So basically the money was given to the nations, who then had to put it in their central banks, and then pay it out to US firms?

So the CBAM as the stick, and the CEFA as the carrot

• comment
  • Johan Rockstrom does not believe that a Marshall plan is feasible. He cites the rapid pace of development in India and China as a reason a Marshall plan would not work.
  • To unpack this further, China and India were both countries on the other side of (white) colonialism and now are trying to catch up. Whereas historical, white colonialism marginalized both non-white, indigenous populations as well as nature, now these countries are marginalizing nature.
  • To determine whether a Marshall plan by these large emitting countries would be feasible or not depends on the answer to another question:
    • Can these countries pivot to a Marshall plan of a disruptive rate of 15% ?
  • We must remember, as Kevin Anderson reminds us, it is uneven. Only a small minority of the population must undergo radical decarbonization rates, namely the small minority of high carbon, elite emitters.
  • What would a global Marshall plan even look like? We don't know - because the conversation is being discouraged. That's the point Kevin Anderson is making.

• for: quote, quote - Kevin Anderson, quote - Kevin Anderson - Marshall plan, discussion - Johan Rockstrom / Kevin Anderson, perspectival knowing

• quote

  • Our choice to fail over the last 30 years has brought us to this position.
  • And a way out of that, a way out of the Marshall Plan, is to say we can have these negative emissions
  • I think we need to say that, okay that's one way out of it – if they work.
  • Another way out of it is the Marshall Plan.
  • And so we need to open that that dialogue up. but we've... in effect, I think the IAMs have closed that dialogue,.
  • Which is one of the reasons, going back to... It would be interesting to see other parts of the world looking at this, because, I would have a guess,
    • when we say 'that's not feasible', many people elsewhere in the world are saying 'well of course it's feasible, we've been doing... we've been living like that for years!'

• comment

  • In rebuttal to Johan's perspective on Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs),
    • Kevin is addressing the issue of perspectival knowing, and
    • its implications on what solutions we entertain as a global society.
  • The example he cites is Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) illustrates two major perspectives:
    • Johan includes NETs as he see's that without them, the transition goes from manageable to unmanageable
    • Kevin questions the inclusion of the NETs as potentially shutting down discussion about what Johan would consider an unmanageable situation
  • Kevin brings up a valid point for inclusion of other voices, especially those indigenous ones who are still institutionally marginalized not only in economic and cultural spaces, but also academic and intellectual ones.
  • The decolonization of academia takes on a concrete form here. Both the global and local south have lived under severe economic repression for centuries. Anderson's contention is that making do with less is something that billions of people have had to contend with for centuries as a social norm forced upon them by colonialist then post colonialist institutions.
  • Inclusivity of a greater diversity of voices does play an important role in shaping the future direction of humanity.
  • We should be having an open discussion about a Marshall plan and should not be afraid to go there.
    • We had it in WWII, which, while more direct threat, is not as great as the threat of climate change on all life on earth in a slightly greater time scale.
  • The global and local south has a lot to teach the global and local north. For this great transition of humanity to occur likely simultaneously requires
    • radical amounts of resource transfer from the global / local north to the global / local south,and
    • radical degrowth

• for: quote, quote - Johan Rockstrom, quote - Johan Rockstrom - NET

• stats

• quote
  • We're increasing emissions today between 1 and 2% per year.
  • Now, to reduce emissions even in the global model runs we have, with optimistic I mean, overly optimistic negative emission technologies – assume mitigation pathways, as you know, between 5 and 7% per year.
  • So that is three times revolution pace, at the current modeling runs.
  • If you take away negative emission technologies, you would exceed 10% very rapidly.
  • You would be more the 10 to 15%.
  • I would call that... That's not revolution, that is a complete disruption of the global economy.
  • It's like a pace that is beyond... I mean then you need to bulldoze down coal-fired plants, basically.
  • You would be in a complete global Marshall Plan. It's a war zone agenda.

There is a need to integrate top down, middle and bottom up actors into a grand synthesis to achieve the greatest efficacy in a Marshall plan.

The community is the building block of society. Community action is still an idling capacity, an untapped resource. There is a natural synergy between communities and youth, and the bridge is schools.