Model and activist Lily Cole has joined the call for the banking sector to respond to the climate emergency, alongside ethical bank Triodos. 

Following the global climate strike and with Extinction Rebellion’s next uprising fast approaching, pressure is building for the banking sector to live up to its climate commitments.

According to NGO BankTrack, the top UK banks have poured nearly £150 billion into financing fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2016, including £45bn for the expansion of fossil fuels, of which £13bn was invested in fracking. Change from the sector is required, especially if we are to meet the UK government’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Confusing information 

New research by insight agency Kingfisher, which assessed more than 800 web pages, has found that UK banks are presenting a confusing and conflicting account of their sustainability initiatives to customers, despite public concern for climate change reaching a record high in recent months.

The report, commissioned by Triodos Bank UK, found that the biggest UK high street banks share very little information on sustainability ambitions on their customer-facing websites and only present generalised statements, claims and commitments.

UN Sustainable Development Goals are not mentioned once by the UK’s biggest banks, while the term ‘sustainability’ occurs only four times.

The report also found that, collectively, the biggest UK banks only mention the term ‘planet’ three times on their websites. One high street bank references its sustainability commitments repeatedly, while at the same time continuing to finance fossil fuels to the tune of £47 billion since 2016.

Two high street banks do not mention any of the key terms analysed – green, sustainability, SDG, planet or carbon – on their UK retail banking websites. By contrast, leading UK banks prioritise the terms ‘rewards’, ‘fees’, ‘risks’ and ‘services’, over words like ‘sustainability’ and ‘impact’.

Switching banks

Actress and social entrepreneur Lily Cole commented: “I’ve long believed in voting with your wallet for the change you want to see in the world, for example supporting Fairtrade and organic food and fashion, yet there are other subtle and powerful ways that our money shapes the world – such as the investments made by our banks, pensions and the institutions we work with.

“When Triodos launched a current account in the UK, I immediately joined the bank, as I didn’t want to be accidentally investing in the arms trade and fossil fuel industry, and instead enjoy knowing that Triodos is mindful about investing in a positive vision for our planet.”

CEO of Triodos Bank UK, Bevis Watts, adds: “We are in a state of climate emergency and the banking industry needs to radically transform to be part of the solution. Banks should be using the money deposited with them in their customers’ long term interests – yet many have continued to prioritise funding the fossil fuel industry, despite its devastating impact on the planet and our future wellbeing.

“Although we’re aware that the change cannot happen overnight, we’d like to see greater transparency from all banks in where they are investing their money, so that customers can make informed choices.

“We want more people to know that switching banks is one of the most powerful environmental changes you can make as an individual – by changing your bank you really can make a difference in the world. You can choose to prevent your money from financing arms, pesticides, plastic packaging or fossil fuels.”

Climate emergency 

CEO of Friends of the Earth, Craig Bennett said: “Too many UK banks are failing to take the climate emergency seriously. How can they talk about wanting to serve society while investing in planet-wrecking projects such as fossil fuel extraction? Funding the destruction of our planet is certainly not in the best interest of customers.

“It’s great to see Triodos continuing to shine a light on the unethical finance models of many UK banks, and we’re proud as an organisation to be partnered with them. By empowering people to do good with their finances, we can create positive environmental outcomes, and put pressure on other banks to change their practices.”

Triodos Bank, which has been operating in the UK for over 24 years, only invests in projects creating positive social and environmental outcomes. Its UK current account launched in 2017 and customers can instantly see details of all the ethical and sustainable businesses and projects Triodos finances across the UK via its ‘Know where your money goes’ platform.

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Triodos Bank. 

School strikers have threatened to boycott the Royal Shakespeare Company over “sickening” links to oil giant BP.

The theatre company is sponsored by BP, an arrangement which has drawn criticism from environmentalists including Oscar-winner Sir Mark Rylance (pictured).

Young students have penned a letter claiming that BP is “destroying our futures by wrecking the climate”, and urged the cultural institution to break ties with the fossil fuel industry.

Lobbying

The missive criticises BP for its environmental impact, lobbying and human rights record.

Students have criticised the association of William Shakespeare with the policies of BP, which they believe is destroying the planet and ruining the reputation of the RSC.

Strikers from the birthplace of the Bard, Stratford-upon-Avon, have signed the letter calling for an end to the current sponsorship, which provides young people with subsidised £5 tickets.

