"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck”, then we all know what follows. “It probably is a duck." But that is the easy case. What if “it” looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and the resemblance is not skin deep, but as authentic as duck-like appearance gets, but, for all that, the beast does not swim like a duck, or fly like or duck or lay eggs like a duck, or taste like a duck. What to make of a “Potemkin duck”?
May I ask for a heading every 6 to 10 paragraphs to articulate the text? I pay for this newsletter but I am busy. You don't have to take only my opinion, ask other people as well.
Since we don't have an executive summary to this flow of consciousness narrative, I would attempt one:
- Duck joke
- COP26 is global effort,
- JET-P about lower financing for south africa/indo
- Rockfeller and ODI review it, say it does not do anything
- JET-P is actually a trojan of G7 against China
- JET-P is not funded, and does not do anything
- it seems to be policy for the sake of policy, so it is just performative
Thanks for holding the West to account on climate change. As I think you once commented, Western liberalism is beset by hypocrisy.
And the Potemkin duck isn’t just found on sustainable development. Where are the people who pontificate about “responsibility to protect”? There is a genocide happening in full view. Why not declare a no fly zone” over Palestine? Where is the responsibility to protect? It seems the Potemkin duck has stopped quacking over the genocide happening in Gaza.
The question I have is this: why has the Munich Security Conference and all such other “security conferences” ignored the genocide? All the IR experts that pontificate about China should hang their head in shame. China is doing more to uphold international law than anything the IR advisers have managed to accomplish. Shame on you hypocrites.
For a left wing scholar this analysis misses the benefits of a century and a half of critical analysis of the capitalist system. The reason none of this works is because it is antithetical to the capitalist system on which it is founded. The profit motive is missing. If we want to do something different you have to effectively tame and subvert capitalism, which all of these facile schemes spectacularly fail to do.
What will change things are state driven schemes to invest actual money in real schemes.
The rest is just a pony show for corporations and NGOs. It won't make a difference. Look at China's record. It blows everyone else out of the water, and not an NGO or JET-P in sight.
Sad to see another detailed analysis which ignores basic principles of electricity supply that any half competent engineer knows. This is sadly what happens when economists read articles by advocate of the energy transition and ignore basic technical facts. You cannot replace firm generation capacity like coal, gas and nuclear with intermittent renewables like solar and wind. No country has done this in history. What solar and wind can do is allow you to run firm generation at low levels for a lot of the time. But there are long period when firm generation are essential.
South Africa needs fix firm generation to end load shedding. Adding solar and wind will simply make the problem worse. Solar plus batteries and diesel generator backup can help some people and businesses move off grid but the cost will be far beyond what ordinary South Africans can afford.
Thank you for this piece! As someone who recently left the philanthropy sector and moved to the international labour movement, it is so frustrating to see the JETPs touted as a good practice when there are so many issues with them, including the lack of real worker and union involvement beyond tokenistic ‘stakeholder engagement’ - making any claims that they are ‘just’ moot. ‘JETs’ (whether through ‘partnerships’ or not) are sucking up almost all the funding and crucially overlook the fact that the transition should happen in all sectors, not just energy (eg agriculture, which will still make us hit 2.8 degrees if unreformed).
Great, so we have already wasted tens of trillions of dollars on Green energy policies without lowering global carbon emissions, so they have promised to waste $100 trillion more in the future.
What they should be doing is admit failure and pivot to a better policy:
May I ask for a heading every 6 to 10 paragraphs to articulate the text? I pay for this newsletter but I am busy. You don't have to take only my opinion, ask other people as well.
Since we don't have an executive summary to this flow of consciousness narrative, I would attempt one:
- Duck joke
- COP26 is global effort,
- JET-P about lower financing for south africa/indo
- Rockfeller and ODI review it, say it does not do anything
- JET-P is actually a trojan of G7 against China
- JET-P is not funded, and does not do anything
- it seems to be policy for the sake of policy, so it is just performative
- Duck joke
Did I miss something?
Thanks for holding the West to account on climate change. As I think you once commented, Western liberalism is beset by hypocrisy.
And the Potemkin duck isn’t just found on sustainable development. Where are the people who pontificate about “responsibility to protect”? There is a genocide happening in full view. Why not declare a no fly zone” over Palestine? Where is the responsibility to protect? It seems the Potemkin duck has stopped quacking over the genocide happening in Gaza.
The question I have is this: why has the Munich Security Conference and all such other “security conferences” ignored the genocide? All the IR experts that pontificate about China should hang their head in shame. China is doing more to uphold international law than anything the IR advisers have managed to accomplish. Shame on you hypocrites.
Yet another excellent example of the matrix. Unfortunate the impact of not realizing this will have on humanity.
It is not a duck but a frog in a pot of water that is heating up.
For a left wing scholar this analysis misses the benefits of a century and a half of critical analysis of the capitalist system. The reason none of this works is because it is antithetical to the capitalist system on which it is founded. The profit motive is missing. If we want to do something different you have to effectively tame and subvert capitalism, which all of these facile schemes spectacularly fail to do.
What will change things are state driven schemes to invest actual money in real schemes.
The rest is just a pony show for corporations and NGOs. It won't make a difference. Look at China's record. It blows everyone else out of the water, and not an NGO or JET-P in sight.
Sad to see another detailed analysis which ignores basic principles of electricity supply that any half competent engineer knows. This is sadly what happens when economists read articles by advocate of the energy transition and ignore basic technical facts. You cannot replace firm generation capacity like coal, gas and nuclear with intermittent renewables like solar and wind. No country has done this in history. What solar and wind can do is allow you to run firm generation at low levels for a lot of the time. But there are long period when firm generation are essential.
South Africa needs fix firm generation to end load shedding. Adding solar and wind will simply make the problem worse. Solar plus batteries and diesel generator backup can help some people and businesses move off grid but the cost will be far beyond what ordinary South Africans can afford.
Great piece. My Substack—posted idea motivated by spending a year advising ANL/DOE on JETP Indonesia…not perfect but there's gotta be a better way:
https://substack.com/@jandaaggi/note/c-45401466?r=rjj94&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thank you for this piece! As someone who recently left the philanthropy sector and moved to the international labour movement, it is so frustrating to see the JETPs touted as a good practice when there are so many issues with them, including the lack of real worker and union involvement beyond tokenistic ‘stakeholder engagement’ - making any claims that they are ‘just’ moot. ‘JETs’ (whether through ‘partnerships’ or not) are sucking up almost all the funding and crucially overlook the fact that the transition should happen in all sectors, not just energy (eg agriculture, which will still make us hit 2.8 degrees if unreformed).
Wonderful work, Adam—thank you!
Great Duck analysis, with regards to Luhmann
amazing post. the leviathan is also a hydra!!
Great, so we have already wasted tens of trillions of dollars on Green energy policies without lowering global carbon emissions, so they have promised to waste $100 trillion more in the future.
What they should be doing is admit failure and pivot to a better policy:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/there-is-a-better-alternative-to