A gift for peace

Yesterday, I received by post an amazing book - I started reading it this morning.

The sender was a friend but I don't know who. One way or another, I am grateful for the beautiful gift.

The book is about Rami and Bassam; two fathers who live in Jerusalem but on the other sides of the eternal war...

They are both fathers.

They are both fathers of daughters.

They have both lost their daughters.

The first pages of this book bring this in mind.

It was aired at BBC2 last Monday and it is strong, detailed, cruel and realistic. 

At this documentary, we follow the Gaza war through the eyes of three Palestinian children.

And now?

What the future holds for Rami and Bassam?

What the future holds for the three children of the documentary?

What the future holds for Palestinians and Israelis who have lost sons, daughters, husbands or wifes?

What the future holds for all the innocent people in Gaza, in Israel, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iran, in Iraq, in Armenia, in Russia, in Ukraine?

These words come to mind:

“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.” ― Frank Zappa

 
 

Why don’t many on the left see Russia as a colonial power?

the full article is behind a paywall but you can read it below.

My comment: Ms Naomi O'Leary hints that her question was answered indirectly but in my humble opinion, President Michael D Higgins was crystal clear. I would suggest to analysts to read a little bit more on the existence of Nazi groups in Eastern Ukraine and the agreement that NATO would NOT expand eastwards...

 

Russia carefully cultivates its inherited association with the ‘anti-colonial’ Soviet Union in its international relations

 

 

President Michael D Higgins: 'There is no doubt whatsoever that...the breaking up of the Soviet Union is there as an influence on the thinking of the Russian president.' Photograph: Brian Lawless/PA Wire; photo is from here: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/europe/2023/10/19/why-dont-many-on-the-left-see-russia-as-a-colonial-power/ 

 

Naomi O’Leary

Thu Oct 19 2023 - 06:00

 

This week I had the opportunity to ask President Michael D Higgins a question I had been wanting to put to him for a long time: “In relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, do you see Russia as a colonial power?”

I wanted to ask because Higgins has forceful and considered views about the legacy of European colonialism in Africa but has not to my knowledge articulated a view that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an imperial venture.

That is certainly how Ukrainians themselves see the invasion.

“For 300 years, since middle-17th century, Ukraine was like a colony for Russia,” Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said last year as he explained the conflict to a group of African journalists. “They were suppressing our identity, our language. They insisted on the supremacy of Russian language, Russian culture...Russian civilisational supremacy. The official Russian narrative was even that Ukrainians are not able to govern themselves.”

 

Ukrainian writers have made great efforts since the invasion to explain why they view it in colonial terms, summed up in a book by Maksym Eristavi entitled Russian Colonialism 101.

In the past academia tended to exclude land empires from colonial studies and to accept the self-presentation of the Soviet Union as an anti-colonial force even as it suppressed national movements within its borders. As the historian Botakoz Kassymbekova wrote earlier this year: “Western academia too often overlooked the fact that Stalin was obsessed with maintaining Russian imperial borders and had adopted the same toolkit – ethnic cleansing, crushing dissent, destroying national movements, privileging Russian ethnicity and culture – that tsarist Russia used to maintain them.”

 

The long legacy of this arguably blinded western Europe for a long time towards the expansionist ambitions of Russia under president Vladimir Putin. It meant that when Russia invaded Ukraine some people on the left who would otherwise consider themselves anti-imperialists expressed sympathy with the Russian viewpoint, deeming it to be reacting to encroachment by western powers. In their view it was Ukrainian resistance that was the “Western imperial” force.

Russia carefully cultivates its inherited association with the “anti-colonial” Soviet Union in its international relations, particularly in the developing world.

Before his death in August the mercenary boss Yevgeny Prigozhin promoted his Wagner paramilitary group as helping African nations throw off their old colonial masters. “They have got rid of the colonisers,” Prigozhin said in a Telegram message in which he offered Wagner’s services following a coup in Niger this summer.

“What happened in Niger is nothing other than the struggle of the people of Niger with their colonisers. With colonisers who are trying to foist their rules of life on them and their conditions and keep them in the state that Africa was in hundreds of years ago.”