The letter states: “If we, as young people, wish to see an affordable play at your theatre we have to help to promote a company that is actively destroying our futures by wrecking the climate.

“BP is jeopardising the futures of these young people they apparently care so much about, by continuing to extract huge quantities of oil and gas, and actively lobbying against the climate change policies that we school strikers are pushing so hard for.

Destruction

“Furthermore, BP’s human rights record is an embarrassment. Their close relationship with repressive governments and regimes such as Egypt, Mexico and Russia has led to horrendous human rights violations.

“It is sickening that the works of Shakespeare are being associated with these events.”

The letter concludes: “BP’s influence is nothing but a stain on the RSC.”

More than 60,000 people signed a recent petition for cultural institutions – the British Museum, National Portrait Gallery and Royal Opera House – to end their financial ties to the multinational, and climate activists To BP Or Not BP have campaigned against fossil fuel funding going into the arts.

Students have now called for a boycott unless what they believe is environmental destruction is divorced from the world of theatre, and have asked to meet with RSC bosses.

Objections

Chloe Hawryluk, 16, is a key organiser of the Stratford-upon-Avon school strikes.

A signatory of the letter, she said: “As a pupil of the school that Shakespeare attended himself, I cannot begin to explain my displeasure in learning about BP’s recent sponsorship of the RSC’s 16-25 tickets.

“If I want to attend the theatre, I want to attend the theatre without supporting a company that is continuing to extract fossil fuels.

“I don’t want to support a company that is one of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, I don’t want to support a company that is only doing this to distract us from the fact that they are ruining our planet.”

Sir Mark, star of Wolf Hall and Bridge Of Spies, quit the RSC in June this year, citing his objections to the RSC’s receipt of funding from BP.

Feedback

He has accused the oil company of obscuring its environmental impact by supporting arts organisations.

Catherine Mallyon, RSC executive director, and Gregory Doran, RSC artistic director, said: “We welcome the conversation around this issue and will respond once we receive the letter.

“We recognise the importance for a continuing, robust and engaged debate, we acknowledge the climate emergency and recognise the strength of feeling, especially amongst our young people.

“Our work with over 500,000 students annually means their feedback and opinions are very important to us.”

BP has been contacted for comment.

This Author

Craig Simpson is a reporter for PA.

Jonathan Franzen asked an important question in his recent New Yorker article: what if we stopped pretending?

Franzen argues that the climate crisis has already reached a catastrophic level and that in order for us to prepare for it, we need to admit as much. Pretending that the world could still be “saved”, according to Franzen, is a kind of denialism no better than that of the US Republican Party.

Only a few hours after the article was published, it became clear that Franzen’s essay touched a raw nerve among scientists and activists, many of whom took to Twitter to condemn Franzen’s piece – accusing him of spreading “dangerous lies”, of having written the “worst piece on climate change yet published this decade”, and delivering “a slap in the face to young climate justice advocates”. 

Human impacts

Indeed, Franzen conveys his message in a confusing and often detached manner. He comes across as the what Mary Heglar has called the “doomer dude” – tall, White men with remarkable sunburns, dishevelled hair and cargo pants, who walk around saying things like “There’s really no point anymore. Humans are done for!”.

Yet looking beyond this arrogance in delivery, Franzen’s essay might have struck a chord because it is actually based on a reasonable premise.

The world is already facing catastrophic, irreversible climate change and ignoring this fact will not help us. The amount of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, floods, cyclones, and sea level surges has doubled in the last forty years. This has caused extraordinary hardships for the people affected and produced millions of climate refugees, even if they are still not recognized as such by international law.

In 2018 alone, more than 17 million people were displaced due to “natural” disasters in 148 countries. Other aspects of the global ecological crisis are equally concerning: Humanity has wiped out an average of 60 percent of the world’s animal population since 1970, ensuring that the sixth historical planetary mass extinction is well underway.

Desertification – the irreversible degradation of land – is putting unprecedented pressure on our planet’s resources.  Over 75 percent of the earth’s land area is already degraded, and over 90 percent could be degraded by 2050, which could displace up to 700 million people in the next 30 years.

And almost all of the world’s oceans are already damaged by human impact, by overfishing, ocean acidification, and pollution. Climate scientist John Schellnhuber concluded: “In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years.”.

Climate inertia

The crux is that our planet would continue to heat up in the coming decades even if humanity stopped emitting carbon dioxide right now. This is due to what climate scientists call “climate inertia”.

