fill-ins in chp0, chp1

1 files changed, 31 insertions, 12 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index d16ea24..239979c 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -479,7 +479,16 @@ as I've already discussed, is not a proposal with legs – green rhetors have a
 tendency to propose actions which cannot be achieved by this audience, if they
 can be achieved by anyone at all.
 
-Example 1: legally binding emissions targets. (Who's going to enforce them?)
+One possibility is an international agreement. Greta Thunberg has spent a great
+deal of her considerable campaigning energy attending international diplomatic
+summits, such as UN Climate Change Conferences of the Parties (COPs) and the
+World Economic Forum. _An Inconvenient Truth_, Al Gore's influential campaign
+film, was primarily motivated by the desire to see the US get back on board with
+the Kyoto agreement. Only in December, Fiona Harvey wrote a 10-year
+retrospective of the Paris Agreement for the Guardian, in which she lauded its
+achievements and declared, 'the question now is: can countries learn from the
+mistakes of the past decade, in order to keep the Paris agreement alive in the
+next?' [@harvey-2025-12-13]
 
 The economist Dieter Helm has brilliantly summarised his scepticism of any
 global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
@@ -496,17 +505,27 @@ global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
 > robust and comprehensive general agreement. To put it in perspective, limiting
 > nuclear proliferation is trivial by comparison. [@helm-2009]
 
-Example 2: give free stuff to developing countries. (Who's going to pay for it?
-Who are you going to give it to?)
-
-Example 3: stop chopping down rainforests. (How will you convince the loggers,
-ranchers and miners to leave potential profits unexploited?)
-
-The action that PMC people have taken so far (alternative consumption, political
-protests, banning plastic straws, holding COPs, setting targets) have not been
-effective. \[EVIDENCE\]
-
-The result is that PMC people feel powerless. \[EVIDENCE\]
+Regardless of whether international government action is feasible in theory,
+there remains an enormous gap between that action and any action within
+the grasp of the Western middle classes whom green rhetors typically address.
+When it comes to concrete action for their actual audience, environmentalists tend
+to default to activism, but this has no route to political success:
+
+> Climate movements, especially those capable of bringing people into the street
+> to protest, mobilise the fear of catastrophe, tapping into a general sense of
+> dread, but they do so for what seem like quite inconsequential ends. Although
+> leaflets and emails talk up famine and rising seas, the call to act is always
+> a call for street-level protests, invariably demanding that governments 'do
+> something' about climate change. [@or-something-worse, p. 111]
+
+The net result is little political change and feelings of betrayal, demonstrated,
+as eloquently as ever, by Thunberg:
+
+> You have taken away my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet
+> I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire
+> ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And
+> all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
+> How dare you! [@no-one-is-too-small, p. 127]
 
 In summary, green rhetoric is not working. I've explored some reasons why this
 is so. Green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the root causes of the relevant problems by