The irony was that Wagner’s offer of militarily propping up African rulers came in exchange for logging rights, mining permits and permission to extract oil and gas, repeating the playbook of the old imperial resource-extraction model of the past.

Some of Higgins’s previously-expressed views on international relations led me to suspect that he might not include Ukraine within his conception of the colonised world. When I put my query to him, he began by replying “I don’t want to avoid any question”.

 

He continued by saying that “inherited imperialist tendencies and colonising tendencies” had “impeded” the ability of many European countries “to construct new positive partnerships with parts of Africa”.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that...the breaking up of the Soviet Union is there as an influence on the thinking of the Russian president,” he went on.

Passion then came into the President’s voice as he began to denounce the “hubris” of the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when capitalism was assumed to have become a “single hegemonic force”.

“It was announced that everything was now changed, and that we had a new single system, and a single civilisation, and that it was driven by the marketplace. And therefore it was only a matter of time into which every form of alternative collapsed,” he said.

The “quality of diplomacy” deteriorated, he continued, harming co-operation in everything from arms reduction, nuclear disposal, to the protection of the oceans. If we had more time to discuss it, he concluded, we should speak about how young people need to hear there can be a peaceful future, and that “war is not the natural condition of the species”.

I was left with the impression that my question had not been answered. Though perhaps, indirectly, it had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goran Bregovic : we love YOU

Musician Blocked From Performing In Moldova Due To Pro-Russia Views

Can Ireland feed itself? Yes. A nutritious diet? Not at the moment

source: The Irish Times 

OPINION: OUR INTENSE FOCUS ON BEEF AND DAIRY HAS GIVEN US ADVANTAGE IN GLOBAL MARKETS, BUT WAR IN UKRAINE HAS EXPOSED OUR VULNERABILITY IN FRUIT, VEGETABLE AND CEREAL PRODUCTION

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, known as the “bread basket of Europe”, has far-reaching implications for food. The most direct and urgent implication is Ukrainians in besieged areas being cut off from food supplies, and the millions of people trying to flee Ukraine not being able to access food and water. This is where the immediate humanitarian focus needs to be. Beyond these immediate needs, there is great concern about the catastrophic impacts on Ukraine’s agricultural production and the spill-over effects globally.

RUTH HEGARTY, DIRECTOR OF EGG&CHICKEN CONSULTING, ADVOCATES FOR A MORE DIVERSE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY.

Ukraine is one of the world’s major grain exporters. Seeds that were destined for Ukrainian fields sit in warehouses unable to reach farmers and the window to sow them is shortening by the day. Crops already in fields will not be harvested as long as Ukraine is under attack, and some crops may already have been destroyed.

The loss of Ukraine’s exports of major agricultural commodities such as wheat, maize, and sunflower oil, along with the loss of fertiliser supplies from Russia, has serious repercussions for global agriculture and food supplies. In addition, there is growing concern for food security of North African and Middle Eastern countries that will feel the impacts most acutely, due to reliance on Ukraine and Russia for over half of their cereal imports and on wheat as their main staple.

But, as a country that produces and exports many times the food required to feed our population, do we need to worry about Ireland’s food security? Why did the Minister for Agriculture ask this week that all Irish farmers grow crops this year? What does this say about Ireland’s current food system and our food policies?

While Ireland is very successful at producing food and at finding exports markets for it, our agriculture has become highly specialised. We have focused primarily on beef and dairy production due to the suitability of our climate and our competitive advantage in grass-based production. Ireland is not unusual in this level of specialisation.

IRELAND HAS SPECIALISED IN BEEF AND DAIRY BECAUSE OF OUR STRONG COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN GRASS-BASED PRODUCTION. PHOTOGRAPH: ALAN BETSON

This has come about through increasingly globalised markets and policies that have encouraged countries to specialise in areas of production that they can do best and most efficiently; the very same reason why Ukraine is focused on production of wheat, other cereals, and oil seed crops, due to its rich, fertile plains. But, in order to produce the quantities of meat and dairy that we do, even in grass-based systems, we rely heavily on imported inputs of fertiliser and feed.