In the words of a NASA: “If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to occur for at least several more decades, if not centuries. […] There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it.”

A finding that is backed-up by a study of prominent climate scientist Susan Solomon that shows that global warming is already irreversible for at least 1000 years.

Moreover, Franzen is right to point out that not only the global climatic system is inert – so is our economic and political system. Unfortunately, he does not explicate what should by now be common sense: that capitalist modernity and colonialism are at the core of the climate crisis.

In any case, this realisation only cements the thesis that a fundamentally unsustainable system is not going to reform itself and nation states, international organizations, tech companies, or Saudi Arabian oil money are not going to solve the climate issue.

Climate saviorism

But paradoxically, the large-scale social-ecological transformations we need to tackle the problem at its root would require large amounts of energy, time, and labor themselves – not only from a meteorological point of view, but also from a socio-political standpoint. It is therefore important to realise that the point in time at which we could have mitigated a catastrophic climate crisis has long passed.

In fact, for many peoples around the world, the apocalypse that Franzen is describing has long taken place already.  In a recently published interview with author Nick Estes in Dissent Magazine, Estes points out: “Indigenous people are post-apocalyptic. In some cases, we have undergone several apocalypses.

“For my community alone, it was the destruction of the buffalo herds, the destruction of our animal relatives on the land, the destruction of our animal nations in the nineteenth century, of our river homelands in the twentieth century. I don’t want to universalize that experience; it was very unique to us as nations. But if there is something you can learn from Indigenous people, it’s what it’s like to live in a post-apocalyptic society.”

So perhaps the reason why Franzen’s essay evoked such strong reactions is a different one. Perhaps it is because much of the recently reinvigorated Western climate movement relies on a rhetoric of an almost colonial-sounding short-term climate saviorism. It has rallied around headlines like “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN” – “Only 11 years left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change” and “Climate Change: 12 year to save the planet? Make that 18 months”.

Movements like Extinction Rebellion and the supporters of the Green New Deal have adopted such point of no return rhetoric in their campaigning with surprising success. But apart from the fact that such rhetoric does not accurately represent the mess in which the planet already is, it also constitutes a rather suboptimal long-term messaging strategy.

What will happen in 12 years? Would the climate movement give up in resignation and watch the catastrophe unfold? Would we have to set out new points of no return to avoid even more “catastrophic” scenarios? Instead of stretching the semantics of what truly constitutes “catastrophic”, why don’t we accept and acknowledge the truly astonishing toll that this crisis is already taking?

Progressive vision 

Of course, acknowledging the already catastrophic scope of the climate crisis should not lead us to adapting a fatalist attitude. And here Franzen, who thinks that “in the long run, it probably makes no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees” is absolutely wrong.

The climate movement must continue to press for climate justice, for the reduction of carbon emissions and for the mitigation of the catastrophic effects of global warming. It must continue to call out polluters, to push for regulations, and to advocate for a Green New Deal.

Solomon puts it the following way: “I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it, because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

Importantly, however, acknowledging the already deadly and irreversible nature of climate change – including the inherent inertia of the planetary climate and the global political system – will allow us to start focusing on developing a progressive vision in times of a planetary ecological crisis.

This is important because ironically, the right already has a vision. In the words of Christian Parenti, it is the vision of nation states as “armed lifeboats”, navigating through an unstable and conflict-prone world. We see this ideology manifesting itself in the increasing criminalization of migration, in rhetoric of the “fortress Europe”, in the surveillance of environmental activists and in the desperate search for quick technological fixes to complex global problems.

To the right, climate change is a security challenge and can be solved through military intervention and technological innovation. It is needless to say that such societal vision is just a continuation of the colonial, capitalist and social Darwinist thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Catalyse imagination 

What will the left have to offer? How do we revive ideas of mutual aid, cooperation and solidarity in circumstances of scarcity and trauma? What is our vision for justice? How do we hold those accountable who bear the bulk of responsibility for the crimes that have been committed? How do we make spaces for collective mourning for what has been lost on this planet, which is quite literally turning into a large hospice full of dying species? How do we overcome the coloniality and the anthropocentrism that are enshrined in most of (Western) emancipatory thought?

These are, characteristically, questions that Franzen does not pose. It is the task precisely of philosophers, of designers, and of writers and essayists like him to start thinking about those issues rather than to bemoan their own paralysis.

