandelion Salad

  10. Pingback: Imperial Recipes for a Burnt Planet by Chris Williams | Dandelion Salad

  11. Pingback: Media Grounded: No-fly zone over Arkansas oil spill to censor news coverage? | Dandelion Salad

  12. Pingback: Chris Hedges: Fascism USA–The Lie of Omission is Still a Lie | Dandelion Salad

  13. Thank you Lesley for this timely food for thought. A number of things emerge from your reflections that I’d like to comment on, briefly if I can.

    Yes it is a depressing business, that the decrepit old boy’s network thrives and survives. However there are some signs as you suggest of obsolescence in the crony legacy club. Two things I’d like to mention first: the issues of psychological relationships and responsibility.

    The lure of power is absolute and total of course, but motivation varies. Some people are indeed motivated by a deep sense of social responsibility and even ecological “biophilia.” So where I suspect the real debate must be focused, is upon the relationship of natural biology to social well-being.

    It will be a mistake to try to “re-train” people as Chapman suggests. This has unfortunate associations with programmed responses. We need a much more advanced theory of higher education than that, one that brings into frame the idiosyncrasies and uniqueness of human creativity, innate purpose and social context. Our curricular educational architecture should be a dynamic microcosm of greater society.

    We must find a place where functional engineering (not social engineering!) ethical provisioning and inspired design can be reconciled in a sustainable, socially responsible but satisfying way in what Mae-Wan Ho calls a circular economy. Science has to change its tune, serve life not power.

    People will need to discover for themselves what they really enjoy and value as meaningful livelihood, or can genuinely respect, beyond the gluttonous drives of consumer fetishism & the digital slavery John Pilger has described so well here, recently.

    So there needs to be a serious debate about Earth values, emotional intelligence and the creative application of symbolic knowledge or logic. We have to rule out cynicism, and get away from stereotypes, concentrating on cognitive means. I try to live a sustainable existence of voluntary simplicity in N Devon, but I am old enough and fortunate now to be able to choose this path.

    Youth is energized by vital drives. Many humans love novelty and innovation, so we really should affirm the right of self-determination, & encourage better ways of tapping that potential, through a structured imaginative dialogue, that applauds creative dedication and wherever necessary supports really effective political activism ~ as is so well demonstrated by Dandelion Salad!

  14. My two year old toaster has died; I am not replacing it – going back to the folded dress-hanger model i used in university way back 40+ years ago. I have a lifetime supply of dry-cleaner hangers, should metal fatigue set in from overuse of one manual toaster thus made.

Comments are closed.