Because we have been so focused on beef and dairy, and because we have been able to source animal feed cheaply from abroad, we have not worried so much about growing other things.

A FIELD OF WHEAT IN CO. MONAGHAN. PHOTOGRAPH: JAMES FORDE

“Ireland is well placed to be food secure,” says Fintan Keenan, a tillage farmer originally from Co Monaghan who has been farming wheat and beans organically in Denmark for the past 10 years. “But as cheap wheat became abundant on global markets, Irish farmers were encouraged to stop growing it.” The same can be said for other crops and cereals, with the tillage sector seeing steady decline in recent decades due to challenges of viability.

'They will look at how many acres they can sacrifice to grow their own fodder... input prices will force them to think differently'

Now, having largely moved away from mixed farming systems and with many having left tillage, farmers are suddenly being asked to plant crops again. Will Irish farmers answer this call? Keenan believes they will, if they can. “Farmers are rolling up their sleeves, they are responding because they are looking at the rising price of animal feed. They will look at how many acres they can sacrifice to grow their own fodder. These are farmers who would not dream of growing anything tillage-wise, but input prices will force them to think differently.” But that does not mean it will be straightforward.

“The infrastructure simply isn’t there. In Denmark, tillage is very much part of a mixed farming set-up and the facilities for drying, storage and milling are there in every community. Irish farmers aren’t set up for this. Even if the equipment was there, the knowledge and skills have been lost.”

Keenan says Ireland is in a “double jeopardy” situation when it comes to staple crops such as wheat. We rely both on imported or homegrown wheat for animal feed and on wheat from international markets, mainly coming through the UK and France for milling, for flour.

'My sense is that any additional crops that will be grown this year by Irish farmers will be destined for animal feed, not for human consumption'

“My sense is that any additional crops that will be grown this year by Irish farmers will be destined for animal feed, not for human consumption,” says Keenan. That the main concern around shortages, and the call to grow crops, is focused on animal feed and not food for people seems clear. In a statement this week, the IFA suggested that potato farmers might be well placed to switch to tillage crops, indicating that human food production might be sacrificed for animal feed. Of course, in the short-term, the animals we have will need to be fed, but this exposes real weakness in Ireland’s narrow approach to food policy.

“How can we be called food secure?” asks Fergal Anderson, a Galway-based farmer who produces vegetables and fruit for the local market with his partner Emanuela Russo. “We export huge quantities of beef and dairy that are dependent on inputs. But humans don’t live on steaks and milk. It is a huge simplification to say we are food secure; we don’t produce the whole picture, right now we can’t supply our own population with a nutritious diet.”

Indeed, specialisation also has consequences for what we produce. With policy support focused elsewhere, sectors such as horticulture have been left to languish. There has been a continual reduction in the number of fresh produce growers in Ireland over the past two decades and this exodus continues.

According to the IFA, the number of field growers of vegetables has fallen from an estimated 400 down to 100 in the past 20 years, and they attribute this exodus primarily to the ever-lower prices offered by retailers. Appeals to retail multiples to end the notorious 49c fruit and vegetable deals have so far fallen on deaf ears. Supermarkets serve their customers, and they want to offer them low prices.

Domestic horticulture is not given adequate support and no concerted policy effort has been made to prevent below-cost selling of fruit and vegetables

Ireland now finds itself importing the majority of our fruit and vegetables. While we will probably always want to import bananas and oranges, we also import vast quantities of crops that can be grown in Ireland, including tens of thousands of tonnes of apples, potatoes, onions, cabbages and carrots. Our reliance on imports of fruit and vegetables is something we have walked into with our eyes wide open in policy terms. Domestic horticulture is not given adequate support and no concerted policy effort has been made to prevent below-cost selling of fruit and vegetables.

“Our focus on commodity production and exports has left local markets behind, particularly for fruit, vegetables and grains,” says Anderson, “We have been supplying local markets from our farm for 10 years, farming agro-ecologically, and we have never received government supports”.