After all, the climate crisis, as Franzen’s fellow novelist Amitav Ghosh put it, is “also a crisis of culture, and thus of the imagination”. So yes – we have to acknowledge that the climate apocalypse is real, but this realisation must catalyse rather than stifle our imagination. 

This Author 

Elias Koenig is a philosophy student based in Berlin, currently working on a DAAD-funded research project on non-Western philosophy and climate change. 

Image: Resforestation in Kalimantan, Indonesia. James Anderson, Climate Visuals. 

A coalition of river and coastal defenders have won a major victory against the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), securing an order that requires the Water Board to meet the statutory deadlines for its list of impaired waterways in California.

The lawsuit focused on the Water Board’s violations of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the latter being California’s guiding clean water law that protects the health of the state’s inland and coastal waters.

Grant Wilson, Directing Attorney of Earth Law Center, said: “This victory will ensure that the State Water Board upholds its basic legal duty to identify and restore impaired waterways in a timely manner. This is an important step towards reversing the historic decline of aquatic ecosystems across California.”

Late submissions

Earth Law Center, Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LAW), and San Diego Coastkeeper filed suit in November 2017, challenging the Water Board’s Integrated Report process. The Integrated Report contains the previously mentioned list of impaired waterways, along with a broader report on overall water quality.

For nearly two decades, California has submitted its biennial Integrated Report years late, resulting in water quality decisions that are based on severely outdated information. For example, California’s 2014 Integrated Report was submitted to the US EPA more than three years and six months late. As a result of this ruling, the Water Board must submit reports on time.

Arthur Pugsley, senior attorney at LAW, said: “It was clear that the State Water Board was not taking the impaired waters lists as seriously as they should be or allocating the staff resources necessary for such an important program. 

“The Integrated Reports are foundational. Considering the necessity of these reports to inform the public of possible health threats and to trigger the adoption of restoration plans, this ruling is a victory not only for our waterways, but for the people and wildlife of California.”

Matt O’Malley, executive director and managing attorney at San Diego Coastkeeper, said: “This victory should result in a more up-to-date and complete understanding of the challenges our waterways are facing, ensuring increased efficacy of restoration and recovery plans.”

Healthy ecosystems

Bruce Reznik, executive director of LAW, said: “We are pleased with the ruling, but it is unfortunate that watchdog groups have to bring suit in order to get the Water Board to abide by what the Clean Water Act requires of it.”

Grant Wilson, directing attorney at Earth Law Center, said: “While we prevailed in ensuring the Water Board fulfils its obligations under the Clean Water Act, we are disappointed by the dismissal of our plea to consider hydromodification (i.e., channelization) as an impairment itself when compiling its list of impaired waterways. 

“Drained and fragmented waterways challenge species that are critical to our ecosystem, and those challenges will only intensify with the impacts of climate change.

“Our groups will continue working to ensure that the concretization that has devastated so many of our river systems in California is recognized for the negative impact it has on our environment and our communities and will work to restore them to healthy ecosystems.“

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from the Earth Law Centre. 

A new three-year research project led by the University of Sussex will explore ways to ensure that the UK’s shift to a low-carbon society does not leave anyone behind.

FAIR (Fuel and Transport Poverty in the UK’s Energy Transition) will explore the causes and links between fuel poverty and transport poverty in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before drawing up policy recommendations designed to limit their impacts in the transition to a more sustainable future.

The project will be a part of the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS).

Significant decarbonisation 

The study’s principal investigator is Dr Mari Martiskainen, a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and Sussex Energy Group (SEG).

She said: “This study is pressingly needed to ensure that as the UK undergoes a significant and very necessary decarbonisation effort of Net Zero by 2050, innovations such as vehicle electrification and ‘smart’ technologies do not create new injustices.

“We will be looking at who is currently vulnerable to fuel and transport poverty in the UK and to what extent and why but also how will that change over time.

“Fuel and transport poverty have until now typically been treated as distinct problems in the UK with their own causes and consequences but we argue that they are in fact deeply interlinked and potentially mutually reinforcing.

“It is also pleasing for me personally to lead a project which includes several early career women, especially in light of the considerable gender imbalance that still exists in UK energy research.”

Policy proposals

More than 3.5 million households live in fuel poverty in the UK while best estimate figures for transport poverty put the figure at around 2.5 million households.

Fuel poverty can have a significantly detrimental impact on the health of individuals who lack the resources to adequately heat their home while transport poverty can leave households at risk of being cut off from work and healthcare.

