This Sunday, the Isocracy Network will be holding its AGM and, in addition to our usual AGM business, we will have a guest speaker and discussion on "Imperialism, Colonialism, Internationalism," which is particularly relevant to current events. The discussion will be led by Kevin Huynh, JD, who is an avid observer of current world events. Reflecting this interest, Kevin has a honours degree in Politics and International Studies from the University of Melbourne, and holds a Juris Doctor from Monash University. The meeting will be held in person and online. Please message for online details. Unsurprisingly, I have tentative definitions for consideration and discussion.

Imperialism is the control, direct or indirect, of another country. With direct imperialism, a foreign country imposes direct political rule over another country (e.g., French West Africa, British India, Spanish America, Dutch East Indies, Belgian Congo). Indirect imperialism occurs when one country controls the affairs of another country through political influence and economic dependency, for which there is no viable alternative to the sovereign country (e.g., the United States over Latin American countries). Indirect imperialism can also include vassal states, where a country is provided local autonomy for internal affairs but international relations and defence depend on the imperial power (e.g., Tibet and the Chinese Qing Dynasty Empire).

Indirect imperialism can change to direct imperialism and revert back again depending on the rise and fall of independence movements (e.g., Iran under Mossedeq was subject to a US/UK backed coup, indirect imperialism with the Consortium Agreement) or it can result as a concession to the controlled country (e.g., the Unequal Treaties imposed on China, Korea, and Japan). With the dominant power controlling and exploiting the human and natural resources of the foreign country, imperialism was often justified as part of a "civilising mission" (e.g., "mission civilatrice") to bring improvements, stability, education, etc. A famous (and astoundingly racist) example was Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden".

Colonialism is separate but often a part of imperialism. Colonialism involves the deliberate migration of one ethnic group into another country, which may already be populated by indigenous people. Colonial efforts in these circumstances often involve supplanting or subjugating the original population (e.g., the British to Australia).

Now for some trickier questions; how does imperialism relate to globalisation, in a world economy and a world system? Is globalisation replacing nation-state imperialism? Is foreign military intervention justified for humanitarian reasons (e.g., responsibility to protect)? What are the procedures in which this should occur? What is the difference, if any, between globalisation and internationalism? A lot to cover in a two-hour meeting, but one thing is for sure; we're still seeing a particularly nasty side of imperialism occurring to this very day.

Whilst the terrible and illegal war in the Middle East expands with increasing loss of life, it seems almost avoidant to concentrate on climatology matters as I have done for a lot of the past week. Still, one should be concerned with ongoing, creeping long-term issues as well as the literally explosive, immediate ones. Further, as the ever astute critic of political power and its abuse, Clinton Fernandes points out part of the reason that the United States is at war with Israel is to control China's access to high-sulphur Iranian oil, which accounts for over 14 per cent of its supply. National security is yet another reason why the rapid transition away from fossil fuels is so critically important for any country that desires to be truly independent, and why any country with internationally significant supplies of oil that is not part of USian imperialist control (e.g., Venezuela, Iran) are being targeted and why Canada is still on Trump's list for annexation.

Earlier this week was Adam Ford's "Future Day", a three-day online conference featuring various futurologists primarily discussing artificial intelligence and longevity. My own contribution was a presentation on "Critical Issues for the Global Climate" which I have produced a slidedeck, something approximating a transcript, and with the video available on YouTube. At over 4000 words, the presentation covers the core science of climatology (Earth's energy budget, carbon cycle, physics of GHGs), the industrial age and observed changes, environmental changes, the Anthropocene Extinction Event, and energy trajectories and future global policy directions. Concluding remarks identify climate change as a critical issue and one subject to "race conditions", and note that the policy route, whilst necessary, is currently falling short of requirements.

The other major climatology study completed this week was a 4500-word paper for my Euclid University studies in "Global Energy and Climate Policy", namely "Energy Production Under The Paris Agreement: Options for Developing Pacific Island Countries". Energy production is the major source of GHG emissions and, despite rapid changes toward renewables - especially solar and wind energy - fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas dominate global energy production. "L'Accord de Paris", requires all signatories (which excludes Iran, which never ratified, and the United States, which withdrew) to increasingly reduce emissions for each report of their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in an effort to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees C. For developing Pacific Island Countries, this is an issue: they are micro-contributors to GHG emissions, both absolutely and relatively, are especially sensitive to the effects of climate change, and, with underdeveloped infrastructure, are vulnerable. They require adaptation more than mitigation, and that's not required by the Paris Agreement. The conclusion I have reached is that the Paris Agreement requires an extension that includes requirements for both adaptation and mitigation.

With over 8000 words written on climatology in the past week, you would be forgiven for thinking that I've probably had enough on the subject for a while. On the contrary, my interest has actually increased. Whilst often a grim study (depression and anxiety are occupational risks among climatologists), the science provides multiple interesting avenues of investigation, the technologies provide a slim glimmer of hope, and the politics illustrate the dangers and difficulties of managing global matters within the limitations of sovereign nation-states. It is a life's work, a life's interest, and it is in the advocacy for life itself that makes this the most important scientific and moral challenge of our time.