The war in Ukraine, and its impacts on the global food system, are shining a light on problems that were already there. Anderson along with other small and medium-scale farmers, established Talamh Beo in 2019 to advocate for a new approach to farm policy in Ireland.

“We are extremely exposed. The future we want is many eggs in many baskets. Currently Ireland has all its eggs in the dairy and beef baskets; and this makes things fragile because of all the inputs required and the fact that those inputs are mostly imported. There doesn’t seem to be much interest in moving away from this currently,” says Anderson.

But we know that we need to move away from it. We are in the midst of dual biodiversity and climate crises and the way we farm and produce food are key to solving them. The need to shift away from chemical inputs of fertilisers and pesticides, to reduce animal agriculture with its high reliance on imported feeds, and to close the loop through regenerative agricultural practices has been clearly recognised at an international level and has been incorporated into EU policy through the Green Deal and the Farm2Fork strategy, but Irish policy has been slow to move in that direction.

The price of fuel, fertiliser and animal feed was already on the rise before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and now with prices soaring and real concerns about supplies, there are serious implications for farm profitability. If the growing evidence of the huge environmental impact of our current farm practices has not been enough of a wake-up call, perhaps this will motivate the move to a new direction.

But farming organisations and agri-business representatives are already lobbying for relaxation of environmental measures in light of the Ukraine war and food security concerns. There is a real and palpable fear now among environmental groups and farmers who have advocated for a more regenerative, agro-ecological approach, that hard won-policy progress will be rowed back on.

WHEAT FARMER MARK GILLANDERS FROM MONAGHAN MILLS HIS PRODUCE FOR THE IRISH MARKET. THERE AREN’T MANY FARMERS LIKE HIM. PHOTOGRAPH: PHILIP FITZPATRICK

Fergal Anderson, represented the European Co-ordination Via Campesina, a farmer-led international organisation advocating for food sovereignty, at this week’s European Commission meeting on Food Security and Contingency planning. He says that while there are genuine concerns about food security, the current crisis further highlights the fragility of current agricultural models.

He says the Irish Government and the EU must avoid knee-jerk reactions and remain focused on long-term goals to move away from dependence on synthetic fossil fuel-based fertilisers and towards agro-ecology.

The vision of Talamh Beo, and Via Campesina, of which it is a part, is one of food sovereignty and agro-ecology, and this is what Anderson wants to see Irish policy move towards.

“The key difference between food security and food sovereignty is that food sovereignty includes agency of people and farmers in the process. It is about democratisation of the food system, one that doesn’t centre on agribusiness and industry but on citizens and communities, that puts people and the environment first. It is inseparable from agro-ecology, which is an entirely different way of farming that doesn’t depend on synthetic inputs, but on complementary livestock and crop production, closed nutrient cycles and biodiverse landscapes.”

'If we want real sustainability, we should be building regional food economies, not motorways'

Fintan Keenan believes in moving Ireland in a similar direction. “We are not talking about going back to horses and carts,” he says, “If we want real sustainability, we should be building regional food economies, not motorways. That means providing the supports and the environment for every region to produce grains, vegetables, meat and dairy.”

Both Keenan and Anderson point to further key challenges in both food and farming beyond our reliance on imports and our lack of diversity in production, not least declining farm incomes and the ageing farming population. Both believe things can be turned around, and farmers can deliver on the vision for a better food system, if the incentives are right.

“We are really challenged by the culture from the top. We need policy shifts, but we also need a cheque through the door. A lot of farmers are doing what they are doing because that is what they have been taught by the State and industry for a long time. It is not easy to jump out of that loop. But I think, given the issues we are facing with input costs, more farmers will start to consider organics and alternative approaches now,” says Keenan.

Anderson also believes the time is ripe for change. “We need to create an enabling environment. If it costs money to produce fruit and vegetables here, we need to pay it; but we also need to put policies in place that ensure access to healthy and affordable food for all, not just those for who can pay more.”