The project will include interviews with both rural and urban households to identify and examining the circumstances that leave some vulnerable to fuel and transport poverty, and the application and analysis of primary and secondary data to map the variation of fuel and transport poverty patterns across the UK.

The project will also include modelling of future scenarios to estimate the impact of low-carbon energy and transport policies on key indicators such as unemployment, sectoral employment, household incomes and wage rates.

Finally, the researchers will explore policy proposals to enable just and fair transitions particularly for vulnerable groups.

Equity and justice 

CREDS director Nick Eyre said: “I am delighted about this exciting new research project within CREDS. Energy demand is going to change radically in coming decades to deliver the goals of a zero-carbon energy system.

“It is important that equity and justice are fully taken into account in this transition, so that we understand how benefits can be achieved by those in the most need.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

The world renowned Cambridge scientist, Professor Wadham, has warned that 300 cubic kilometres of ice was lost from the Greenland sheet last year. The sheet is “decaying quite rapidly.” 

Local feedback mechanisms could be accelerating the breakup of the glaciers and recent measurements show that the rate of decline is speeding up beyond any of the projections contained in IPCC reports.

Britain’s nuclear power stations are sited on our coast and, once built, new ones could like Sizewell B could be producing electricity for sixty years. Hinkley Point is due to be built by around 2026 and there is a queue of others waiting to get the go ahead. That takes us right into the era of considerable sea level rises.

High risk

An assessment published by the government last year included a projected sea level rise of up to 1.15m in the London area by 2100.

Some of the UK’s existing nuclear power stations are already under pressure from erosion, with constant dredging to maintain the existing coastline.

In 2012, nine of the sites were assessed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as being vulnerable now, while others are in danger from rising sea levels and storms in the future.

The sites include proposed new nuclear power stations around the coast, as well as numerous radioactive waste stores, operating reactors and defunct nuclear facilities. According to Defra, Hinkley Point already has a low risk of flooding, and by the 2080s will face a high risk of both flooding and erosion.

David Crichton, a flood specialist and honorary professor at the hazard research centre at University College London, noted: “Sea level rise, especially in the south-east of England, will mean some of these sites will be under water within 100 years. This will make decommissioning expensive and difficult, not to mention the recovery and movement of nuclear waste to higher ground.”

Projections

This assessment was based upon 2009 figures, but projections have got worse since then. The 2018 Factsheet endorsed by Defra notes that: “The UKCP18 sea level projections are consistently larger than in the previous set of UK climate projections, UKCP09 (see Lowe et al, 2009), for similar emissions scenarios.”

This is important because the Office Nuclear Regulation response to climate change in March of this year notes that their plans are still based upon the 2009 projections and they don’t expect this to change until later this year at the earliest.

While the ‘wild-card’ of localised feedback loops could see ice melt accelerate in Greenland, it is possible that the IPCC have under-estimated positive changes such as the rapid growth of solar power in recent years.

Defra include a lower set of projections based upon more mitigation and I desperately hope that this optimistic view turns into a political reality as we end our addiction to oil quickly. However, they make clear that climate change is happening now: “UK tide gauge records show substantial year-to-year changes in coastal water levels (typically several centimetres).

“The amount of sea level rise depends on the location around the UK and increases with higher emissions scenarios.” So I will be asking a series of questions to establish how this new projection impacts on individual nuclear power station sites.

Worth the risk?

The factsheet’s final sting in the tail is that: “Based on exploratory results to 2300, sea levels continue to increase beyond 2100 even with large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

This is a big warning that planning to build new nukes on the coast shouldn’t be based upon the 2100 estimates, as these will be exceeded. The projections beyond 2100 clearly become less as reliable the further they get into the future but as the factsheet says: “Global sea level has risen over the twentieth century and will continue to rise over the coming centuries.”

I accept that the melt of the entire Greenland ice-sheet with a 7m rise in sea levels seems far off, but as oceans warm they also expand slightly.

What happens to these new nuclear power sites with a 2-3m rise in sea levels? Nuclear energy is a very expensive and redundant technology; is it worth the risk?

This Author

Jenny Jones has held several prominent political roles: Deputy Mayor of London, Deputy Chair of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Green Councillor for Southwark Council and Chair of the Green Party of England and Wales. Jenny was introduced to the House of Lords in November 2013, she took her title, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, from the council estate she grew up on in Brighton. She is the Green Party’s sole representative in the House of Lords.

Dialectic is – f0r the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle – the art of persuasion. 

This art can be understood through allegory: it is like a boxing  spectacle in which two individuals spar against each other in front of a braying audience. In boxing they rely on skill to land blows on each other until one person is knocked out or loses on points. In the art of public debate dialectic is the skill or ability to land blows on the opponent’s argument with the aim of landing that knock out blow. The boxer is restricted to punching above the belt. In public debate, dialectic is restricted to the use of questions and answers to validate or invalidate a logical argument. A knock out blow would be a contradiction, falsification or paradox. Boxing as a practice remains a popular sport. Dialectic is extinct as a public spectacle. This may not be a good thing. 

To provide a more theoretical definition, dialectic is one of the forms of intellectual inquiry. For Aristotle, dialectic was an art – alongside medicine and rhetoric – as opposed to a science – such as logic or mathematics. It can be understood as the identity between rhetoric and logic. It is, like logic, a process of discovering and validating definitions, definitions that reveal the essence of that which we aim to define. It is different to logic – or pure reason – because it does not need true premises nor does it directly seek the truth. But dialectic is about a dialogue between two, whereas rhetoric is about the one speaking to the many.

Ecological crisis 

Why is any of this useful today? The aim of dialectic is not simply to win an argument but for two (or more) people to test their own definitions and arguments in conversation with each other. This process could prove incredibly useful at a time when difficult decisions need to be made by large numbers of people in order to solve extraordinarily complex problems, not least climate change and biodiversity collapse. 

Logic can be used to test whether a statement is valid – and therefore is a defence against propaganda and ‘fake news’. Dialectic is a method of two people using logic in conversations to test the arguments of each. It is also pedagogical as it can be used by an expert to transfer knowledge to a student Dialectic can help in calibrating the knowledge gained by each – finding correlations and contradictions that may validate both or invalidate either. 

We live in a time when some people understand and accept some findings of the natural sciences (for example, proving that climate change is driven by pollution) while others don’t. Dialectic can be useful in transferring knowledge between one individual, or one community, to another. I  believe that dialectic in conjunction with active listening (or nonviolent communication) could be one tool for finding consensus among the teams and institutions that we now need to avert our ecological crises.

In short, dialectic – and specifically the form advanced by Aristotle – could be precisely the method we need today to deal with complex and urgent problems. 

This solution, however, presents its own problems. The first barrier is complexity. Dialectic as a concept can be difficult to understand and to explain, and therefore difficult to practice. There are also problems of association. Aristotle derived this method, but his own findings are morally repugnant to us. Dialectic is also associated with Marxism (and in some of its most deformed forms) and some people will not be able to see the value as a result.

Testing definitions

The difficulties in understanding dialectic begins with Aristotle’s failure – indeed, his refusal – to provide a precise definition or text about this technique. Indeed, he argued that such a thing was impossible.

Dr John D G Evans, the author of the authoritative Aristotle’s Concept of Dialectic, says the ancient Greek philosopher warned that “precision beyond a certain degree is not be expected in a work on dialectic” (89). He adds: “[T]he work which seeks to produce dialectical skill in its audience is inevitably reduced in its precision…(92)” Nonetheless, I will be as precise as I can. 

The aim of dialectic is persuasion. Dr Evans argues: “In dialectic one is required to convince, by logical means, actual people of the truth of some particular assertion” (92). Elsewhere: “In dialectic, success is achieved when one has secured the agreement of a particular opponent. To secure this agreement one must produce a sense of conviction, but one must produce it in a particular person; and while it may be true that a sense of conviction is most likely to be produced by that which is really convincing, there is no guarantee that any individual will be convinced by this” (75).

Aristotle opens Topics, his clearest presentation of dialectic, with the following: “The goal of this study is to find a method with which we shall be able to construct deductions from acceptable premises concerning any problem that is proposed – and – when submitting to argument ourselves – will not say anything inconsistent.”

To change the world we must understand it, and the foundations of this understanding are the definitions we use. We must also explain our understanding to other people. The “task of the dialectic” is “the testing of proposed definitions” (36). An agreement on definitions is both the beginning and the end of the process of validating arguments. Dialectic is concerned with the testing of definitions (where logic is the pursuit of a singular definition). Dr Evans states: “[T]he dialectician works not on the definition, but on definitions” (35).

Scope

We can begin to define dialectic itself as a bridge between the art of rhetoric on the one hand and the science of logic, and the sciences in general on the other. “Its concerns are limited neither to the absolute truth of the matter under consideration [logic] nor to the views held by persons on the matter [rhetoric]: it embraces both of these and thus has the unique function of taking us from the latter to the former” (114). 