“It can be done. There are examples all over the world, including in Ireland, of regenerative systems that produce nutritious food for local communities. This is what needs support, not agrochemicals and fertiliser,” says Anderson.

“There is a shocking lack of vision in Ireland. But we have to ask ourselves what kind of agricultural sector do we want to have in five to 10 years’ time? What does the Irish citizen want to see? More environmental damage, more concentration, more specialisation? Or vibrant local economies, that provide decent livelihoods to farmers and nutritious food to citizens.”

Ruth Hegarty is the director of Egg&Chicken Consulting, an agency dedicated to food policy, advocacy and education, and to developing diverse sustainable food businesses.

fertiliser costs double - the impact of the war in Ukraine

 from the Irish Times

Shoppers face further food price hikes as farm fertiliser costs have more than doubled this year, forcing producers to pass on the extra expense.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and soaring natural gas charges have combined to drive up fertiliser prices at a time when farmers’ demand for it is highest.

One supplier reported this week that the price of some products has risen to more than €700 a tonne from about €340 at the end of last year, while the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) says costs have trebled in some cases.

An IFA spokesman warned that farmers would have to pass on the extra cost, meaning that consumers could pay higher prices for food in the Republic’s supermarkets.

The news comes just weeks after official figures confirmed that families are paying 6.5 per cent more for food than a year ago, while dairy products cost them a third more.

Fertiliser and fuel are among farmers’ biggest costs and prices for both have risen sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine.

Irish farmers import 600,000 tonnes of fertiliser a year, mainly nitrogen, potash and compound, which is a mix of products. Russia exports significant quantities of all three and is a large producer of compound.

Last year’s rise in natural gas prices forced up fertiliser prices. According to recent Central Statistics Office (CSO) estimates, the higher cost and increased demand boosted the Republic’s fertiliser bill by €58 million or 11 per cent to €591 million in 2021.

Farmers across Europe face the same problem. A report in Britain’s Guardian newspaper on Tuesday stated that fertiliser prices there were heading for £1,000 sterling per tonne (€1,200) from £650 a week ago.

The UK’s National Farmers’ Union said prices for nitrogen fertiliser were already up 200 per cent.

British cereal growers said they could ease price rises by buying less fertiliser, likely to lead to lower production at a time when supplies from Ukraine, responsible for 12 per cent of the world’s wheat, are under threat.

Irish farmers use fertiliser on grassland, used to feed beef and dairy cattle, as well as for growing crops.

Bernie Sanders on the war in Ukraine - a must watch video

 

Food Security and the war in Ukraine

 The news that are coming from Lebanon are alarming, to say the least:

"Flour mills in Lebanon delivered supplies only to Arabic bread bakeries on Monday and Tuesday, forcing bakers who make pastries and thyme pizzas to close as a means of rationing wheat imported from Ukraine, which supplies 60 per cent of the country’s wheat needs. Lebanon could face wheat shortages from July, forcing the government to reduce subsidised flat rounds of Arabic bread, which sustain the 80 per cent of Lebanon’s population who live in poverty.

The Ukraine crisis has engendered fears of food insecurity and driven up the costs of animal feed, boosting meat, dairy and poultry prices. Lebanon’s poultry feed stocks will last only for two months.

Beirut has kept tight rein on imports because of financial meltdown and reduction of storage capacity caused by the 2020 explosion in Beirut port, which destroyed Lebanon’s main grain silos.

Lebanon has approached the US, India and Canada to access new grain sources as Ukrainian farmers have abandoned their fields to flee their country or take up arms against invading Russians. Ukraine’s ports have shut and there is also concern that Russia’s grain exports will be blocked by western sanctions".

---

Therefore, we would need to re-examine our sources of raw materials for bread and bakery products.

Wheat shortages will impact all countries importing wheat from Russia and Ukraine.

In Ireland, the Minister for Agriculture has confirmed he will ask farmers to grow more grain due to potential supply shortages that could happen later this year due to the war in Ukraine.