However, dialectic for Aristotle is not the same as logic, nor rhetoric. Dialectic is not simply a persuasive argument. “The concept of dialectic imposes limit and order on what would otherwise be formless mass of sophistic material (75-76)”, writes Dr Evans. Aristotle goes further in proposing that dialectic is the practice of persuading particular people – in one to one conversation – rather than persuading people in general. 

This is the meaning of this following statement from Aristotle’s Rhetoric: “Nor will rhetoric consider what is plausible to an individual, such as Socrates or Hippias, but what is so to such-and-such people, as does dialectic.” (76) To untangle this a little: rhetoric does not consider what is plausible to an individual, like Socrates, but does consider what is to a class or group of people. Dialectic does consider the particular individual.

What is the scope of dialectic? To begin with, dialectic should be deployed when discussing issues of complexity and difficulty, where no satisfactory answers exist. This makes it all the more attractive today. “Generally, Aristotle maintains that dialectic must concern itself with matters where there is aporia, the difficulty being caused either by the existence of conflicting arguments about the particular problem or by the lack of a satisfactory explanation of the matter.” (80) 

Further: “A question which everyone would agree in answering in the affirmative or negative cannot be allowed to be dialectical, nor can such questions as ‘should we honour the gods’, or ‘is snow white’. Dialectical questions are concerned with matters about which there is difficulty and dispute; and questions to which all would agree the answer clearly do not belong to this class … questions that would be answered by punishment or the uses of the senses and not by argument, are also excluded” (79).

Strategy

But dialectic may not be useful for those set apart by the current cultural wars. “Aristotle is concerned with the strategy which should be adopted by the answerer in dialectical exercises which are conducted not in a contentious spirit but for the sake of testing and examining the views on some question” (80), Dr Evans points out. Dialectic is a discussion in good faith, where each side aims to move the other but leaves themselves open to being moved. 

Dialectic can discuss anything, it is “indeed concerned with everything about everything” (48). Aristotle resists “limiting the scope of dialectic to any particular department of reality.” (38) But this is in part why dialectic for Aristotle is not a science. “The price which it pays for this universality is that, unlike first philosophy, it is not scientific in character.”

So far, I have attempted to provide a very broad outline of Aristotle’s dialectic. I have offered a thumbnail definition, and then a more dialectical one. Then I’ve set out why this may be useful. I have attempted to sketch out the aims and scope of dialectic, relying heavily on Dr Evans’ work.

Next I want to discuss the method of dialectic. And when I have done that, I want to turn this method back on the concept of dialectic itself. I hope in the process to arrive at a more precise definition of the term, and to have also persuaded some of you of its utility – thereby practicing dialectic in the process.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is part of the Endoxa.review project. 
 

Doctors backing the Extinction Rebellion movement have blockaded the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to highlight the impact of climate change on public health.

Thirty doctors from all over the UK joined the protest on Wednesday to call on the Government to take rapid action to create a carbon neutral health service.

Two doctors scaled the building to glue themselves to the glass porch over the entrance, while several others held a banner reading “government inaction will cost thousands of lives”.

Respiratory

The protesters told police they would not move until a representative from the department came to speak with them.

Rachel Cottam, a GP from Brighton, told the PA news agency: “The NHS is the biggest public sector emitter, equally climate change is a public health emergency and seven million people die globally because of air pollution.

“The last four years were the hottest on record, this July was the hottest July on record and it’s no surprise we saw the highest level of A&E admissions. For every one degree of warming there is a 3.4 percent increase in cardiovascular disease mortality and a 3.6 percent increase in respiratory mortality.

Health

“The wonderful thing is that what we need to do to combat climate change is incredibly good for our health. Stop eating meat, it’s the biggest cause of colon cancer; stop driving our cars and walk, tackling diabetes and obesity.

“The climate emergency is intimately linked with every aspect of our health.”

Chris Newman, one of the two men glued to the building, said in a statement: “Climate and ecological breakdown poses one of the greatest threats to public health the world has ever faced. Yet the Government is failing to take meaningful steps to protect its citizens.

“Non-violent peaceful protests like today are essential public health interventions for getting the government to take immediate action.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter with PA.

A new UN report is set to warn that climate change is having a significant impact on the oceans, with millions in coastal communities facing flooding and sea level rise.

The latest special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comes after countries met at the UN in a push to increase efforts to cut emissions to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

The summit heard from teenage activist Greta Thunberg who set out the scale of the challenge in curbing emissions as she criticised world leaders for failing to take action, with the refrain: “How dare you?”

Emissions

The new study, which examines the oceans, coasts and the cryosphere or frozen areas of the world, is expected to warn of huge increases in flooding damage, melting ice caps and glaciers and more ocean heatwaves that bleach and kill coral.

More than 100 scientists from around the world have assessed the latest science about the role of climate change on ocean, coastal, polar and mountain systems, and the human communities that depend on them.

The final draft, which has been agreed by countries meeting in Monaco, is also expected to warn of damage to fish stocks and seafood which millions rely on.

And an increase in extreme El Ninos – a weather phenomenon in the Pacific which pushes up global temperatures and can cause an increase in wildfires – is also on the cards.

The world’s oceans absorb much of the extra heat being generated by global warming and take in a proportion of the emissions of carbon dioxide, making the seas more acidic which can damage sea creatures.

Devastating

The report is expected to cover what can be done to alleviate the problems, such as the importance of protecting the oceans and restoring habitats which absorb and store carbon such as sea grass beds in shallow waters.

Ahead of the report’s launch, Greenpeace International scientist, Melissa Wang, said: “We expect the IPCC report to confirm our worst fear – the climate crisis is an oceans crisis.

“Some of the impacts of climate change on our oceans are now irreversible and others are looking increasingly inevitable.”

And she warned: “At current emissions rates, we are effectively dumping one million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the oceans every hour.

“Unless we accelerate efforts to curb carbon emissions and take greater steps to protect our oceans, there will be devastating human, environmental and economic consequences.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Image: Halcyon Gallery.

Sustainability certificates for North Sea cod are being suspended following declines in fish stocks, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has said.

Cod stocks in the sea had been thought to be in good health but the latest scientific advice has revealed much lower amounts of fish, putting the fishery in increased danger of collapse.

It means North Sea cod is coming off the menu again for consumers who care their fish supper is sustainable, just two years after the fishery won the recognisable “blue tick” eco-label.

Collapse

It is not clear what is fuelling the declines, though experts said it could be the result of factors such as warming waters driven by climate change and fewer young cod surviving into adulthood in the past two years.

As a result Marine Stewardship Council certification, which allows seafood to carry the blue tick that shows it comes from sustainable fisheries, will be suspended from all MSC-certified fisheries targeting North Sea cod.

Any cod caught from the date of suspension on October 24 will not be able to carry the label.

The news comes as a blow to the fishing industry which has put in initiatives to actively avoid catching young fish, such closing large spawning areas to fishing, trialling new nets, and avoiding areas where cod congregate to avoid catching them when fishing for other species.

These kind of initiatives helped the fishery win its sustainability certification in 2017, when stocks were assessed as reaching 152,207 tonnes, the highest levels since 1982 and a decade after they came close to collapse.

Stock

Stocks were forecast to hit 180,990 tonnes in 2018, but the scientific advice for that year included a far smaller estimate of the amount of cod in the North Sea.

And this year’s expert advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) revealed estimates of only 81,224 tonnes, below the “safe biological level” for the stock and at increased danger of collapse.

Erin Priddle, UK and Ireland programme director for the Marine Stewardship Council said: “The decline in the North Sea cod stock is a worrying development, with the latest stock models suggesting that the fishery has not recovered as well as previously thought.”

She said the latest scientific advice meant the North Sea cod fishery no longer met the MSC standard.

“While this news is devastating for industry, it is a testament to the MSC standard working as it should: to pick up on threats to stock sustainability, as is the case with North Sea cod.

Imported

“It is imperative that industry works collaboratively with fishery managers, non-governmental organisations and the wider seafood supply chain to introduce effective measures that will see this fishery once again achieve certification.”

Mike Park, chairman of the Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group said: “The industry is concerned that, notwithstanding their best efforts to continue to rebuild North Sea cod, some developments are taking place that seem beyond their control.

“That said, they are committed to introducing balanced and proportionate measures in an attempt to reverse the decline.”

The UK consumes 115,000 tonnes of cod a year, 37% of which carries the blue tick label.

Most of what is eaten here, some 94 percent, is imported, with sustainable options from outside the North Sea coming from areas such as Iceland, Norway and Russia, MSC said.

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.