Οι επιπτώσεις της Ρωσικής εισβολής στις παγκόσμιες αγορές τροφίμων

πηγή: Cibum.gr

Η Ρωσική εισβολή στην Ουκρανία εκτός από το ηθικό θέμα, προκαλεί και μεγάλη ανησυχία για έξαρση της επισιτιστικής ανασφάλειας σε πολλές κυρίως ευάλωτες χώρες και όχι μόνο, που θα πληγούν περισσότερο από τη διακοπή των εξαγωγών τροφίμων της Ουκρανίας.

Πολλές χώρες βασίζονται στις εξαγωγές τροφίμων τόσο από τη Ρωσία όσο και από την Ουκρανία. Αυτή η εξάρτηση καλύπτει δεκάδες χιλιάδες καλλιέργειες, σιταριού, καλαμποκιού και ηλιέλαιου που οι δύο χώρες έχουν τη μεγαλύτερη παγκόσμια εμβέλεια.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Σχετικά κείμενά μας, εδώ και εδώ.

Yannis Behrakis and the war...

 Three years ago, on the day, Yannis Behrakis died.

He dedicated his life in taking powerful photos in conflict zones around the world.

It's worth remembering his words: “My mission is to tell you the story and then you decide what you want to do. My mission is to make sure that nobody can say: ‘I didn’t know’.”

Here are some of his moving photos...

Today, let's remember his work and let's send a message to all the leaders involved (Russia and EU and NATO) to Stop the War in Ukraine, to stop the killings of innocent civilians! 

Money for weapons is a waste of money! The world spent 2trillion $ in 2020 only for weapons. At the same time, people have no access to food, to drinking water, to basic education, to covid-19 vaccines... 

This weapon gathering madness leads only to conflicts and more human pain... 

the war atrocities and the innocent people

Today, it is a very sad day...

It's the day that a new war has started in Europe...a war that will cause deaths and immeasurable pain to millions of innocent civilians.

I was born in Greece...a country that has suffered in WWII, the subsequent civil war, the Dictatorship for 7 seven years (1967-1974) and a country where thousands refugees come from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria...

The photo of the body of this innocent Syrian boy...washed ashore in Turkey is still so vivid...

The memories of the war in former Yugoslavia in the 90's under the hospices of NATO and EU are coming back to mind.

Atrocities, deaths, immigration, uncounted pain caused to innocent people.

NATO was instrumental in that war...

NATO is watching today...

I do not know which is more painful...

All I know is that the EU leaders have a very soft approach to today's war...

Who is going to help millions of innocent people in Ukraine, today?

Who?

How?

When?

So many questions...

With no answers...

p.s. This film comes to mind today...  

p.s.2. energy prices and food supplies are going to be impacted greatly by the war, but this is not a topic to discuss today... 

p.s.3. bitter ironic fact: UN security council is chaired by ...Russia! 

Fintan O’Toole: If only we could fight climate change like we fight wars

 

The question that now faces the world is a stark one: can humans concentrate their collective minds without an external enemy? Photograph: Getty

--------------------

Fintal O'Toole, Irish Times, 6th November 2021

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Depend upon it, sir,” said Samuel Johnson, “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”. We do indeed have to depend upon the Cop26 summit proving Johnson right, and that the threat of extinction will concentrate the collective mind. 

There are, at least, some precedents. One of them is, ironically, the origin of the great fear that has now been displaced by climate change: nuclear war.

Over Christmas in 1938, two physicists, Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch, had a startling insight. They realised that if you bombarded a uranium nucleus with a neutron, it could split into two, releasing a great amount of energy.

It very quickly dawned on scientists that this could become a chain reaction, producing more and more energy. That process could, in theory, be harnessed to make a bomb of unprecedented destructiveness.

In the spring of 1940, Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, having, like Meitner, fled from the Nazis, arrived in Birmingham. There they figured out something even more alarming – a lump of uranium-235 the size of a golf ball would be enough to make such a bomb.

An even darker thought followed – if they had worked this out, then surely the brilliant colleagues they had left behind in Germany must have done the same. Hitler might well be working on an atomic bomb.

This was, as Jewish people already knew, an existential threat. If Hitler had the bomb and his enemies did not, he would certainly use it. “As a weapon,” Frisch and Peierls warned Winston Churchill, “the super-bomb would be practically irresistible”. They argued the imperative of developing an atomic bomb as a “counter-threat”.

Extraordinary

What happened next was an extraordinary concentration of the mind. Churchill, who himself had already foreseen the possibility that the splitting of the atom could lead to a new and fearful kind of weaponry, alerted US president Franklin D Roosevelt.

Out of this dread came a staggering achievement. The Manhattan Project really got under way in September 1942. The first atomic bomb was exploded less than three years later, in July 1945.

The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki make it hard to celebrate this achievement. But it was, in itself, stunning.

Creating the atomic bomb was actually much more difficult than the scientists had imagined. It required an unprecedented concentration of industrial might, scientific brilliance, governmental commitment and vast public resources.

The reason all of this came together was existential dread: terror of the Nazis and what they would do if they got the bomb first. The prospect of being hanged in a fortnight made what was scarcely possible an achievable reality.

The great irony, of course, is that this remarkable accomplishment in fact added to the common store of dread. Nuclear weapons, initially a guarantor against extinction, became themselves the bearers of the threat that humanity might obliterate itself.

I sometimes wonder whether one of the deep-lying reasons for the failure of governments and societies to acknowledge the peril of climate change was a kind of dread fatigue.

Everyone who lived through the cold war also lived with a burden of anxiety: the knowledge that an apocalyptic conflagration would trigger the nuclear winter in which most life on Earth would perish. It was a constant background noise that, at moments of crisis, came to the fore and became overwhelming.

It was perhaps unfortunate that the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in 1990, just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. One burden of terror was being lifted, but here was another coming along right on cue to take its place.

 

Existential anxiety

Perhaps it was natural to think: give us a break. Perhaps humankind needed a holiday from existential anxiety. But the effusion of greenhouse gases did not take a vacation – it just kept going.

Maybe there has also been a paradoxical hangover from the cold war – the worst did not happen. The hard rain did not fall. The eve of destruction was not followed by the dark night of annihilation. 

Maybe the period between 1989 and the Paris Agreement of 2015 can be seen as humanity’s long exhale, a sigh of relief that the great danger had apparently passed and we were safe now.

There was a deep desire not to know this was the ultimate false sense of security. It was a pleasant illusion to imagine that, since we got away with the game of chance that was mutually assured destruction, we would get away with every other form of dicing with death.

Indulgence in that illusion has led us to the present crisis. The question that now faces the world is a stark one: can humans concentrate their collective minds without an external enemy?

The great fusions of politics, technology, industry and science – like the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moonshot – have been driven by warlike competition.

Without the fear of the Nazis, the atom bomb would not have been developed at such dizzying speed. Without the space race between the Americans and the Soviets, there would have been no man on the moon.

A pessimist might say that this is precisely the problem with climate change. There is no Them, only an Us. We are our own worst enemy, and we have to be our own bogeyman. We have to scare ourselves into action. 

It is war that has typically speeded up history by galvanisng the idea of a threat that must be countered, whatever the cost. It is competition for dominance that has spurred governments to undertake the seemingly impossible.

But now we face a threat that cannot be countered by competition between nations. It can be met only by co-operation on a truly global scale. Survival demands that we be afraid, not of each other, but for each other, and for all the others not yet born.

What we know, however, is that the concentration of the mind produces amazing results. If political systems really want to, they can harness science, technology, government, economics and industry to the same wagon. And then things can move with extraordinary rapidity.

Can that willpower be generated without war?  

More than a century ago, George Bernard Shaw, in Man and Superman, had the Devil suggest that “in the arts of life, man invents nothing, but in the arts of death, he outdoes nature herself”. But we can no longer outdo, or outrun, nature. 

If half the money, ingenuity and energy that has been devoted to the arts of death is channelled into the rapid decarbonisation of the global economy, it will be achieved.

The gallows we have built for ourselves does not have to be ascended. We have the power, seldom granted to those who have committed capital crimes against nature, to grant ourselves a reprieve.